Weirdo political ideas...

[Nacho]

There lots of interesting theories against capitalism... Hundreds, Thousands, I could say... And all those theories crash against just one little thing: Reality. 

[RickJ]

So, people pulled triple shifts at work during Five Year Plan out of will to NOT prosper or progress?
Every kid wanted to be a cosmonaut, every worker wanted to be the best in his factory/whatever, every factory competed with every other simply out of boredom?
...
...
...

Yes and in spite of all that pride, effort, willingness to sacrifice, good intentions, etc, etc, etc it all amounted to a slow ride to the poor house.

The communist worker, after reaching the limits of being best in his work, realized, that in western countries, he could profit much more from his skills and experience. And live much more luxurious life. This is when they started to look West.

That's how they knew they were poor and that their needs were not being served by their ideology.  It must have been an embarrassing realization.

And if you think it's tiresome to hear the "you can't blame communism because it hasn't been tried"-argument, well, get used to it. Because it hasn't really been tried; what you've got so far has been dictators taking control of everything and enslaving people. Then they've called it communism, because, well, you have to call it something.

In fact it was tried by the first European settlers to arrive in North America in 1620.  known as "The Pilgrims" over here in the US when they first arrived each family was given a plot of land to farm but it was decided that the harvest would be shared evenly. 
After one year half of them were dead from starvation and malnourishment.   The
governor did not survive and was replaced by William Bradford who abolished the sharing policy so that each family could keep whatever it produced.  The change produced spectacular results.  The harvest was so bountiful they were able to have a huge feast and even invite their aboriginal neighbours.     It's all documented in Willam Bradford's journal including his analysis and observations of why the communal system failed.

Even the communist Chinese know that communism is a loser and are abandoning it as fast as they can without the party loosing it's political power.   They have embraced capitalism but they are still essentially a brutal dictatorship. Their economy has been growing for several decades now at 8-10% per year in spite of the government still being the same old dictatorship.

If your definition of communism is that people simply don't own anything, then yes, it can automatically be applied to all systems where poverty is present, but this is a very simplified definition.

Communism does not mean that a particular group of people owns everything, it means that everyone owns everything, only that they share it, and are not allowed to collect excessive amount of said property just because they can.

You must be confusing my post with someone else's?  I mentioned individual property rights among several other attributes of prosperous societies.  However, it seems to me that everyone owning everything is the same as nobody owning anything.  Ownership of something means that one has control over it's disposrition and it's not possible to share control with everyone, not even in small groups.  Just ask my wife about the TV's remote control.

And if you think it's tiresome to hear the "you can't blame communism because it hasn't been tried"-argument, well, get used to it. Because it hasn't really been tried; what you've got so far has been dictators taking control of everything and enslaving people. Then they've called it communism, because, well, you have to call it something.

It's a very convenient position.  Since communism is something that people won't do willingly then the only way to implement it is through coercion.  When it finally fails just claim that it wasn't really tried because coercion was used to force the people into.   But it's against human nature voluntarily practice communism so it can never really be tried and thus never prove itself to be a failure.

In fact InCreator's  passionate response disclaims the notion that communism wasn't truly tried in the ex-soviet Union.  He describes how hard people worked and how much they sincerely believed in what they were doing.   He rightly points out the many of the accomplishments they rightly took great pride.  And he also explains that the factor that brought everything to an end was the realization of how poor they were.

Perhaps a clever one of us can describe a scenario in which it can really be tried? 

I don't personally advocate communism, because I think the alleged benefits from it are exaggerated. I don't think rivalry and jelousy and revenge and competition will cease to exist just because people share their material property; such traits are fundamental and will be channelled in other ways. We are identified by our differences. It is by excluding people we form teams and groups.

Well I've never really understood what the benefits of communism are supposed to be.      It seems to me that the supposed benefits are not beneficial.   However, I do pretty much agree with your above statement.

I also support democracy - preferably social democracy

I support a free society that cherishes individual freedoms.   IMHO, socialism is just a slower ride to the same destination as communism.   Sooner or later slackers will begin to accumulate and the producers will slowly get less productive.  Wealth derived from natural resource royalties can slow the process but the end is inevtiable.  But I guess to each his own poison. 

... I have a gripe with people who dismiss everything but the capitalistic way, as if that way isn't also smeared with blood from people who died in its name.

Hmmmm, we hadn't yet talked about all the millions and millions of killings, and the magnitude of human suffering caused directly by communism but I supposed you felt a need to defend against that point.   Btw, I have never heard of a capitalistic genocide, capitalist killing fields, nor of anyone dying in the name of capitalism.  Maybe you could explain yourself. 

[Nacho]

RickJ, I am going to reply for Andail, because I know what he is going to reply (Specially to the last point: "How many millions communism killed?")

He will reply that he is not communist, he is a socialdemocrat.

And I must tell that many of my arguments against Andail were driven because I had the false impression that he was a die-hard communist. He is not. He just preffers 18:30 in spite of 17:30. He is a great moderate guy!

Now, let' s stop putting words in Andail' s mouth, and try to reply to what I think of "modetate lefts". IMHO, and matching with what you said, RickJ:

"Socialism is just a slower ride to the same destination as communism.   Sooner or later slackers will begin to accumulate and the producers will slowly get less productive.  Wealth derived from natural resource royalties can slow the process but the end is inevtiable."

I think it's true. Socialism is like a homeopatic version of a poison. It will never be so harmless as the poison itself, but worst than nothing, that's for sure.

That' s why I allways like to post the world maps of "economycal freedom" compared with the "Average GDP per habitant index". They match almost perfectly. I don' t personally need another evidence than that; the lefter you go, the worst it goes (economically). As for morale, that' s another history.

A history that doesn't finish well for left either...

My two cents, but, to anyone involved, pleaaaase... No hard feelings.

Edit: Hehehe... as for "corruption", socialist contries don' t have a good scoreboard, either:

http://www.transparencia.org.es/MapaMundialdelaCorrupcion.jpg

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:GDP_PPP_per_capita_IMF.png

http://www.heritage.org/Index/downloads/Index2008_EconFreedomMAP.jpg

[Tuomas]

I also support democracy - preferably social democracy

I support a free society that cherishes individual freedoms.   IMHO, socialism is just a slower ride to the same destination as communism.   Sooner or later slackers will begin to accumulate and the producers will slowly get less productive.  Wealth derived from natural resource royalties can slow the process but the end is inevtiable.  But I guess to each his own poison. 

Just popped into my mind, that the poor and the less productive aren't all slackers and lazy workers. Some might just be born with a social status that is less fortunate, and the rest will use their unproductivity as an excuse to not help them, because, according to the American dream, well, only people who don't want to win the competition, don't. At least that's what the social democrats are against here. It's not really communism, nor socialism, but social democracy. Social seems to be a curseword to a lot of people who don't need to be social to make it in this world.

[Misj']

(Tuomas posted a similar reply while I wrote this)

I also support democracy - preferably social democracy

I support a free society that cherishes individual freedoms.   IMHO, socialism is just a slower ride to the same destination as communism.   Sooner or later slackers will begin to accumulate and the producers will slowly get less productive.  Wealth derived from natural resource royalties can slow the process but the end is inevtiable.  But I guess to each his own poison.

But to achieve the opposite, people should be paid based on their commitment and activity, rather than on a social status. What I mean is: it doesn't make sense - strictly from an I-want-people-to-be-productive-point of view - to pay a doctor more than a garbage-man, just because the doctor is better educated or has more social status. Each should either be paid based on his abilities, or on how hard he works.

Social democracy is - by the way - not the same as socialism. Social democracy is also a way help someone who has lost an arm to find a job that still fits his abilities. It basically means that we are all responsible for society, rather than only for our own individual me...which basically is only a few steps away from anarchy (which is the most individualistic form of society...and shadows of it can be observed in many people who (pretend) to have a certain status).

[Nacho]

Which is the sollutuin, Misj'? Paying him in order of how many "Communist party" assholes he licked? Because that is the "communist" system. The higher you are in the "party" ladder, the better paid. The son of the town warlord becomes "commisioner" and his life is solluted.

Same in "softer left" countries. Incentives for "being someone" are obviated, and the one escalating into bureauracy gets paid better, no matter if he is "good" or just a lazy ass with good links.

Trust me. I lived for 20 years under PSOE government.

[Tuomas]

Of course the original marxist communism didn't have salary or payment or money whatsoever, so kissing asses for money isn't really communism. Plus communism is a relatively applicable soltion to such cases as the Hilton sisters who certainly never worked for the food a lot of the people there are not getting. and that's only because of family, yet nothing to do with communism or extreme left side politics.

[Nacho]

In your system, those benefits the Hilton sisters have would come for having a corrupted, probably criminal, ancestor, not for having a rich one. Choose.

Saying "well... that "bad things" you say of communism are not really communism" is easy. If I can use that argument I would never loose:

"-I like my football team. It' s the best world ever. It has one all the champions league so far. 100% of efectiveness... perfect!
-What? It has only one two.
-Well... that two are the ones that count. The rest do not"

See? Choosing the "good/bucholic/nice" parts of a theory and saying that "that' s the truth" is cheating. Seeing how theories work in the reality is the truth.

All the "bad things" we say about communism are because... communism is that. Simply as that. It' s not that "the system is ok, people has flaws". It' s not that there is a judeo-mason conspiracy to make a good system off. It' s just that the system, the most you think of it, the worst it is.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

IMHO, socialism is just a slower ride to the same destination as communism.   Sooner or later slackers will begin to accumulate and the producers will slowly get less productive.  Wealth derived from natural resource royalties can slow the process but the end is inevtiable.

You and I seem to share parallel lines of thought on this subject, RickJ.  Socialism is this pervasive thing that has a tendency to creep up on you and sounds wonderful in theory.  Take the whole idea that wealth shouldn't just be in the hands of the wealthy entrepreneurs and go-getters but in the hands of the common man, who is elevated up in this system to be on equal terms with those who may, quite honestly, be working harder to achieve their rewards than he.  The problem with forcing everyone to be on equal footing and to accept equal everything, though, is the fact that we are not all equal.

Let me clarify.

The US Declaration of Independence includes many wonderful and memorable lines, but to me the single most important one is the proclamation that all Americans have the right to 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.  The key word here is pursuit, because no one has the right to guarantee anyone happiness.

Why?  Because there are no guarantees, and trying to force everyone to operate at the same level robs some people of happiness to grant it to others, and any way you call this it's an unfair judgment. 

Capitalism (and specifically capitalist democracy) attempts to address this issue directly by making each person a force unto themselves, responsible for their own success or failure and beholden to none but their own conscience.  Are there corrupt rich people in this world?  Yes, but those exist in all forms of government and will for all time.  Socialism couldn't prevent this, because for every idealist there are 10 people who are in this world for themselves and don't really care about anyone else.  This is why capitalism works, because if you are willing to put genuine effort forth you will succeed more than you will fail, and it rewards innovation and entrepreneurship, creativity and experimentation.  Socialism does not reward intellectual diversity any more than communism, because no one is encouraged or rewarded for standing out or blazing a trail.

A little-known but good example of this in American history has been the implementation of the Federal Income Tax and the creation of welfare and other public works.  Prior to the income tax (which is Unconstitutional, anyway) the concepts of personal charity and taking care of your fellow man were very much a part of American culture.  Many hospitals were run by churches with volunteer doctors caring for the sick for little to no money, and many of these were subsidized not by the government, not by businesses, but by you and I, through donations.  Charity here meant something because it was an American's conscious choice to do so, and you knew there were no umbrella systems out there to care for these people without it.  Now we will fast-forward to post-welfare days, where Americans have grown steadily apathetic about the issue.  Why?  Well, one of the primary reasons is that a chunk of their money is automatically withdrawn to care for the old (Social Security) and for the poor/unfortunate (welfare and other public works).  Because this is something done grudgingly by many, they feel they are already contributing and see no reason to be charitable.  The income tax, when used for these purposes, is a socialist concept because it makes everyone who can pay to take care of those who cannot.  It sounds great in theory, but there are people out there who struggle even were they to keep every penny they make, and this additional burden just makes it that much tougher on them.  Is it fair to make one group suffer for another?  Because socialism and communism always involve a trade-off between the haves and the have-nots, and there always exist between these two a group of people barely hanging on.


I'm not saying capitalist democracy is the new religion, nor am I saying it's perfect, but socialism would not improve it; rather, it would widen the gulf between the citizens who feel entitled to 'the fruits of their labor' and the government's continued efforts to regulate them and rob them of their rights, and yes, that does include the rich.  In spite of what everyone seems to think, some of these grossly rich people got there by genuine effort and feel they've earned every penny.  Who are we to say they must give it away if that's not in their nature?

[Nacho]

Could you slow down the spinning lizard please? And remove the grey straight line that appears in one frame.

I am saying that because the post above is flawless, I must criticise something... ^_^

EDIT: Grey line removed, but there are two pixels from the nose that are repeated in a frame, and they shouldn' t be there.

[SSH]

Libertarians often argue that people were more charitable before welfare came in, but even given bureaucratic inefficiency, the amount of good done by welfare way exceeded any chartable giving. Poor hospitals and workhouses were terrible places in the main.

In any case, to pull the welfare rug out from under the poor and unfortunate now would be tantamount to murder and it would require many years of gradual reduction and replacement by this supposed charity that is waiting to explode.

[Misj']

@ ProgZMax

Beforehand: this is not the first time we discuss different sides of the story. So you're already used to my - sometimes - harsh and sarcastic responses. I know you can handle them, so I kept them in.

The problem with forcing everyone to be on equal footing and to accept equal everything, though, is the fact that we are not all equal.

While we're not equal, does that also imply that we should not get equal opportunities? - Equal opportunities means that education should be free to anyone. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a payback (education could for example be a loan that people have to pay back after a number of years). But I am saying that ANYONE should be able to express his or her potential despite his or her origin (poor parents shouldn't lead to a worse education). THAT is social democracy: creating equal opportunities.

The US Declaration of Independence includes many wonderful and memorable lines, but to me the single most important one is the proclamation that all Americans have the right to 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'.  The key word here is pursuit, because no one has the right to guarantee anyone happiness.

Which is the same as described above. This is an example of social democracy.

I am not advocating, that everyone should be paid the same. I am not saying that people should be punished for working hard, or be rewarded for being lazy. But I am saying that a society means living TOGETHER. And that also means that a certain amount of 'taking care of each other' is necessary. If you want to be part of a society then yes, society may force you to be help it sustain. I know...this is very un-american, but if you want to live in a world that revolves around you and you alone, than sod off to some island of your own (my apologies for the language).

Capitalism (and specifically capitalist democracy) attempts to address this issue directly by making each person a force unto themselves, responsible for their own success or failure and beholden to none but their own conscience

The problem with capitalist democracy is, that too many people want to have all the rights of the democracy, but none of the duties that come with it. You could say that this is a problem with any form of society, and that is true. However, the concept of capitalism favours individualism. And individualism favours anarchy. And I'm against anarchy, because it's a threat of society. Hence, capitalist democracy has the risk of becoming the same threat (similar to socialism in regard to communism).

In spite of what everyone seems to think, some of these grossly rich people got there by genuine effort and feel they've earned every penny.

Now I am by no means saying that the rich are not allowed to be rich. Bill Gates is a great businessman (despite the fact that I believe Vista is a terrible product that should not have been sold), and he has all the right to pick the fruits of his labour. BUT he also tries to share these fruits with society. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a very good example of capital and social behaviour go hand in hand.

Who are we to say they must give it away if that's not in their nature?

As I said: you wanna be part of this society then you have to play a part in this society. Otherwise you're useless and - possibly even - a threat. You don't like it, bye bye. Take your yacht and sail to some island of your own.

@ Nacho

Which is the sollutuin, Misj'? Paying him in order of how many "Communist party" assholes he licked? Because that is the "communist" system. The higher you are in the "party" ladder, the better paid. The son of the town warlord becomes "commisioner" and his life is solluted.

Did I - in any way - imply that? - No! - I just said that "people should be paid based on their commitment and activity, rather than on a social status". This is the absolute opposite of what you were accusing me of of saying. So please refrain from such accusations in the future, because they do not put you in too good a light. And it makes me hostile towards whatever you say, despite how well thought out or relevant it might be. At that point, discussion is dead...and I for one don't want that. My apologies if I sound harsh, but it was written with the best intentions (though possibly not the best words).

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Social democracy isn't just creating equal opportunities, Misj, it's forcing them in situations where they should not, or naturally do not occur.  Your example of anyone being able to realize their potential is, and I mean no disrespect, naive.  Why should people take money they rightfully earn and give it to someone they don't know so they can go to school and be educated?  This sounds charitable and very morally upright on paper, but again, you're taking from one group to give to another, which I stand by my belief to be a morally bankrupt solution.

And taking care of each other needs to be voluntary in my view for it to be worth any type of discussion whatever; when you withdraw the human element from a situation, the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to do or not do something, you invalidate its value in my eyes.  Voluntary efforts, personal charity, these things I value highly; forced charity, forced efforts for someone else's well being I do not and will not value as being anything other than a consequence of forced, distasteful socialism.

Yes, capitalism does suffer from people wanting the benefits but none of the costs, but so does every other ideology out there including socialism.  Too many people on this planet are selfish, and your own argument damages the strength of a socialist system because, by our very nature, people would simply not be satisfied with being equal in all things.  Ever heard of Keeping up with the Joneses?  It's this concept of wanting better, wanting more, that has driven humanity (for better and worse) forward.

The Foundation you speak of is a charitable organization, which isn't socialism unless you stretch the very definition to your will.  There's a difference here between personal charity and public welfare that both you and SSH need to be aware of.  I'm not sure how much either of you have read on this subject, but perhaps this rather old (but very informative) article will help:

https://mises.org/humanaction/chap35sec2.asp

And continuing with that article, I'd like to draw special attention to this paragraph (to address SSH's comments, mainly):

The charity system is criticized for two defects. One is the paucity of the means available. However, the more capitalism progresses and increases wealth, the more sufficient become the charity funds. On the one hand, people are more ready to donate in proportion to the improvement in their own well-being. On the other hand, the number of the needy drops concomitantly. Even for those with moderate incomes the opportunity is offered, by saving and insurance policies, to provide for accidents, sickness, old age, the education of their [p. 838] children, and the support of widows and orphans. It is highly probable that the funds of the charitable institutions would be sufficient in the capitalist countries if interventionism were not to sabotage the essential institutions of the market economy. Credit expansion and inflationary increase of the quantity of money frustrate the "common man's" attempts to save and to accumulate reserves for less propitious days. But the other procedures of interventionism are hardly less injurious to the vital interests of the wage earners and salaried employees, the professions, and the owners of small-size business. The greater part of those assisted by charitable institutions are needy only because interventionism has made them so. At the same time inflation and the endeavors to lower the rate of interest below the potential market rates virtually expropriate the endowments of hospitals, asylums, orphanages, and similar establishments. As far as the welfare propagandists lament the insufficiency of the funds available for assistance, they lament one of the results of the policies that they themselves are advocating.

Nothing I've read has given me the impression that hospitals had dire conditions prior to welfare, SSH; on the contrary, many doctors from the pre-welfare days who are still living have said the conditions there were often better because they did not have to wade through so much red tape in order to treat patients (and medicine costs were lower, etc).  If you have a study on this that you'd like me to read, I'd like to see it.

[Nacho]

Communism versus capitalism has been discussed before, indeed. Capitalism has story and reality as a support. Communism has nothing.

Any ideas for something better than capitalism? Ok... I am able to read them. I would love to find something better, but nothing better has been found atm.

Period.

[Misj']

And taking care of each other needs to be voluntary in my view for it to be worth any type of discussion whatever; when you withdraw the human element from a situation, the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to do or not do something, you invalidate its value in my eyes.

While I understand (and partly share) this argument both from an ethical and individual point of view. It also raises the question: "if you're (really) hungry will the cheese-sandwich taste worse if it's given to you  by law rather than by choice?"

Yes, capitalism does suffer from people wanting the benefits but none of the costs, but so does every other ideology out there including socialism.  Too many people on this planet are selfish, and your own argument damages the strength of a socialist system because, by our very nature, people would simply not be satisfied with being equal in all things.

But I'm not advocating socialism here. I'm not saying everyone has to be equal. But I am saying that you don't live in society alone, and have responsibilities towards that society. If these responsibilities are not regarded by choice than they are forced upon you, because otherwise society will collapse. It's the same with a traffic fine: if you do not choose to stop for the red light then we force it on you by giving you a fine.

The Foundation you speak of is a charitable organization, which isn't socialism unless you stretch the very definition to your will.

I never said it was. Nor did I ever advocate socialism. I advocated SOCIAL behaviour, and a democracy driven by social behaviour: thus social democracy. This - and I repeat this - is NOT socialism. Social democracy does not deny in any way personal development, nor force equality. But at the same time it does state that 'being a society is not something you do alone'. If you can point me to a single person who made money completely on his own (completely without society in whatever way) then - maybe - I wouldn't mind this person to give something back. But as long as you're part of society you will have to play the whole part. If that means that people who've been given more by society should also give more back, then that's fine by me. But people who believe they can take but not give...I'm sorry, but those are people, whether they're called antisocial, capitalists, communists, socialists or Americans (because I haven't ticked them of enough already ) doesn't matter. They are a threat.

[Andail]

RickJ, sometimes when I read your posts I hear the voice of a bitter person who's upset with all the unemployed people in his community, and how they slack and pretend to be sick and abuse the system and whatnot.

I've worked all my adult life and never recieved a dime in wellfare money except for loans for my studies. There has never been a period in my life where I've relied on others' money or wished there was a system I could live in which would give me things without having to work for them.
I've wiped old people's arses, a lot, just to be economically independent.

As I've said, I support democracy, but at least I have the imagination to understand why people desire different systems, why people have visions. You are so stuck in the American way - everyone who's got visions that go beyond owning stuff are hippies or communists.

Learn a new trick, Rick, you're so predictable it's boring.

[Nacho]

If all the people were like you communism might probably succedd, Petter... 

[InCreator]

 :o

You capitalism-embracing people really scare me. Not a single bit of free thinking? Is it hundred years of american brainwash or simply greed?

I've got an idea for you!
Right now, we have worker class doing the dirty work. Despite their productivity, they still want a wage.
Even those asians in shoe factories and so on.

Why not cut some money from there? We could go to third world country, stick em' all onto a ship and bring home. To work for free. As slaves? No wage for worker, more ice cream for everyone!

Now wouldn't it be swell? Wait... this is like déja vu...

I called capitalism a voluntary slavery in other thread. Now why should it be voluntary?

[Nacho]

As said before... tell us the alternative.

[SSH]

Why should people take money they rightfully earn and give it to someone they don't know so they can go to school and be educated?  This sounds charitable and very morally upright on paper, but again, you're taking from one group to give to another, which I stand by my belief to be a morally bankrupt solution.

Well, some people believe that property is theft, so you're taking the right for other people to use your money away from them by denying them acccess to it. Points of view.

And of course, here's where we mention social contracts and you say "I never signed no steenking contract" etc. Well, lets see the contract that people sign before they eat food in a restaurant. Don't use the infrastructure of where you live and we'll see how long you last.

And taking care of each other needs to be voluntary in my view for it to be worth any type of discussion whatever; when you withdraw the human element from a situation, the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to do or not do something, you invalidate its value in my eyes. 

I daily have to gently encourage (i.e. force) my children to brush their teeth. Does that stop its value in preventing tooth decay?

Nothing I've read has given me the impression that hospitals had dire conditions prior to welfare, SSH; on the contrary, many doctors from the pre-welfare days who are still living have said the conditions there were often better because they did not have to wade through so much red tape in order to treat patients (and medicine costs were lower, etc).  If you have a study on this that you'd like me to read, I'd like to see it.

In Britain, we study these things at school. I can't speak to America, but life was pretty bleak for the poor here. Even after health insurance was forced upon workers in the early 20th century, things were very inequitable (see the movie or book "The Citadel") and so the NHS was born.

As said before... tell us the alternative.

Social Democracy for the win!