Is socialism actully bad and can you explain why?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by WoodmA, Jul 1, 2015.

  1. buddhaman

    buddhaman New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,320
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your explanation is nonsense. When you buy stock on the secondary market, you are not buying a hammer, you are buying a betting ticket. When you sell that ticket to another investor, you are not providing a tool for an entrepreneur, you are selling off your risk to another gambler.
     
  2. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    23,088
    Likes Received:
    14,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was merely pointing out that it's all a gamble. I wasn't arguing your point. Pointing out the function of secondary markets does not contradict anything I wrote, which was just a simple metaphor explain the function of stock markets.
     
  3. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I never said they can't set whatever price they want. It's just that sometimes, the lowest price they can set may end up extorting the worker and whatever rights they may or may not have depending on how socialized the nation. You may include the human element with the market system, i'm not saying otherwise.
    Yes, it wasn't ONLY capitalism that led to these things, but the power and wealth inequality element certainly helped. That's just nonsense certainly doesn't help whatever point you are trying to make.

    Maybe better off in total wealth. I don't deny that, and am thankful for it, but not when it comes to wealth distribution, which does matter economically on the whole. In fact most wealth ends up going a small percentage of the population in a purely capitalist society. See the US. A major problem we have is with the lower class rising up in certain places because they have no way of getting an education and can't find jobs. Baltimore Riots. The issue is finding the correct balance of power between socialism and capitalism. I know it's not that simple but it's a start.
    And there can be a compromise between this very theoretical definition and literal capitalism. The political spectrum is actually very muddled, especially in the US, such that someone on the far left of the political spectrum here is actually a centrist when it comes to world economic theory. Therein is our disconnect I think. Another problem is socialism itself has always been an experiment and how to make it work in a given culture has always needed to change accordingly (I'm not talking about just the last two centuries). Thus the definition cannot be viewed from the fundamentalist viewpoint. I view it as a spectrum (somewhere from pure capitalism all the way to the definition of socialism you just gave, with some leeway of course).
    Yes, and the US is probably 90% capitalist and 10% socialist at the moment, besides the military that is.
     
  4. Spiritus Libertatis

    Spiritus Libertatis New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Messages:
    3,583
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the means of production are privately owned, the country is capitalist.

    You can argue that having certain industries like healthcare be state-run makes it mixed, but by that logic anything other than anarchy or total socialism is a mixed economy. "Mixed" doesn't tell us anything useful.

    Most of its economy is privately run, so for the most part it is effectively capitalist.
     
  5. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Details on how it is mixed is actually extremely useful for both how economy and society as a whole makes it's decisions, so I'm pretty sure it does matter. And yes, logically anything besides full capitalism and full socialism IS a mixed economy. Is a public school system better for the economy and social coherence as a whole? Is it not? Is a universal health system better? These kinds of questions are important, and I tend to lean towards yes on both.
     
  6. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Correction

    I never said they can set whatever price they want. It's just that sometimes, the lowest price they can set may end up extorting the worker and whatever rights they may or may not have depending on how socialized the nation. The social element may or may not be included in the price, depending on how socialized the economy is.
     
  7. georgephillip

    georgephillip Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,067
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Can you explain how capitalism's theory of structure is different from how it conducts its relations toward others?
     
  8. ChiCowboy

    ChiCowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    23,088
    Likes Received:
    14,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your question doesn't make sense. Theories don't conduct relations with others. People do. Reword the question and I'll see if I can answer it.
     
  9. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are still slightly misunderstanding the definition. Yes, production is socially owned, but social is a broad term. It can take many forms. It is making sure that the needs of the people working there are thought of as well as just the inherent "market price" without the social element (social). Maybe the worker has more of a say in the process, gets paid more relative to the "capital owner" for effective social ownership, or maybe the "capital owner" just has a cultural understanding that the company or nation should be more of a social undertaking. You seem to be taking the definition and focusing on Marx, who said production is owned by the "worker", which is just one method of guaranteeing there is social ownership. No, socialism has not been dis proven. Variations of Marxism have definitely been, though. At least with the technology of today.
     
  10. Jackster

    Jackster New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    3,275
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    People under Communism had to eat the bodies of their starved relatives. By your logic you mustnt be here. lol

    Back before capitalism we did what was needed to survive and as i said all tribes had their strong man leaders, just like all socialists end up with. If not they'd soon be destroyed by one that did.

    Before capitalism we had Pharaohs, Kings, Queens, warlords and the likes - think they we're for equality? :roflol: It leads to people to be beholden to the strong man who amasses human capital and property by murder and rape, just like your celebrated commi leaders! Many had no problem killing off the weak or enslaving those that didnt serve their needs - like their political foe. Which is why theres no surprise we hear comments from leading socialist figure of his day, Bernard Shaw when he says:
    But ill tell you what, let me be supreme overlord of the world and i promise to treat you in a just manner.
     
  11. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, the government that is trillions in debt is the socialist part, and the private sector that pays trillions in taxes to support the parasitical socialist part.
     
  12. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are still slightly misunderstanding the definition. Yes, production is socially owned, but social is a broad term. It can take many forms. It is making sure that the needs of the people (social element) working there are thought of as well as just the inherent "market price", because it is socially owned. Maybe the worker has more of a say in the process, gets paid more relative to the "capital owner" for effective social ownership, or maybe the "capital owner" just has a cultural understanding that the company or nation should be more of a social undertaking. You seem to be taking the definition and focusing on Marx, who said production is owned by the "worker", which is just one method of guaranteeing there is social ownership. No, socialism has not been dis proven. Variations of Marxism have definitely been, though. At least with the technology of today. The need is to find the best way of melding the market and socialist economics. The problem with capitalism is that it's inherently selfish and doesn't care about the society as a whole, because the social implications of the whole society matter (includes human rights, right to be paid for your contribution to production). The problem with socialism is that people are individuals and have their own needs outside of the social circle. What is the correct mix of capitalism and market socialism?
     
  13. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Trillions in debt? I'm pretty sure the US has more relative debt and it is much more capitalist, besides the military. You're forgetting the massive social benefits the taxes provide to the society and maybe even you if your are part of it, in order to support your parasite theory. Yes, I'm sorry the rich have to let go of the already massive wealth they have to make sure their workers get paid a competitive wage. Maybe it is the society who say the ultra wealthy of the private sector are the parasites.

    I don't know, maybe it really is terrible over there...
     
  14. pol meister

    pol meister Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2013
    Messages:
    5,903
    Likes Received:
    2,273
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A socialist government, or any government for that matter, can't give a dollar to anyone without taking more than a dollar from somewhere else. So for that reason, the more the socialism, the greater the net loss to the people. Sure, there will be some winners and some losers, but overall, it is always a net loss to the people.

    An effective government needs to be like an effective utility company, an entity where the entity's mission is well-defined, and is done in the most efficient way possible; nothing more, nothing less; X dollars for X services.
     
  15. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The difference is that the private sector relies on a voluntary exchange in order to generate a profit, whereas the government relies on guns and the threat of prison if they are not given their cut of the profits.

    So much for an massive social benefits. If they really were beneficial, you wouldn't need the guns.
     
  16. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Under a system of governance voluntarily instituted for mutual protection, there is no need for the initiation of violence by the government. Perhaps you can be more specific about why the government might need to initiate violence.
     
  17. blackharvest216

    blackharvest216 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    whats the point this forum filled with anti-socials, any definition i post would be immediately declared wrong and replaced by one from alex jones or glenn beck or something

    here ill post it again

    https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism
     
  18. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It depends what you are including in your net gain and loss calculations. If you include the social ideals of equality in the workplace and things like that, the calculation of gains becomes much more complicated since now there is a social aspect to economic gains. For example it may be a net loss to take away 1 dollar from an ultra wealthy individual. Because of bureaucracy, what you have left may be only 50 cents, but it is somehow passed down to someone considered poor who is being paid a non-competitive wage. This 50 cents means much more economically to the poor person because they have less to spend and it could mean the difference between starving and not. For the ultra wealthy man, it makes effectively no difference. So given our social ideals as humans, which system provides more of a net gain. In effect you are adjusting for social inflation. The 50 cents relative to the wealthy man may subjectively be worth much more than the dollar would be to the rich man, so you have an effective net gain.

    However, yes, we would all like it if the government would only supply what it is has been decided they should be supplying and nothing more. This is outside the realm of socialism.
     
  19. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Once you think about this more, most people don't have a choice of whether or not to work for a capitalist, so by threat of violence/survival, they are forced to to work for the capitalist. Either way, there is a gun pointed to your head, just one is harder to spot. One is also necessary for the survival of the societies social ideals, like the right to earn a wage based on what you produced. The other is not.
     
  20. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, everybody has a choice in who to work for, or not work for. You're talking slavery, which is both illegal and immoral.

    No, we all have a choice.
     
  21. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,188
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Banking is not a highly paid profession, even now. The saying is still that you generally have to work 20 years in the business before you can afford the suits you're supposed to wear. I also know lots of bankers who are very passionate about what they do. "I have my finger on the pulse of civilization itself" one once told me "how can that not be interesting?",(he was rather drunk, they'd never talk like that otherwise.)

    Passion IS the key but it is the key to success, and success has nothing to do with what sort of system you are working in. Mikhail Kalishnikov doesn't have a private jet like Eugene Stoner did but it's not at all proper to say that one or another of the two men are more successful than the other. Success tends to make one wealthy, no doubt, but wealth is not automatic and it seems that once one achieves success wealth can be peripheral, sometimes even detrimental, to the ability to do what you really love. Bill Gates no longer runs Microsoft, but he is still their chief programmer.

    And in the final analysis even what you are doing can be more a question of viewpoint than anything. Like the old story of the two stonecutters who were asked what they were doing. One said. "I'm cutting a stone", and the other replied. "I'm building a Cathedral". I think our economic systems should encourage the second reply myself, how about you?

    (And the punch line to the above is that the second reply was alright until you realized he was actually working on a bridge :roll:)
     
  22. redeemer216

    redeemer216 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    421
    Trophy Points:
    83
    For some poor people it does become effective slavery because of limited choices and not every employer pays a wage based off how much they are actually producing. Socialized systems regulating minimum wage and such are a response to this effective slavery. For others they may be getting paid a "fair" wage, but it isn't necessarily true in every case, even in economies where employers have the potential to pay everyone a "fair" wage. The problem socialists have is that most the time, the business owners, who don't do much of the actual work, are getting paid a non proportional amount compared to how much they are actually producing, just because they have some kind of inherent right to the work all the workers produce. This is one of the inherent problems with capitalism, because the workers are people. It is fine if they are making more (because they own the capital the workers are using), but most of the time it's obscene. A line should be set between the capital the capitalist owns and the workers. This is where the socialist comes in giving the workers some of the right to the production itself, as well as sometimes giving them an equal right to work in the first place (with a competitive work market).

    "No, we all have a choice"

    So you are saying you either work for the capitalist (who is paying you a wage non-proportional to your production along with the production of everyone else including the owner) or you die (this is the reality for some). That isn't a choice.
     
  23. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is only nonsense to a mind indoctrinated in neoliberalism.

    And I am glad you cannot reply except as you did. For to negate it would show a disconnect from reality. You live in a world of theory man, and I was did not have that luxury when I owned a small manufacturing business, where I did not copy my competitors, and still someone managed to retire, with enough to last me till death, even as I paid a living wage to all of the people who worked at the factory, unlike my competitors.

    So yeah, I know what I am talking about, and you have no clue at all, except you can parrot back what you have been conditioned with. I lived it, and all of those economic courses I took in college, did not help me pay my people a living wage. IN fact, if I would have listened to the theory, I would have copied my competitors and paid the industry average, which was working poor wages.

    So, do not believe a damned thing a conservative, neoliberals says when it comes to capitalism, or socialism. I see them all as damned liars, either through ignorance via brainwashing, or just selfish little greedy people who are dishonest.


    If you really knew anything about capitalism, you would know that it has poverty built into it. It is also a system that enables great income disparity, perhaps not the capitalism as seen in the wealth of nations, but in capitalism as practiced, in the real world.
     
  24. vino909

    vino909 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    4,634
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That was an example. apply the same theory to working a job, pride??.... That's bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
     
  25. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh yes it does, because my point is that it is nonsense. Capitalism doesn't have anything to do with fascism.

    First off all, no, most wealth does not go to a small percentage. The living standards of even the poorest in e.g. the USA are many times better than that of nobles in times past. Capitalism produces such an abundance that even the poorest are given a standard of life which is historically very high. some does of course get richer than others, but as long as everyone gets richer, what is the problem? The only reason I can think of is simple jealousy. Do you prefer everyone be equal in poverty?

    I of course blame that on minimum wage laws, teachers' unions and a bloated welfare state. In other words, on socialism. These problems don't have anything to do with capitalism. There needs to be more capitalism to solve them.

    What do you mean by that? Are you saying the military is socialist?

    But you are implying it. You think they can choose wheter or not to "exploit" their workers by setting low wages. The truth is that they can not set whatever wages they want, because of economic realities. Wheter wages are high or low has very little to do with what a capitalist wants them to be.

    What social element?

    I am well aware of that there are different kinds of socialism, like syndicalism, soviet style, and democratic socialism, but they all fail because the very core of socialism -social ownership of the means of production- is quite simply unworkable. It can not work. Look up "the socialist calculation problem". Basically, it is impossible because it makes it impossible to have a functioning price system, which makes it impossible to effectively allocate resources. It is both theoretically disproven, and empirical evidence is plentiful.

    Another socialist myth.. Capitalism is not a moral system. It is an economic system.

    okay. People in a village voluntarily pool their money to fund a military for their protection. Military protection is what economists call a public good, because it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. One person in the village decides he does not want to continue paying for the military anymore, but the military will still offer him the benefits of protection since it defends the whole village, since it is non-excludable. That means this one person would get the benefits but not bear any costs. This is the free rider problem. If all things are purely voluntary, it would either be unfair because some people would be free riders on others. Or, it would simply not work at all because everyone would stop paying for the military. The solution, if you want a military, is to force everyone to pay, so that no one can free ride.

    Did you really have to post all that? most of it was irrelevant. Only this quote provided an actual definition. And as it happens, this definition is so vague and broad that it is meaningless. But thanks for showing me that you do in fact not know what socialism is. The correct definition is: Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.
     

Share This Page