Kamala Trump
Verified User
I've been around. I got so tired of arguing with people in denial. Now I guess I have more energy again.
Free Markets: Capitalism vs Socialism
- Thread starter I'm Watermark
- Start date
I've been around. I got so tired of arguing with people in denial. Now I guess I have more energy again.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
So it's basically slavery and the plantation system again?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
No... Co-ops.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes, like the plantation owners used to take care of the basic rights of their slaves. The slaves took care of the plantation owner and the plantation owner took care of the slaves, and everyone was happy. The slaves all had their own little quarters where they could do whatever they pleased, it was a great system with lots of liberty and democracy!
This is what you wish to return to, just in case you didn't know.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
No, it's not. How do worker co-ops, an economic structure created largely in response to wage slavery, translate into chattel slavery?
And as for your justification of chattel slavery... Missing the old days, are we?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I didn't justify anything, I just pointed out this is the system you wish to return to. Except, you want ALL workers to be the slaves and Government to be the plantation owner. The chattel slaves and plantation owner had a co-op. The slaves provided the labor and the plantation owner made sure they had food to eat and roofs over their heads.
For whatever reason, Utopian socialists such as yourself, seem to think that government will make sure you are fairly paid and compensated, if they control the means of capitalism. But this has never turned out to be the case, far from it. In ANY socialist system, you must rely on someone to handle all the controls on things, someone to set the prices and rates, etc. Well, these people very quickly become corrupt, because they control all of the means of capitalism, they have the blank checks. In short order, you end up with a Ruling Class, who set the rates and make the capitalist decisions on your behalf, while you work as a slave. You see, you will still have that dreaded 1% who control most of the wealth, but now they are the government and Ruling Class. Your freedom and liberty to prosper and thrive in a free capitalist system, no longer exists. Your options are, starve... or be a slave.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
I've really got nothing to say to that... It's perhaps the most putrid straw man ever posted on this site.
Robo
Verified User
So then I take it by your use of the word “voluntary” that there’s no government mandate by State or Federal government that the so-called “Free-Socialist-Capitalist System” be the only allowable form of market participation, there would be no kind of government subsidies, no government regulations, no government bailouts and no taxation of capital gains to foster government control and incentives to produce particular products and services, right? Everything is totally free and voluntary, right?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Yes and no? Market socialists tend to extend theft to it's Marxian definition. So, simply, as long as there's any monetary extraction from labor, theft is occurring. And, if theft is illegal, and extraction is theft, extraction is illegal.
This whole idea of socialism implying central planning is pretty inane - and at this point just a straw man used by capitalists to make socialism easier to refute. Even though the more scientific/practical schools tend to gravitate towards the state, this can't be applied to socialism universally. In fact, some of the most notable socialists, including Kautsky and Kropotkin condemned the state - either as a tool of the bourgeoisie, or oppressive in it's own right. So socialism doesn't require central planning, or even a state. But it implicitly wards against those desiring private property - that term used with the Marxian definition in mind.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why is it, Socialists are always explaining the newest most current theory of Socialism, which makes it better than any other form that has been tried? Is that because every form that has been tried, has failed miserably? Is it because you don't have one single solitary example of a substantially populated nation, ever making Socialism work? Is it because, every such example that has been attempted, has ended with either financial collapse of the economy or genocide, or both?
With Socialism, it's always about what we haven't tried before, that if we just do this or that a little different, Socialism will work! At least, that's what the Socialists promise, then we try it again, it fails again, and another "new style" of Socialism emerges! Oh, if only we'd try this new way.... it WILL WORK! Socialism has FAILED every time it has been tried, in every form it has been attempted. Even though it continues to repeatedly FAIL, leaving millions of people dead or destitute, the Socialists continue to emerge in society, and have convinced themselves that Socialism will work, because they read about it in a book by some other Socialist. No other form of government is responsible for so many deaths. Not even Communism.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Are you going to actually make an argument, or just more straw men? If you want to equate the state capitalism of Stalin, or the fascism of Hitler to socialism, you have no business in this discussion. Dixie, there are complex reasons for why socialism has failed. I can explain it in depth, but mostly the "failures" were due to states, tryants using the word to attract popular support, and the ideologies of passive revolutionaries. If you can explain why socialism has failed, be my guest. But I know for a fact that you won't be - I know socialist theory, you don't.
The internet is a collection of fora for the free exchange of ideas. I have lots of respect for what it's done in regards to that. But if you don't want me to simply put you on IA, you need to present some kind of support for your false narratives.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Ask and ye shall receive!
Socialism, in theory, on paper, appears to be an "ideal" way to run a society. Workers and labor is fairly compensated, economies are stabilized, prices and inflation are regulated and controlled, and the "profit" from the old capitalist system, is now being pumped into a more effective social safety net, operated by the government. Everyone shares a more equal piece of the pie, and thus, are better off. The problem is, this only applies to the theory on paper, and doesn't work when practically applied. The reason is because of the human factor, which Socialist theory simply fails to consider or recognize.
The human factor is a tricky thing, it relies on human consciousness and condition, passion, spirit, motivation and discipline. These factors vary from person to person, but they are present in all human beings to some degree, and they largely determine outcome. When "labor" in a Socialist system, comes to the realization that this is all their lives will ever be, and they can't ever achieve any higher status than they already possess, they become de-motivated to produce. Why try harder, if it doesn't result in any significant reward? Without the presence of opportunity to succeed and prosper through capitalism, there is nothing to drive the human spirit, and very rapidly, there is a marked decline in productivity. This persistent condition makes the problem perpetual, it continues to result in a decline of productivity, until measures have to be taken to 'adjust' the model. This usually means less pay, or longer hours, or higher prices for basic essentials.
At the same time this is happening, on the other side of the coin, is what has taken the place of Capitalism and free markets. Socialist Government is now in charge of the capitalist power and money. They set the rates, they control the check book. A select few people in the upper-echelons of government, have the power to decide on all manners of economic trade, and this gives them control. The "on paper" Socialist model doesn't take into account, human greed. It doesn't realize that when you put people in these vaulted positions of power, they will almost ALWAYS become corrupt, because nothing is there to prevent them from being corrupt. Their families will do just fine! Their friends and colleagues will live in lavish luxury and have everything they desire, while the rest of the "working class" deal with longer hours, more work, less pay, higher prices for food and basic necessities, and NO HOPE for anything better than what they currently have.
As I have said, they've tried different variations of Socialism, and in some smaller isolated countries, mostly in Scandinavian areas of northern Europe, where people don't move around a lot and the populations are very small and close-knit, the Socialist models have worked fairly well for them. But any time Socialist style government is attempted in a country with a larger metropolitan population, it has failed miserably. It fails because the Socialist theory does not account for humanity. It presumes things that aren't reality when dealing with human beings. In theory, it all works and makes sense, it seems like it would be great and wonderful, but it FAILS every time! After it fails, those who were convinced it would work, tweak the formula, modify the plan and go try it again, and again it FAILS! We've been doing this for generations, and STILL we have new mush-brains out there soaking up the theories!
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Okay, you're equating socialism to centrally planned, Keynesian statism. And since you repeatedly talk about how much people will be paid, it's clear that you haven't followed this thread.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I haven't equated anything. I have correctly explained why Socialist systems fail. Your response is the predictable one, that I am talking about some 'other kind' of socialism, not the kind you advocate. This is almost ALWAYS the case with Socialists.
With regard to how people are paid, they can either be paid through a capitalist free market system, or their pay can be determined and set by government regulation. Since Socialism has taken control of Capitalism, this means government sets pay and remuneration. Now this would seem more fair on paper, the government could ensure all people are paid about the same for their work, etc. But by removing capitalism, you are removing any capitalist motivation to strive for greater financial success.
Let's say you are a maker of widgets, and you're pretty good at it. Now, in a Socialist system, your job is to produce a certain number of widgets per day or hour, and for doing this, the government will reward you with a certain amount of money. But it is the same amount of money as another widget maker, who is not nearly as good as you are at making widgets. There is no opportunity for you to use your advantage of being able to make better widgets, to advance financially over the guy who can't make widgets very well. There is no capitalist who is willing to pay you more because you have this talent. In a Capitalist system, you are free to market your talents to Capitalist, who can in turn, realize that it's better to pay you twice as much because you can produce twice as many widgets and make them better. In a Socialist system, you have no such opportunity, your rate of pay is determined by others, and based on factors not in your control.
Keynesian policies are a completely different thing from Socialism. I don't know if that was an emotive response and reflex you had, or if you are just that ill-informed, but you really should go look up Keynesian policy before you make more of a fool of yourself.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Dixie: Your definition of socialism is jumping between state capitalism and fascism. The first post was implicitly capitalist, not you're gravitating to a nationalist dictatorship. And I'm not saying it's some other kind of socialism, I'm saying it's not socialism. I recommend that you read something by Saint-Simon, Engels, Kautsky, or Kropotkin. You keep ignoring what I say it is, so maybe they'll help you understand. In any case, as you can't provide anything more than straw men and ad hominem attacks, you're going on IA. Stop polluting my threads.
pisskop: No. They're fully necessary for the realization of any socialism.
pisskop: No. They're fully necessary for the realization of any socialism.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. It either IS that, or it's NOT that. It can't be that whenever YOU are espousing your ideas, and suddenly switch to something else whenever I respond to your ideas. I'm not jumping between anything, I am not describing something else, I am addressing the primary aspects of socialist style government. You continue to insist I am talking about some other kind of government, and this MUST be, because Liberal Socialist professors assured you that Socialism was great and wonderful and solved all the world's problems, so I can't possibly be talking about that.
There are no straw men, I have not attacked you personally. I merely explained in simple terms, why socialist systems fail. If you wish to put me on IA and not hear the truth, that's your prerogative, I can't force you to listen. But let the record clearly show, it was YOU who found the excuse to run away from this debate.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Stock up on fiat currency while you were away, or have you been hoarding carpets and cattle?