APP - Shy Guy Challenge

Thanks. :)

I'll give you some choices:

Welfare, which I'm against cutting.
Socialism, which I support.
Workers' self management, which I support.
Marijuana prohibition, which I'm against.
Taxation, which I support being progressive, but would like to be more progressive.
Free markets, which I oppose.
Social classes, which I oppose.
 
Allow me to make my opening statement:

First and foremost, I believe capitalism is one of the single greatest achievements of mankind. It provided opportunity for advancement, free exchange and a means of the little guy having a say in his life and the lives of his children. But we've faced a turning point, where conventional simply isn't good enough. We now have a class of people that can thrive off the labor of others, control the political process, control the livelihood of others to an extent previously unheard of, manipulate markets, ship away jobs and give their children a free life of luxury. These people just keep getting richer, while the rest of the country stays in virtually the same place, even being pushed out – the working class is subject to a changing market that capitalism simply doesn't allow them to advance(or stay) in. And members of the working class have little control over their income, their education, their livelihood, the affairs of their country. We've developed a system that is class subjugation at it's core.

What we need is a country that's efforts are focused on the mutual success of the entire population. One where I scratch your back, and you scratch mine. Which is democratic socialism in it's essence – a system where the laborers, those that hold up the economy are given the powers and opportunities befitting of their role. And it's a system where communities stand at the core of our economy, one where the government is equally accountable to all persons, and, most of all, a system where everyone – no matter the conditions of their birth – are given the same opportunities.

Various policies that would be essential in the realization of my utopia(to paraphrase Robert Lekachman) are as follows: Highly progressive taxation, community banks and retirement plans, horizontal management within the private sector, nationalized health care, an end to globalization, inheritance tax, time banks, increased subsidies for non-conventional fuels, an end to prohibition, an increase in regulatory processes and a one child restriction, among others.

That was long, so forgive the errors you're likely to find. :o
 
Last edited:
Shy Guy said:
Allow me to make my opening statement:

First and foremost, I believe capitalism is one of the single greatest achievements of mankind. It provided opportunity for advancement, free exchange and a means of the little guy having a say in his life and the lives of his children. But we've faced a turning point, where conventional simply isn't good enough. We now have a class of people that can thrive off the labor of others, control the political process, control the livelihood of others to an extent previously unheard of, manipulate markets, ship away jobs and give their children a free life of luxury. These people just keep getting richer, while the rest of the country stays in virtually the same place, even being pushed out – the working class is subject to a changing market that capitalism simply doesn't allow them to advance(or stay) in. And members of the working class have little control over their income, their education, their livelihood, the affairs of their country. We've developed a system that is class subjugation at it's core.

What we need is a country that's efforts are focused on the mutual success of the entire population. One where I scratch your back, and you scratch mine. Which is democratic socialism in it's essence – a system where the laborers, those that hold up the economy are given the powers and opportunities befitting of their role. And it's a system where communities stand at the core of our economy, one where the government is equally accountable to all persons, and, most of all, a system where everyone – no matter the conditions of their birth – are given the same opportunities.

Various policies that would be essential in the realization of my utopia(to paraphrase Robert Lekachman) are as follows: Highly progressive taxation, community banks and retirement plans, horizontal management within the private sector, nationalized health care, an end to globalization, inheritance tax, time banks, increased subsidies for non-conventional fuels, an end to prohibition, an increase in regulatory processes and a one child restriction, among others.

That was long, so forgive the errors you're likely to find. :o
Click to expand...

members of the working class do have control over their income. i grew up with a single mom, very poor and instead of screwing off, i educated myself and now do very well. further, members of the working class can still reach high levels of wealth, take zuckerberg for example. the rich getting richer has been happening since the dawn of time, before we had economics or economies of scale.

your idea is a utopia that is not feasible and will result in more systemic problems than we face with our hybrid capitalist system. by hybrid, i mean we have already have a socialistic capitalist model. we have social programs and we have somewhat free markets. highly progressive taxation has already failed this country. when reagan cuts taxes our economy exploded.

i'm not really sure where you're going with your second paragraph.
 
Sativa said:
members of the working class do have control over their income. i grew up with a single mom, very poor and instead of screwing off, i educated myself and now do very well. further, members of the working class can still reach high levels of wealth, take zuckerberg for example. the rich getting richer has been happening since the dawn of time, before we had economics or economies of scale.

your idea is a utopia that is not feasible and will result in more systemic problems than we face with our hybrid capitalist system. by hybrid, i mean we have already have a socialistic capitalist model. we have social programs and we have somewhat free markets. highly progressive taxation has already failed this country. when reagan cuts taxes our economy exploded.

i'm not really sure where you're going with your second paragraph.
Click to expand...

And here arises the recurring problem when debating fellow capitalists on this topic. Most of you simply don't understand the morality, doctrine, or history behind the very system you condemn so bitterly.

Socialism for Dummies:

Socialism is a form of political ideology typically used left wingers. Though many schools have been conceived throughout the ages, there's but one definition that can be used to unite them(or at least those on the left) under a single banner: Worker ownership of the means of production. Which, to expand, is what Marx meant by abolition of private property – property was his way of saying the means of generating income. Socialism can be dated back to France, where such notables as Owen, Foureir and Saint-Simon brought it into prominence, laying the groundwork for Marx and Engels. Their theories still hold a profound influence, being spoken through a whole host of intellectual all around the globe.

Socialist opposition to capitalism is caused by a deep dislike of the private sectors like the one in the US. Any time you have a class of people making a living off the labors of others, socialists are up in arms. Which is why you can't say the US is anything near socialism, as social programs are not characteristic of it - there are some schools of socialism that want to shrink government and some that want to eliminate it altogether - and it won't allow private, top down markets. Any market where there are employers is strictly anti-socialist - unless, of course, in the case that a democratic state employs workers.

So, to close, what I mean when I say workers don't have control over their income, is that the working class doesn't own the source of it's income – and is subject to the will of employers.

pyramid-of-capitalist-system.jpg
 
honestly, i didn't really understand most of your response, however, i will do my best to respond.

i am not a pure capitalist. you have mistaken my stance and in doing so, started off your response with a smear that showed you did not truly grasp what i said. 1. i never brought up morality; 2. i am fully aware of the doctrine and history of capitalism. i do not desire a return the robber baron age where we has nearly a pure capitalist economy. conditions for workers was abysmal. the food produced was terrible. not in all cases, however, by and large, it was not good. hence we entered our modern hybrid system of capitalism and socialism. a system which embraces one fully will always fail. a purely socialist system will fail due to various factors, one being motivation. a purely capitalist society will fail due to various factors, one being the workers will revolt because the owners have no incentive to help society or workers.

your image is a total fail and is used the world over by liberal fascists. i expected better of you.
 
Sched 1 said:
honestly, i didn't really understand most of your response, however, i will do my best to respond.

i am not a pure capitalist. you have mistaken my stance and in doing so, started off your response with a smear that showed you did not truly grasp what i said. 1. i never brought up morality; 2. i am fully aware of the doctrine and history of capitalism. i do not desire a return the robber baron age where we has nearly a pure capitalist economy. conditions for workers was abysmal. the food produced was terrible. not in all cases, however, by and large, it was not good. hence we entered our modern hybrid system of capitalism and socialism. a system which embraces one fully will always fail. a purely socialist system will fail due to various factors, one being motivation. a purely capitalist society will fail due to various factors, one being the workers will revolt because the owners have no incentive to help society or workers.

your image is a total fail and is used the world over by liberal fascists. i expected better of you.
Click to expand...

Socialism is a little complicated, so it's fine. Read my post again and I'll try my best to answer any questions you may have.

I assumed you were a capitalist - though not a pure one - and don't consider the word to be a smear. My mistake. Also, I accused you of misunderstanding socialism, not capitalism.

The major point you make here on the topic of socialism is the idea of motivation, but your premise is all but true. Collectivism - which I believe is what you're addressing - actually increases motivation by giving workers more incentive to make their company succeed. You would be correct if all wages were equal and division of labor was prevalent, but, as we've seen, this is not the case.
 
Shy Guy said:
Socialism is a little complicated, so it's fine. Read my post again and I'll try my best to answer any questions you may have.

I assumed you were a capitalist - though not a pure one - and don't consider the word to be a smear. My mistake. Also, I accused you of misunderstanding socialism, not capitalism.

The major point you make here on the topic of socialism is the idea of motivation, but your premise is all but true. Collectivism - which I believe is what you're addressing - actually increases motivation by giving workers more incentive to make their company succeed. You would be correct if all wages were equal and division of labor was prevalent, but, as we've seen, this is not the case.
Click to expand...

thank you for your response, but i don't see the need to reread your post, unless you can point out the parts you believe i didn't read and how those parts apply to this debate.

fair enough to assume, i've been guilty of the same. i believe you have said you are a socialist. i was surprised by your opening statement because your ideas are not pure socialism. seems to me that in order for your ideals to work, you must blend both capitalism and socialism. which is what i advocate.

what i'm addressing is not collectivism at all. in a purely capitalistic economy, you can give the workers an ownership in the company. ownership in a company does indeed usually give workers more incentive, however, so do other enticing programs. such as healthcare, leave, vacation...etc. none of these ideals are incompatible with a pure capitalistic economy. the issue, i believe, is the onus.

in a socialistic government, the government purports to have the onus. in a capitalistic government, the corporation or business owner purports to have the onus. a true society has the onus for itself and does not need to rely on the government for onus. this is why i support our current capitalist/socialist (slanted heavily towards capitalism) form of government. that said, i also support changes. i do not believe we should be so slanted towards pure capitalism.
 
Sched 1 said:
thank you for your response, but i don't see the need to reread your post, unless you can point out the parts you believe i didn't read and how those parts apply to this debate.

fair enough to assume, i've been guilty of the same. i believe you have said you are a socialist. i was surprised by your opening statement because your ideas are not pure socialism. seems to me that in order for your ideals to work, you must blend both capitalism and socialism. which is what i advocate.

what i'm addressing is not collectivism at all. in a purely capitalistic economy, you can give the workers an ownership in the company. ownership in a company does indeed usually give workers more incentive, however, so do other enticing programs. such as healthcare, leave, vacation...etc. none of these ideals are incompatible with a pure capitalistic economy. the issue, i believe, is the onus.

in a socialistic government, the government purports to have the onus. in a capitalistic government, the corporation or business owner purports to have the onus. a true society has the onus for itself and does not need to rely on the government for onus. this is why i support our current capitalist/socialist (slanted heavily towards capitalism) form of government. that said, i also support changes. i do not believe we should be so slanted towards pure capitalism.
Click to expand...

Your definition just isn't correct. According to Michael Harrington, the leading American Democratic Socialist of the 20th century, socialism is a term used to describe a category of ideologies that all embrace worker control over production - eg. Marxism is socialism, but socialism isn't Marxism. Noam Chomsky, one of the most famed modern anti-government socialists says this about socialism:


So now that the actual definition has been presented to you, please voice your disagreement with socialism, not your statist perception of it. :)
 
sorry shy guy, but you have not defined socialism. giving one person's OPINION is not proof of definition. further, you have not countered a single thing i said. this is a debate between you and me, not me and chomsky.
 
Sched 1 said:
sorry shy guy, but you have not defined socialism. giving one person's OPINION is not proof of definition. further, you have not countered a single thing i said. this is a debate between you and me, not me and chomsky.
Click to expand...

I provided my definition and cited two of the most prominent and influential socialists of the past century - both of whom agreed with me.

Here's an article that says anarchism is a school of socialism:

Socialism can be many, very different, things. For anarchists it must be libertarian, indeed class struggle anarchists often interchangeably describe themselves as libertarian socialists or libertarian communists.

Anarchists are socialists who believe that socialism must be built out of the struggles of working class people, acting in their own class interests. ‘Socialism’ cannot be imposed from above.
Click to expand...

http://libcom.org/library/what-socialism-an-anarchist-perspective

Meanwhile, Democratic Socialists call for this:

Economic Democracy . Economic democracy can empower wage and income earners through building cooperative and public institutions that own and control local economic resources. Economic democracy means, in the most general terms, the direct ownership and/or control of much of the economic resources of society by the great majority of wage and income earners. Such a transformation of worklife directly embodies and presages the practices and principles of a socialist society.

Social Redistribution. Social redistribution--the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society--will require:

massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs,income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation, anda massive shift of public resources from the military (the main user of existing discretionary funds) to civilian uses.
Click to expand...

http://www.dsausa.org/where_we_stand#global

We both know the definition of socialism, so argue against that, not hyper-nationalism.
 
dude, there are various definitions of socialism. so don't claim that you and i "both know the definition of socialism."

as to hyper-nationalism.....wtf? i'm trying to debate a topic with you and you keep inserting words, ideas etc....that i've never mentioned, as if that was my platform. you refuse to answer my points. all you do is give someone else's slant on this debate.

once again, this is between you and me. stop citing other people all the time.
 
I implore you to make those points again, so I can address them with the definition of socialism clearly stated above. You can either make your critique based on the actual definition, or dispute that definition, not both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top