Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

Your views come from an American right wing perspective and i expect nothing else.All your views are completely opposite to mine, gun laws , drug legislation, the lot.I cant help your brain washed blinkered view of life but i can have sympathy for your self centred , insular education.You are product, a symptom of the great American dream.

I could say the same about you being a product of the constant liberal propaganda of Europe. But I didn't. I think it doesn't matter.

If all that matters is which side gets to us first, then debating is kind of meaningless, ain't it?

Originally Posted by xris

In europe im a moderate, in your America i am a subversive commie red ba....Its all down to perspective,

Well, yes. Europe's view is shifted to the left. It's all a matter of perspective.
In China 1960, you would be a right-winger.

Originally Posted by xris

i wish you well but not success.

Not success. Why not? I wish you well all the way.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

I could say the same about you being a product of the constant liberal propaganda of Europe. But I didn't. I think it doesn't matter.

You know you couldn't disagree with him and actually have a considered point of view.

We brainwashed heathens are just beyond hope and could never see the light.

[xris]

Do you ever feel for those less fortunate than you? Do you find yourself judging their inadequacies as a determined fault? I wish you every personal success but not your politics.thanks Xris..

---------- Post added at 02:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

You know you couldn't disagree with him and actually have a considered point of view.

We brainwashed heathens are just beyond hope and could never see the light.

Ah we come from a view that considered my debating skillls as those of an inferior being and you take the high road..
Look around you and see the unfortunate, what do you presume? when a nation can have such a divide from fortunate to destitute, dont lecture me on consideration.I judge a community on its less fortunate not on the excesses of its successful rich.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

Do you ever feel for those less fortunate than you? Do you find yourself judging their inadequacies as a determined fault?

Oh, I absolutely feel for those less fortunate than me. But I believe the best way to create a better standard of living for everyone is expecting (and giving the opportunity) for everyone to create it himself, plus helping those who can't.
"Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you will feed him for the rest of his life."
"You gotta be tough to be kind." Like raising children. Just giving them stuff will spoil them.
Unfair benefits is the problem in the first place, we don't solve that through giving other special benefits.

Originally Posted by xris

I wish you every personal success but not your politics.

Same here. As I believe that the politics you were convinced of is the door to authoritarianism.

[xris]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

Oh, I absolutely feel for those less fortunate than me. But I believe the best way to create a better standard of living for everyone is expecting (and giving the opportunity) for everyone to create it himself, plus helping those who can't.
"Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you will feed him for the rest of his life."
"You gotta be tough to be kind." Like raising children. Just giving them stuff will spoil them.
Unfair benefits is the problem in the first place, we don't solve that through giving other special benefits.



Same here. As I believe that the politics you were convinced of is the door to authoritarianism.

So you believe in giving free education? teaching them to fish? How do you presume to pay for this free education? they have no income so where do you obtain this money to pay for this extravagance? Oh they are sick by the way, so before they can be taught they need medical attention, do we educate only the healthy? Oh they are hungry, will you feed them while you educate them or shall they die of hunger before you can teach them????????????????

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Nero,

In response to your post a few pages back in which you provided your interpretation of the various economic systems, I see two problems.

First, one cannot categorize the various systems accurately on the sort of diagram you have. It wouldn't be perfect either but I think an improvement would be to go with a two dimensional graph. I am not going to go through the process of drawing it out, but along one axis would be the type of resource distribution with one end being common/collective and the other being individual. Along the other axis would be generally the method of resource distribution with one end being a command economy and the other being pricing market economy.

Secondly, I think these systems need to be described, as they have been slightly mischaracterized.


Capitalism is a system in which the factors of production, such as land, labor, machinery, and so on are owned privately and individually. It generally rests upon a market system, as private ownership carries with it the right of trade and disposal. However, a market system does not necessarily lead to capitalism as we know of it today.

A principle characteristic of capitalism is the separation of laborer from capital. This is explained by the concept of time preference. Briefly, the worker forgoes the risk and waiting associated with the future earnings of capital for the discounted present earnings of simply laboring with another's capital.

In my opinion, capitalism as we know it is facilitated by state intervention on behalf of moneyed and powerful interests.

Socialism, on the other hand, is largely a reaction to the mercantilist/capitalist development of the Western economy. It is not really a specific economic system or theory like capitalism, rather it is a nebulous collection of complaints and explanations of the problems of capitalism. To explain really what socialism actually is, one needs to understand its principle complaint: that private property ownership, more accurately the factors of production (many socialists distinguish between property and possessions) causes exploitation of the labor force. This exploitation occurs through wage slavery, as the owners of capital extract more labor value from the workers than what the laborers are getting paid.

Now, so far in this thread socialism has been portrayed as a statist proposal, but this is not necessarily true. A long list of self-proclaimed socialists have argued that capital ownership exists not in spite of government intervention, but precisely because of it. They have argued that certain perpetuated government monopolies, money, land, banking and credit, etc, are the only reason the capital/labor divide could be maintained. Socialists like Proudhon, Tucker, and other mutualists believe in a free market where the contract is maintained, but invision a system of collective actions and worker self-management.

I will continue with more later, but you can comment and reply all you want.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

Originally Posted by xris

Ah we come from a view that considered my debating skillls as those of an inferior being and you take the high road..
Look around you and see the unfortunate, what do you presume? when a nation can have such a divide from fortunate to destitute, dont lecture me on consideration.I judge a community on its less fortunate not on the excesses of its successful rich.

Justice cannot be judged in such a way. It is a process and not an end.

[xris]

Justice is blind im no such thing.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

I will continue with more later, but you can comment and reply all you want.

Thanks, I have been looking forward to your answer.

I'm still going through it, but so far I agree.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

So you believe in giving free education? teaching them to fish? How do you presume to pay for this free education? they have no income so where do you obtain this money to pay for this extravagance? Oh they are sick by the way, so before they can be taught they need medical attention, do we educate only the healthy? Oh they are hungry, will you feed them while you educate them or shall they die of hunger before you can teach them????????????????

Of course we have to raise taxes, from those who already know how to fish.
Currently the first 2 fish are tax free, the next 8 are taxed at 50%, the next 5 at 75%, and from there they are taxed at 90%. But from 50 fish, someone only pays 20%.
So if they catch 5 fish we take 1.5 of them, if they catch 10 fish we take 4 of them, if they catch 15 fish we take 7.75 of them, and if they catch 20 we take 12.25 of them.
Now a fisherman who catches 20 fish could work longer to catch 30 fish. But he would have to pay 21.25 in taxes and would only be able to keep 8.75 of them. As opposed to 7.75 when catching 20. So a third more work for keeping one more fish? Why would he do that? So he will only catch 20 and there will be 10 fewer fish to feed humanity.
If we instead tax everyone at 50% (to illustrate a consumption tax, which doesn't really fit into the analogy), we don't offer a disincentive for catching more fish. So the fisher who wants to catch 30 instead of 20 fish will do that. We take half of that, the first 2 are still free, he keeps 21. So there is a tax income of 9 fish. Hurray, that's more state income than 7.75 fish. More fish for the guy, more fish to feed the hungry. Everybody wins.

[xris]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

Of course we have to raise taxes, from those who already know how to fish.
Currently the first 2 fish are tax free, the next 8 are taxed at 50%, the next 5 at 75%, and from there they are taxed at 90%. But from 50 fish, someone only pays 20%.
So if they catch 5 fish we take 1.5 of them, if they catch 10 fish we take 4 of them, if they catch 15 fish we take 7.75 of them, and if they catch 20 we take 12.25 of them.
Now a fisherman who catches 20 fish could work longer to catch 30 fish. But he would have to pay 21.25 in taxes and would only be able to keep 8.75 of them. As opposed to 7.75 when catching 20. So a third more work for keeping one more fish? Why would he do that? So he will only catch 20 and there will be 10 fewer fish to feed humanity.
If we instead tax everyone at 50% (to illustrate a consumption tax, which doesn't really fit into the analogy), we don't offer a disincentive for catching more fish. So the fisher who wants to catch 30 instead of 20 fish will do that. We take half of that, the first 2 are still free, he keeps 21. So there is a tax income of 9 fish. Hurray, that's more state income than 7.75 fish. More fish for the guy, more fish to feed the hungry. Everybody wins.

Your explaining your view on socialism.You had to tax the rich...richer..to help the poor.QED.....