Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[BrightNoon]

Debate as much as you like but not in the narrow confines of your selection..you could answer my post but is that not on your agenda?

Answer what? I've already addressed all the issues you've brought forth, you're saying nothing new. And that's the problem; I criticize your view, I present my own for criticism, and you address nothing I say and repeat the same montra, which is essentially, 'Capitalism is bad because it enourages greed and has X, Y, and Z negative consequences.' I've presented my argument that human nature cannot be changed, except by the application of brute force, and I've explained over and over and over and over how X, Y, and Z are not caused by the free market, but by government intervention in the economy. Look back and refute any of those arguments. Nonetheless, let's give it a try.

Originally Posted by xris

I show examples of capitalist failures, its abuses,its excesses, its double standards and its exploitation.What do i hear? oh thats not capitalism, America has been spoiled by socialist ideas..What is good example of capitalism then, i ask..Oh America one replies..the other says well maybe not but it used to be..

The U.S. is currently an example of a once free-market system moving rapidly toward socialism. In the 19th century, the U.S. was more or less a good example of the free market system.

I give a good example of Socialism but its not allowed they have resources.So we need a country with no resources and a short period of time to value its worth.

Norway has a population of less than 5 million, rich oil and gas reserves, low birth rates, and other characteristics that make it unsually stable and self-sufficient. It is in no way a model for most fo the world.

Australia that has socialist governments and a socialist agenda is then given as a model of capitalism, Hong kong another ruled by the british..ah but the british have socialist governments...

I for one never offered Hong Kong or Australia as examples of the free market system. I don't know much about Australia, but I will say that while the mainland Chinese were starving to death by the millions thanks to Mao's central planning, citizens of Hong Kong, which was operated as a fairly free market scoety, were buying kitchen appliances and watching baseball.

How many times do i have to tell you right wing capitalists... moderate democratic socialism is not communism...

I never said it was. The issue is that the principles are the same, namely that the group is more important than the individual.

Capitalism is not the only path to a free trade economy and the ability of the individual is not hampered by socialist government.Wealth is not a dirty word for socialists.

The free market system is defined as a natual market in which goods and services may be freely exchanges, according to the preferences of the free individuals involved, without government interference. By definition, the free market is the only system which allows free exchange. Anything which allows government interference or manipulation for ideological ends ('everyone should own a home,' e.g.) does indeed hamper free exchange and individual freedom.

the exploitation of labour

In a free market system, no person can be forced ot work agianst his will. Employment, like anything else in such a system, is based on a constact freely entered into by both parties. If either party would like to temrinate said contract, they can, according to the terms of the contract. If a worker feels that he is being exploited and is unhappy with his job, he can quit and find other work, or he can join or form a labor union in order to negotiate for better wages, conditions, etc. If he sustains an injury on the job, he can sue, there is no need for safety regulation. The same with any other sort of regulation afffecting labor.

the lobbying of government by those with money

Companies usually lobby the government for a regulation that hurts their competition, or for a loophole in the tax code, or for a subsidy. In a free market system, what would companies lobby for, as the government wouldn't have the power to intervene in the economy in such ways to benefit them?

[EmperorNero]

I really wonder how the other side views all these these debates. I happen to agree with BrightNoon on this thing. If I didn't, I could argue with some of the facts, but ultimately I would have to give in (or reduce the whole debate to epistemology and declare everything unknowable, which is an option in every debate). I wish I could be in the head of someone who firmly holds an inconsistent view. They are probably as intelligent as me. But how does that work?

[xris]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

I really wonder how the other side views all these these debates. I happen to agree with BrightNoon on this thing. If I didn't, I could argue with some of the facts, but ultimately I would have to give in (or reduce the whole debate to epistemology and declare everything unknowable, which is an option in every debate). I wish I could be in the head of someone who firmly holds an inconsistent view. They are probably as intelligent as me. But how does that work?

You talk about inconsistent views.. at one time you told me you was more socialist than me, you change your mind depending on who of your friends is speaking.America is, then its not a capitalist country.You give a communist country as an example of the ideal capitalism state, i think you need a reality check, amigo.

---------- Post added at 04:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 AM ----------

Noon ,you are not listening,lobbying is a result of capitalism it requires that you use your power to unfairly influence the governments.Its not socialist idea,never was never will be.
Exploitation of labour is not a valid complaint about capitalism?Do you understand that since the industrial revolution initiated in the uk and the founder of a capitalist ideology we have seen nothing but exploitation.The socialists came into being as an answer to the uncontrolled exploitation of labour in this free for all capitalist jungle.Just come and look at our wonderful victorian houses that where built on child labour and exploited workers.Dark satanic mills.Children down mines, working from dawn to dusk in sweat shops.Now we have created labour laws fought against by the capitalist elite who saw their profits threatened.
We now see this ideology exported to countries where the workers have no such protection and you say its fair because they dont have to work in these sweat shops, your views are in my opinion blinkered by your cushioned life style.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

Have you bought that bike yet?I have explained my objections to you calling socialism communism on several occasions and the reasons why.If you don't get it now you never will.Wickie modern socialism and read it before returning.Communism was a reaction to exploitation just like the french revolution, we now moderate our views to fit the situation.

What you mention are attributes, we can't create a system where the government is limited by a rule that says it "may not be exploitative".
And progressive taxing fits that description, which you are for, so you must be in favor of some exploitation. That's pretty much the definition of socialism, it exploits some for the benefit of others. I ask you which exploitation is ok, where does the line go?
I am asking you what the keeps socialism from being a slippery slope towards communism. Where does it stop. I don't want to wiki it, I want to her it from you. If you use arguments, that are not generally agreed upon, you must back them up.

[xris]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

What you mention are attributes, we can't create a system where the government is limited by a rule that says it "may not be exploitative".
And progressive taxing fits that description, which you are for, so you must be in favor of some exploitation. That's pretty much the definition of socialism, it exploits some for the benefit of others. I ask you which exploitation is ok, where does the line go?
I am asking you what the keeps socialism from being a slippery slope towards communism. Where does it stop. I don't want to wiki it, I want to her it from you. If you use arguments, that are not generally agreed upon, you must back them up.

Dream on brother dream on.wickie or leave it...

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

You talk about inconsistent views.. at one time you told me you was more socialist than me, you change your mind depending on who of your friends is speaking.

Well, since the consequences of your views are state-capitalism, I am more of a socialist than you. In the end, after getting true capitalism, I have no problem with state paid free lower and higher higher education, security, maybe even a health care system. So I am actually pretty much of a socialist.

Originally Posted by xris

America is, then its not a capitalist country.

It is not a switch that is set to 'capitalist or not capitalist'. There are degrees, xris. The US is the most capitalist nation, it is not to a large enough degree capitalist to really call it that.

Originally Posted by xris

You give a communist country as an example of the ideal capitalism state,

When did I do that?

Originally Posted by xris

i think you need a reality check, amigo.

I also like to add, that this find a good example game doesn't really matter. The question we should explore is whether moderate government control will inevitably lead to extreme government control.

PS. I wikied socialism, as you told me.

In practice however the socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government.

go

[xris]

Democratic Underground - Moderate capitalistic socialism is the best economic policy - Democratic Underground read this and understand..

[EmperorNero]

The fun thing is that we will both see the Orwellian state form in a decade or two, so we can meet up then and I ask you again if your utopia worked out or what you think of totalitarianism.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by EmperorNero

Actually, I don't get that. I looked up 'time preference' and I get the principle, but not what it means in this context.

There are natural resources, there are consumer end goods, and then there are capital goods. While consumer goods cause immediate satisfaction, capital goods are those goods that do not serve immediate satisfaction, rather facilitate future satisfaction. As such, they are representative of the time passage required for certain production processes and the delayed satisfaction.

It is perfectly natural for someone to eschew the time preference costs of capital goods for immediate consumer goods. This is an explanation of why free men may simply perform "wage labor", and why owners of capital may profit from the exchange.

The wage laborer accepts immediate satisfaction by the way of wages that purchase consumer goods, while the owner of capital forgoes immediate satisfaction by investing in capital.

An understanding of time preference should explain why the laborer is subject to discounted income and the capitalist is entitled to profit.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

There are natural resources, there are consumer end goods, and then there are capital goods. While consumer goods cause immediate satisfaction, capital goods are those goods that do not serve immediate satisfaction, rather facilitate future satisfaction. As such, they are representative of the time passage required for certain production processes and the delayed satisfaction.

It is perfectly natural for someone to eschew the time preference costs of capital goods for immediate consumer goods. This is an explanation of why free men may simply perform "wage labor", and why owners of capital may profit from the exchange.

The wage laborer accepts immediate satisfaction by the way of wages that purchase consumer goods, while the owner of capital forgoes immediate satisfaction by investing in capital.

An understanding of time preference should explain why the laborer is subject to discounted income and the capitalist is entitled to profit.

Yes. I see.
It means that the worker does not own what he works on, so he will be paid less than the value he creates.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Ultimately, socialism is a reaction to the excesses of capitalism to return to the laborer the full fruits of his labor. This is the utmost in economic justice, and anything less than this optimal is slavery.

Where does the line between wage labor and slavery go? If a worker has to be paid the value that he creates, there will be no profit for the company, which makes companies and capitalism impossible. On the other side if the worker is only paid what the company has to pay him to get him to do it, the companies (with their influence through their capital) can suppress cost by keeping portions of the population in poverty.

---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

Originally Posted by xris

Democratic Underground - Moderate capitalistic socialism is the best economic policy - Democratic Underground read this and understand..

Then we agree, that's capitalism.