Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lagslayer]

When has a socialist society even come close to the standard of living of a predominantly capitalist society? You can't discount the problems with capitalism, but you can't discount all the times socialism has failed, either, or has survived but with constantly dismal standard of living all the time. Like China, or the Soviet Union, where the elite inner circle has everything and the masses are not only hurt by a lack of funds to get started (a fault often shared with capitalism), but where it is actually illegal for the non-elite to move on their own merits, since everyone is supposed to have equal pay.

A predominantly Capitalistic society may have it's trenches and mountains, but averages out much higher than the alternative.

Forced socialism on a large scale ignores the human factor where they look after themselves and those closest to them first, and that is why it fails. Humans are genetically tribal.

I'm not saying none of these things need to happen or cannot work at all. I'm saying it's a very complicated issue, and I question the end goals and ability of those advocating it to handle it.

[kaijyuu]

When has a socialist society even come close to the standard of living of a predominantly capitalist society?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index


EDIT: Notable excerpts from #1's page!

Cost of living is about 90% higher in Norway than in the United States and 50% higher than the United Kingdom. The standard of living in Norway is among the highest in the world. Foreign Policy Magazine ranks Norway last in its Failed States Index for 2009, judging Norway to be the world's most well-functioning and stable country.

The Norwegian economy is an example of a mixed economy, a prosperous capitalist welfare state featuring a combination of free market activity and large state ownership in certain key sectors. The Norwegian welfare state makes public health care free (above a certain level), and parents have 46 weeks paid parental leave.

Hell of a lot of socialist policies there.



If your point is "pure socialism won't lead to really high standard of living" then you're probably right. However, pure capitalism sure as hell doesn't either. I suppose the best thing to do is strike a balance until we figure out something better, given this data.

[nenjin]

I'm not advocating socialism. But I disagree with the fundamental tenet of the free market that people function best when left alone. They reach a point where they cannot be left alone because their influence is so great, and their decisions have a fundamental impact on everyone's life, that they cannot be left unregulated. We _know_ they need more oversight as they become more successful, if we care one whit about how they treat others. The Industrial Revolution taught us that. And we've got the essentials pretty well in check (in the first world, at any rate....)

But it's not really an issue of working conditions or pay (although pay is debatable.) It's about the far reaching impact their decisions can now have, and the fact there aren't adequate checks against their power like there are built into most governments. Corporations are practically governments unto themselves, who are constantly battling with real governments to draw their boundaries of control. When government doesn't take a vested interest in its obligation to represent the people, all its left with is lucrative offers from corporations to work with them.

So yeah. Not advocating socialism, and I have to admit I think it's funny that's the first place you went. Controlling the forces of capitalism doesn't mean socialism. Call it conscientious consumption if you will. The largest corporations need to start being treated like adversaries by government, instead of bending over backward to accommodate them in the name of economic growth. My town here is like a microcosm of what I don't like about modern business thinking: companies come to this town because tax rates are so low they end up not paying any at all for years as long as they create a fixed amount of jobs. Which many of them never do, but they still continue to enjoy almost no taxes and the city even pays most of the impact fees for their construction. Handing the keys of the castle over to corporations so they'll make us rich and happy is the reason our economy is so fucked up. We quit holding them responsible for their performance.

Not being a slave to capitalism doesn't mean you have to be a socialist. Consumers need to start standing up for their rights and be willing to sacrifice to make a point about what's unacceptable. That means not buying frivolous shit or investing in the market because you wanna get rich. When companies are hungry for our business again, instead of feeling they're entitled to it, maybe they'll start treating us as equals again.

[Lagslayer]

Not advocating socialism, and I have to admit I think it's funny that's the first place you went.

I find that's usually the direction this sort of conversation ends up going, and I decided to head it off. If I was mistaken about your intentions, then I apologize.

[SalmonGod]

You also can't forget that American capitalism was literally at war with socialism for decades.  China and USSR are always pointed to as proof that socialism is pure evil tyranny, but that completely ignores the legitimately elected socialist governments that came into power and were doing well in that same period until the CIA sabotaged them.

[Lagslayer]

You also can't forget that American capitalism was literally at war with socialism for decades.  China and USSR are always pointed to as proof that socialism is pure evil tyranny, but that completely ignores the legitimately elected socialist governments that came into power and were doing well in that same period until the CIA sabotaged them.

Examples? Links? Both sides of the issue if possible, please.

[SalmonGod]

Operation Condor

I'm too busy right now to organize a large info dump, so I'm just going to point you in the right direction.  That wikipedia article is very watered down.  There is a lot more information out there, especially about the 1973 coup in Chile.  Tons of evidence shows that the U.S. was deeply involved in inciting insurrection and terrorism by proxy all over South America to sabotage any hint of socialism that arose for a couple decades.  Our behavior towards that entire continent is proof in my eyes that we were never any better than our enemies in the Cold War.  I get to see how much we still economically abuse them first hand when I process shipments of clothing from South America every Saturday through customs.

There's also a lot of informative leads here.

I've also heard that Confessions of an Economic Hit Man is very informative on this subject.

[GlyphGryph]

No really, we're talking "free" as in "freedom." Regulations are, by definition, limiters of freedom

I disagree. Sure, they may limit some freedoms, but if they protect more freedom than they limit, I wouldn't call them, overall, "limiters of freedom". Take the outlawing of slavery - It was certainly a regulation: You are no longer allowed to own others as slaves. But would you really say its effect was to "limit freedom"? What about the regulation on government provided by the first amendment? Does that "limit freedom"?

If you're going that far, then freedom simply doesn't exist, and the very notion of a free market makes no sense.

Perhaps that's the case for your definition, though. And that's fine. But its not particularly useful, imo.

[mainiac]

Our behavior towards that entire continent is proof in my eyes that we were never any better than our enemies in the Cold War.

We were hardly boy scouts during the cold war, but our enemies did a lot worse.  Never look at two sides, see they both have problems and conclude that they are the same from that alone.

Plus during the cold war, the US misguided support of dictatorships was at least with the intent of protecting a number of free societies throughout the world.  The USSR wasn't protecting any free societies, they were suppressing them throughout their sphere of influence.  There's a reason they called it the "free world".

[GlyphGryph]

Nor does the behaviour of their enemies excuse the evils the US engaged in. They may have been better, but they were still far from good.

[Kogan Loloklam]

So you want socialism, but don't want it to be socialism?  I just don't know what else to call this.  Socialism isn't about taking one person's hard earned stuff away and giving it to someone else just for the lulz.  It's about making sure everyone has opportunities, and preventing people's lives from being undeservedly ruined because of some unlucky circumstance or mistake.  Even if the wealthy altruistically gave their wealth away to people for this purpose without being asked, they would just be participating in a voluntary form of socialism.

so·cial·ism
  socialism pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

com·mu·nism
  communism pronunciation [kom-yuh-niz-uhm]
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.
(initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4.
communalism.

cap·i·tal·ism
  capitalism pronunciation [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm]
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

al·tru·ism
  altruism pronunciation [al-troo-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism).
2.
Animal Behavior. behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.

I love how people automatically think whatever form of economy that isn't capitalism is automatically socialism or communism.

Lagslayer, you would benefit from reading these definitions as well.


I think market regulations isn't going to cut it either. I think we need to fundamentally change the system we operate on. Adam Smith was clear that the more regulations on a free market, the less effective capitalism will be.

I think where we need to change things is the valuation of the property that the individuals hold. Being economically small should give more value to your holdings, while being economically large should give significantly less. We already do this of sorts by taxing the richer higher than the poor. This taken seriously as an economic system and developed further with the concept of altruism as described in the definition above and combined with capitalism as defined in the definition above might lead us down a more economically fruitful path.

Money is ultimately a representation of efforts made by people. Everything takes effort to do, so when you have a collection of wealth, what you really have is a collection of effort from people held in your hands. When you do nothing with it, then it's like sitting that number of people idle until such a time as you decide to do something with it. Sure it's more complicated than that, but doing nothing with wealth, keeping those resources idle, that's a pretty big problem in my mind. A vast majority of those in the 1% don't keep things idle. They have large incomes, but they let that money move. Some of the really wealthy just have so much income coming in that they have no clue how to move the money. If you are making 2 dollars every second of the day, it can be hard to think how to best use it, and currently the system encourages not using it frivolously.


As for the 99% statements...
"Oh, it's just propaganda for fancy slogans", No. No it isn't. If you start speaking out against someone, even if it STARTS as propaganda, it always turns negative. You cannot single a group out if it contains even a single individual who is not part of the problem. This ALWAYS ends badly. It will not be any different with this movement. People are being rallied based on hatred of another group, not an issue. This needs to change before the movement grows much larger or the inevitable conflict will stop being about trying to get the best system we can and start being about cutting off the heads of the most successful people in the country. People are saying they are responsible for the problems of this country, but I don't think they are. The problems would exist without those people. It'd just be a different group of people that fit with the supposed cause. There's a reason I have trouble with those slogans, and this doesn't go away just because it doesn't seem like the protestors are serious. History has shown time and time again that they ARE serious about slogans against minorities. Just because the target seems powerful doesn't mean that the potential for violence inherent in a mob can be ignored.

Plus during the cold war, the US misguided support of dictatorships was at least with the intent of protecting a number of free societies throughout the world.  The USSR wasn't protecting any free societies, they were suppressing them throughout their sphere of influence.  There's a reason they called it the "free world".

...
No. Just No. The US supported capitalism, the USSR supported communism. Freedom of the society didn't matter to either side.

[GlyphGryph]

Kogan. Have you read the Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie? What did you think of it?

[Kogan Loloklam]

Kogan. Have you read the Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie? What did you think of it?

In general I avoid things that have Gospel in it's title. I'll read it and get back to you.

[palsch]

In general I avoid things that have Gospel in it's title. I'll read it and get back to you.

The original version is just called 'Wealth'.

[mainiac]

No. Just No. The US supported capitalism, the USSR supported communism. Freedom of the society didn't matter to either side.

Wow... just wow.  The USA, land of the free, protector of the free world, icon of democracy, land of the fair shake, didn't care about freedom?  Guess you knew more about the cold war then JFK.

"The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are; but it is one of the most consistent with our character and our courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high — but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and this is the path of surrender or submission. Our goal is not victory of might but the vindication of right — not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved. Thank you, and good night."