Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism

  • 55 Replies
  • 13734 Views
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« on: May 08, 2006, 08:38:36 AM »
Capitalism versus socialism - to complement the meieval versus moderrn post.  The idea is that this post covers the period AD 1500 to the present.  The debate is certainly not limited to that time frame, especially with rehuard to ideas and institutions which spill over from one to the next - but only as a general divide as to what could become a large and unwieldy subject.

  (The statement by troubador below stating he had never heard of it is a reference to my comment in an earlier post that I thought his ideas made him a candidate for the John Birch Society, about which time the topic of conversation was turning into a debate between socialism versus capitalism.)

- Dionysios

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2006, 10:31:05 AM »
Quote from: "Dionysios"
And you sound like a candidate for the John Birch Society to me.

- Dionysios


I didn't even know what that was till you mentioned it.

BTW using Noam Chomsky as an example of an intelligent socialist is a pretty big stretch. Many question his skewed vison of reality and lack of following the very ideals he preaches others to. And by trying to say radio and TV personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are at the top of the pinnacle of the defenders of captialism and liberalism is also highly misleading. While they may be outspoken and well known, they certianly are not all that liberalism has in it's defense. What about Jean-Francois Revel, Ben Stein, Thomas Sowell, John Lott, and the many other soft-spoken intellectuals that support liberalism? The leftys in academia and hollywood are very loud, they make it seem like they make up the majority, but they don't. In my years in academia I find that it's about 50/50. Making a comment like, "socialists tend to be more intelligent than those persons who defend capitalism" shows your lack of understanding and experience with the issue. What is your definition of intelligence? Anyone that disagrees with socialism is not intelligent? That is pretty much the message you are giving in your posts. If that is how you percieve the issue then perhaps it is you with the lower intelligence. As for Michael Moore, many of your "intelligent" liberal academics even denouced him, as they very well should of. Brilliant propagandist he is. If I wanted to make a movie linking you 7-8 times removed to the Nazis I could probably do it, with some effort and "creative license."

And what "christian medieval system" are you speaking about? If you mean a guild controlled feudal economy where wealth was highly concentrated among a very few and there was almost no hope of being more then a peasent for most peole because of hereditary rule, then you are correct. The emergance of the middle merchant class in opposition to the guilds is what lead to the renaissance and scientific revolution, you learn this in History 101.

Capitalism being more like slavery then feudalism? Serfs were literally by law bound to the land and their lord. Most serfs never traveled farther then a few miles from where they were born. They also owned little more then the tools necessary for survival and to perform their duties. Also they were completely dependant on their lord for protection, who would commonly would not provide it save in certain circumstances. Most lords were too busy in power struggles to care or deal with say, a pesant woman being raped on the border of his property. Heavily taxed and heavily abused, the serf class was seen as servants to the ruling class. This would not change until the liberalistic revolution in the 1700s. At least in a capitalist economy and society, I can quit my job if I want and get a new one. I can take a vacation if I want. I don't have to ask my boss if I want to move or buy a new house or car.

Way to go there not knowing anything about history other then what Noam Chomsky tells you.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2006, 10:32:36 AM »
I love the argument against socialism people use where they say how crappy the Soviet Union was and how other totalitarian 'Communist' states are.

Actually, it annoys me, as, for example the entire socialist international is committed to socialism through democracy.  Socialism, actually, works best with democracy as when one 'Communist' Party takes control the government, and thus transition to socialism, is corrupted and regresses into a form of capitalism, with the Communist Party, rather than an aristocratic class, oppressing the people.

The poverty line is not at eighty thousand for two people.  Perhaps thirty thousand for a household of two, but that would only be because of incredible housing costs in my area.  It is virtually impossible to work on one's own merit, and nothing else, up to a higher class than that you were born in.

Maybe if those rich people stopped hordeing wealth, the linear equation of taxation wouldn't make them pay so much.  I can't believe that you are using a figure that 1% of the people pay 60% of the income taxes as a pro-capitalist figure.  The fact that such a small group has 60 percent of the entire United States income should shock you and wish to redistibute the wealth logicaly, through socialism.

Let me ask someone.  Do you think it makes sense to allow one person to be born on the street, but the other person born with silver spoon in mouth, ready to inherit billions of dollars?  I don't understand how anyone, unless they are a greedy rich person themself, can support capitalism.

capitalism is freer than feudalism, what with its 'liberal democracies'.  But compare feudalism to capitalism for a moment.  Now compare capitalism to socialism.  Same thing; socialism is superior to capitalism, and far freer.

If you want an example of a socialist you can go to sp-usa.org (for example), then sign up for their forums and talk to someone there.  Or, you can read Orwell's works.  He's long dead, but he was a notable soicialist, most importantly opposed to the Soviet Union.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2006, 10:38:14 AM »
Quote from: "Gustave5436"
I love the argument against socialism people use where they say how crappy the Soviet Union was and how other totalitarian 'Communist' states are.

Actually, it annoys me, as, for example the entire socialist international is committed to socialism through democracy.  Socialism, actually, works best with democracy as when one 'Communist' Party takes control the government, and thus transition to socialism, is corrupted and regresses into a form of capitalism, with the Communist Party, rather than an aristocratic class, oppressing the people.

The poverty line is not at eighty thousand for two people.  Perhaps thirty thousand for a household of two, but that would only be because of incredible housing costs in my area.  It is virtually impossible to work on one's own merit, and nothing else, up to a higher class than that you were born in.

Maybe if those rich people stopped hordeing wealth, the linear equation of taxation wouldn't make them pay so much.  I can't believe that you are using a figure that 1% of the people pay 60% of the income taxes as a pro-capitalist figure.  The fact that such a small group has 60 percent of the entire United States income should shock you and wish to redistibute the wealth logicaly, through socialism.

Let me ask someone.  Do you think it makes sense to allow one person to be born on the street, but the other person born with silver spoon in mouth, ready to inherit billions of dollars?  I don't understand how anyone, unless they are a greedy rich person themself, can support capitalism.

capitalism is freer than feudalism, what with its 'liberal democracies'.  But compare feudalism to capitalism for a moment.  Now compare capitalism to socialism.  Same thing; socialism is superior to capitalism, and far freer.

If you want an example of a socialist you can go to sp-usa.org (for example), then sign up for their forums and talk to someone there.  Or, you can read Orwell's works.  He's long dead, but he was a notable soicialist, most importantly opposed to the Soviet Union.


So taking something from someone and giving it to someone else is ok? I thought that was stealing? What do you do with the people that don't want to give up their land and property? I guess you have to kill them, which is historically how communists and socialists have delt with the issue.

Sounds like a great system! Give up your property to the state or die!

The next person I see, I'm going to point a gun in their face and ask them for their money because I need it more. I'm just redistributing wealth for the good of the state.

And yes I know of Orwell. Most of us have had to read Animal Farm or 1984 at sometime in our academic carrers(even if they don't go farther then high school). And yes he is brilliant. But even he forgets that human's don't like their things being taken from them.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2006, 10:44:18 AM »
um, taking money form the rich to redistribute is not stealing.  The only way the rich got so wealthy is by stealing some of the profits that the workers worked for.  Redisributing the wealth, if anything, is righting the crime that the wealthy have done.  Unless you believe that rich people work a thousand times harder than the workers, and thus deserve a thousand or mroe times as much wealth as the workers?

And we don't make a powerful central government.  All means of production, for example, are given to the people, rather than the State (yes there is a difference between the people and the government).  The problem is, you have to get out of the 'evil commie' mindset that government propoganda has gotten you into.  True socialism is democratic.  The 'dictatorship of the proleteriat' stuff was just power-hungry members of the Communist Party corrupting the revolution, and then they only pretended to be socialist, at the same time as doing some rather conservative things.

The People's republic of China isn't Communist anymore.  They have privately owned business, and are doing something very un-lefitst; enciting nationalism against the Japanese.

The government in socialism is made to be a weak servant of the people.  All we really have it for is helping to organize the economy, enforcing laws (for example, sending murderers to jail.  There will never be a law repressing any freedoms).  The current government of our country is an extremely corrupt capitalist government, filled with rich people, made richer still by big business bribing them.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2006, 11:07:33 AM »
Quote from: "Gustave5436"
um, taking money form the rich to redistribute is not stealing.  The only way the rich got so wealthy is by stealing some of the profits that the workers worked for.  Redisributing the wealth, if anything, is righting the crime that the wealthy have done.  Unless you believe that rich people work a thousand times harder than the workers, and thus deserve a thousand or mroe times as much wealth as the workers?

And we don't make a powerful central government.  All means of production, for example, are given to the people, rather than the State (yes there is a difference between the people and the government).  The problem is, you have to get out of the 'evil commie' mindset that government propoganda has gotten you into.  True socialism is democratic.  The 'dictatorship of the proleteriat' stuff was just power-hungry members of the Communist Party corrupting the revolution, and then they only pretended to be socialist, at the same time as doing some rather conservative things.

The People's republic of China isn't Communist anymore.  They have privately owned business, and are doing something very un-lefitst; enciting nationalism against the Japanese.

The government in socialism is made to be a weak servant of the people.  All we really have it for is helping to organize the economy, enforcing laws (for example, sending murderers to jail.  There will never be a law repressing any freedoms).  The current government of our country is an extremely corrupt capitalist government, filled with rich people, made richer still by big business bribing them.


I know. There is a new sunny version of collectivism for the 20th century that is called socialism. It still doesn't offer a better alternative to capitalism though. Countries that are socialist-democratic like Germany and France have unemployment rates that are more then double of the US. Not only that but their economies are receeding, not growing. Ontop of this the birth rate in Europe is now -1.5. I have a childhood friend that went to school to become an engineer, then he got a job in sweeden paying 6 figures(i believe is was $150,000ish) in USD. He came back 2 years later because 80% of his money was being taken out for taxes. He got an entry level position at an engineering consulting firm paying around 60k a year. Even after taxes he was still making more money even though his income was 1/2 of what it was before. And he still get's benifits from the company for health insurance and other education benifits. Basically he is getting all of the same things he had in sweeden, only he is making more money and able to actually live in a house, rather then a studio apartment.
Apparently you think it's a crime for people to make money from a business they built or run which required the work of lesser paid employees. Let me ask you, if you are running a company that builds houses, are you going to pay the guy that spent 8 years in school for engineering the same as the guy that dropped out of highschool and drives the forklift that loads the lumber onto the trucks? Hell no. But are you going to give them the same health benifits, yes because if either guy get's sick, the whole machine stops.
Socialists by nature do not trust companies to provide things like healthcare and other benifits to their workers. Hell they don't trust comanies at all. Everything is state controlled and the people pay massive taxes for it. I don't see how having a bunch of companies choosing the right healthcare plans for their employees is worse then a giant government controlled conglomerate giving only one to everyone.
It's things like this that bother me about socialism. We aren't robots. We aren't collectivist beings. Even nature works in a capitalistic way, survival of the fittest and all that. I'm not saying capitalism is a perfect system, abuses can happen in any economic or political system. I'm not even saying it's a pretty one. But I am saying it's the 2nd worst, next to all the other systems.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2006, 11:16:57 AM »
social democracy is a welfare state; capitalist. Not socialism.

I don't know about Communism, but the form of socialism I am in favor is more individualist (opposite of collectivism) than capitalism is.

Sweden isn't socialist either.  They compensate for wealth imbalance with huge tax rates (which only affect you if you make too much money... say, 150 thousand a year?  Seriously that is too much).  A capitalist solution to a problem that can only be fixed with socialism.

The thing about socialism is, very little is state-run.  The state just requires that everyone is payed fair;  pay works by, you do more work, youy get more pay.  You do no work, (unless you are diabled and can't work.  Then society has to pay for you to not work) you get no pay.

As I have said, I am not a collectivist communist.  You are more like such a person than I am, merely for supporting capitalism, which takes away our personalities and makes us drones of the rich, toiling away in their factories, while they siphon off most of the profits of our work.

I don't care how nature works.  In nature, our closes relatives, chimpanzees, kill each other for no reason.  We are human; we are above nature.  We can do whatever we want.

And yes there is survival of the fittest in nature, but in capitalism, there is no way toget rich even if you are fit to do so.  Plus, survival of the fittest is a genetic thing, not luck on whether you are born rich or poor.

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2006, 12:54:06 PM »
Quote from: "Gustave5436"


As I have said, I am not a collectivist communist.  You are more like such a person than I am, merely for supporting capitalism, which takes away our personalities and makes us drones of the rich, toiling away in their factories, while they siphon off most of the profits of our work.
.

for the record I'm NOT a laissez-faire capitalist. I do believe in many socialist type institutions (public health care, unionization, welfare etc)
However the quote above is extraordinarily skewed. In a capitalist system you dont have to toil for the rich in their factory, you can (at very least in theory) work hard start your own buisness and own a factory in which other people toil away.
I'm not sure if thats a better image of capitalism then the one you painted but it is a more accurate one
An bemused
Cinef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2006, 01:07:53 PM »
I know that that is technically possible (especially in the past), but it is very, very difficult to do nowadays.  Especially when there are other people with huge headstarts at it, inheriting immense sums of money and even businesses themselves

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2006, 01:11:47 PM »
Granted and I'm not saying capitalism is falwless, however I am wondering how people how really are hard working entrepeneurs would be treated in the system you propose
An curious
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2006, 01:13:23 PM »
Quote from: "Gustave5436"
social democracy is a welfare state; capitalist. Not socialism.

Que? What country would you say is socialist then? You stated before that, "True socialism is democratic." If this is so, then how is a social democracy =/= to your definition of socialism?

Quote from: "Gustave5436"

I don't know about Communism, but the form of socialism I am in favor is more individualist (opposite of collectivism) than capitalism is.

Socialism the very word, stems from social, or society. According to Dictionary.com, it is define as:
1.
-a. Living together in communities.
-b. Of or relating to communal living.
-c. Of or relating to human society and it's modes of organization.

And basically all the rest of the possible definitions are much the same. I don't know how you can be more individualist in a country with a socialist economic and political government. The very word socialism means that it is based on people depending on other people, not people depending on themselves. Capitalism (the economic model) is about how well you can do what you do. There is drive to offer a better product or service then the other guy. There is progress. There is a constant competition among companies and businesses to offer better quality products or services cheaper. This creates a really good enviroment for consumers. 20 years ago a PC was around 10000 to 5000 USD. But thanks to 20 years of different PC, hardwar, and software companies competing to offer better and cheaper products, now I can buy a fully loaded PC today for around $900 and it's billions of times faster then the ones in 1986.
Without capitalism and competition, what motive would people have to make new discoveries and invent new things. We had a period of time where growth economically, socially, and technologically were all close to stagnant. It's called the middle ages.

Quote from: "Gustave5436"

Sweden isn't socialist either.  They compensate for wealth imbalance with huge tax rates (which only affect you if you make too much money... say, 150 thousand a year?  Seriously that is too much).  A capitalist solution to a problem that can only be fixed with socialism.

What? First of all officially, Sweden is a constitutional monarchy. But it has a moderately capitalistic economy but also is a huge welfare state. the 60-80% tax rate is not only for "rich" people as you call it. It's for everyone.

Also, who the hell are you to say $150,000 a year is too much? What judge are you referring to when you make this statement? How old are you? I'd like you to have a talk with my father if you think that. My folks were grossing 175ish a year when they were helping me through college. Even with loans to suppliment that, my folks had a hard time just making ends meet putting 2 kids through college. And they don't live in a mansion, just an average everyday house. $150,000 might be living large if you are on your own and in an apartment or small house, but if you want a family it's nothing. You talk like a person that is completely blind from reality and forgets that "hey, stuff costs money."

Quote from: "Gustave5436"

The thing about socialism is, very little is state-run.  The state just requires that everyone is payed fair;  pay works by, you do more work, youy get more pay.  You do no work, (unless you are diabled and can't work.  Then society has to pay for you to not work) you get no pay.

What about difficulty of work. Basically the guy that just has a high school diploma and is out in the sun working hard should get more money then a person that sits at a desk and calculates numbers, even though the guy at the desk had to go to 8 years of school to learn how to do it properly? It's not very hard to hammer some nails into a piece of lumber, you could get anyone to do it. But sit just anyone down infront of a mass of unprocessed tax forms and they aren't going to have a clue what to do. Skilled labor should get paid more. In addition to this, the guy managing the number-cruncher had to get additional training to manage lots of people and probably himself spent quite a few years crunching numbers, why should this guy not get paid more for his job?
The fact is that your income is highly based on the concept of supply and demand. This is something that socialists and communists have trouble understanding. There are a lot more young, fit, high school graduates to take Joe Hammer's job pounding nails then there are highly educated tax experts to take Carl Lopez's job as a tax assessor. So obviously, the company wants Carl to stay around, so he get's paid more then the construction worker.
There is also another factor combined with this that most employers honor, seniority. If you have been with a company or business and have been reliable and done your job well, your company is obviously going to want you to stick around. So they give you more pay or benifits because of your good work, they make more money. It is easier and cheaper in the long rung to just give an employee that has been around awhile more money then to fire him and bring in a new guy for cheaper.
So your stuff about "people should get paid for doing more work" is really broad and undefined. It also sounds a lot like the liberalism movement of the 1700s, where advancement should be on merit and not birth, which is the heart of capitalism. I think you are a capitalist, you just haven't figured it out.

Quote from: "Gustave5436"

As I have said, I am not a collectivist communist.  You are more like such a person than I am, merely for supporting capitalism, which takes away our personalities and makes us drones of the rich, toiling away in their factories, while they siphon off most of the profits of our work.


What are you talking about? Everybody works for someone else, how is that a big deal? I'm not sure what skewed vision of reality you are living in. One second you say you are for individualism, the next you say you are against business. So what are people to do? Just go around and be individuals and ask the government for money? Where are you going to work if you can't work for someone else? You have to make your own business, which you can't do under this model because apparently it is wrong to hire people to help you run your business. You aren't making any sense.
And the gibberish about working a job taking your soul and all that is rubbish. The only people that talk like that are the people that never had one. Responibility, accountability, and the work ethic, are these not also important parts of a person's character? I think your vison of capitalism is imaginary and really doesn't exist save for the boundries of your mind. I've yet to see a factory or office like the one you talk of.

Quote from: "Gustave5436"

I don't care how nature works. In nature, our closes relatives, chimpanzees, kill each other for no reason. We are human; we are above nature. We can do whatever we want.

Pretty strong words coming from a person that doesn't even have a coherent understanding of the political model they say they believe in. Also, chimpanzees do not run around killing each other, they live in social groups much like humans do.

Quote from: "Gustave5436"

And yes there is survival of the fittest in nature, but in capitalism, there is no way toget rich even if you are fit to do so. Plus, survival of the fittest is a genetic thing, not luck on whether you are born rich or poor.

Umm, you are the one that keeps throwing the word "rich" around. Rich in terms of what? Donald Trump is over a billion USD in debt, yet he is still living large. You lack a basic understanding of what capitalism really is. It's not possible to be sucessful in a Captialism economy? Explain Bill Gates, a college dropout who is now the richest man in the world.
And your other comment doesn't deserve a response because it's offtopic.

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2006, 01:31:19 PM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
Quote from: "Gustave5436"
I know that that is technically possible (especially in the past), but it is very, very difficult to do nowadays.  Especially when there are other people with huge headstarts at it, inheriting immense sums of money and even businesses themselves


It's actually very easy. With a solid business plan you can get a loan from a bank pretty easily. And the internet has made doing business for small businesses cheaper and easier. Ebay, Amazon.com, AOL, Dell, Flowers.com, several online game developers, SAP, several clothing retailers, and many many more businesses have emerged in the last 10 years from very small and exploded. Of course there have been many failed ones too, but many of these successful businesses that I mentioned above were started by people that have had businesses that failed before. Just because you fail, doesn't mean you can't get back up and try again. That's what is great about a capitalist model.

This post got place in the other thread before I split them. Sorry for the inconvinience
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2006, 01:33:55 PM »
i was wondering where my posts went.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2006, 01:34:38 PM »
Quote from: "Gustave5436"
I know that that is technically possible (especially in the past), but it is very, very difficult to do nowadays.  Especially when there are other people with huge headstarts at it, inheriting immense sums of money and even businesses themselves


It's actually very easy. With a solid business plan you can get a loan from a bank pretty easily. And the internet has made doing business for small businesses cheaper and easier. Ebay, Amazon.com, AOL, Dell, Flowers.com, several online game developers, SAP, several clothing retailers, and many many more businesses have emerged in the last 10 years from very small and exploded. Of course there have been many failed ones too, but many of these successful businesses that I mentioned above were started by people that have had businesses that failed before. Just because you fail, doesn't mean you can't get back up and try again. That's what is great about a capitalist model.

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2006, 01:44:08 PM »
Good to see a fellow socialist here.

Troubadour I will answer all your points but I don't have time right now, bear with me please.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2006, 01:48:35 PM »
Quote from: "Gustave5436"
um, taking money form the rich to redistribute is not stealing.  


So if I take money from someone, it's ok as long as they have an abundance of it? Hey guess what, I drank my liver to death and need a liver transplant. Your's in a match! You don't have a choice I need a piece of your's, it doesn't matter if you could die because I need it. Don't mind those police in here, they are just making sure you cooperate. If you don't they will be forced to restrain you while we put you to sleep and cut out a piece of your liver.


If you apply it to currency, you soon apply it to everything.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2006, 01:48:50 PM »
Here is the post I accidentally put in the original thread

Quote from: "Gustave5436"
Quote from: "Cinlef"
Granted and I'm not saying capitalism is falwless, however I am wondering how people how really are hard working entrepeneurs would be treated in the system you propose
An curious
Cinlef


I should really talk to some people who know what they are talking about. I just throw all my political opinions together and call it socialism, as I generally agree with democratic socialists.

However, in the socialism I propose, those who work hard are payed more than those who do not.  Perhaps in the socialism I propose we keep the excellent supply-demand, competition, etc. system capitalism has but then make it equal and have the people all own the means of production.

Quote from: "troubadour"
Que? What country would you say is socialist then? You stated before that, "True socialism is democratic." If this is so, then how is a
social democracy =/= to your definition of socialism?


social democracy was in the past like democratic socialism, but now it has become people willing to use capitalism in its entirety, but include social programs.  Basically, most forms of social democray, except the most leftist, are pretty much only wellfare state capitalists (perhaps hoping for actual socialism in the future.  I don't know, I would have to talk to one

Socialism, actually, can be both communal and individualistic.  People work together and help each other with things, but society values the individual above all.  As long as the individual is willing to share and aid his fellow individuals.

I already stated that the socialism I favor uses some capitalism. A while ago I read something someone wrote about 'market socialism', which I found very interesting.  Perhaps the most accurate name I can think of for my system would be 'democratic market socialism'.  I do not deny the benefits of a capitalist economy, above all my socialist ideology is based on my belief that people are equal and that working together, rather than fighting each other, is far better for everyone.

perhaps I exaggerated a bit with 150,000.  I say that, poorer people don't have to worry about taxes so much, as it is a smaller total for a smaller income, and they probably have things they can deduct, in some cases not having to pay taxes at all.  Yes, Sweden is an exageratted welfare state, if taxes are that high and all they get is free healthcare and social programs if they can't work.

Yes, difficult work can be payed more, and people that were too lazy to go to college (the government would help out a lot with college in my system, so that pretty much everyone could afford to go to it).  As I said earlier in this post, I do take some of capitalism and put it into socialism.

Quote

What are you talking about? Everybody works for someone else, how is that a big deal? I'm not sure what skewed vision of reality you are living in. One second you say you are for individualism, the next you say you are against business. So what are people to do? Just go around and be individuals and ask the government for money? Where are you going to work if you can't work for someone else? You have to make your own business, which you can't do under this model because apparently it is wrong to hire people to help you run your business. You aren't making any sense.


The businesses are given to the people, ideally.  Really, I see that there are some problems with entrusting the people with doing everything, so I guess the government is forced to assist in this area.

Perhaps a form of capitalism would be fine with me, as long as people in this form of capitalism could stop fighting unnecessarily, help people when they need it, etc.  Also if everyone would be monetarily equal at birth, and would only become more wealthy if they worked harder in life.  However, this capitalism also needs to have society support people unable to work.  This is could be problematic, as I dislike greed, etc. but these things seem to be the driving force of capitalism in reality.

Ideally I guess a simple change in society, so that people would see how pointless violence is, and that people would be willing to share if others need assistance, would be enough.

The problem is I'm just too idealistic

edit: sorry, didn't see the other thread 'till after I made this post


Quote from: "troubadour"


So if I take money from someone, it's ok as long as they have an abundance of it? Hey guess what, I drank my liver to death and need a liver transplant. Your's in a match! You don't have a choice I need a piece of your's, it doesn't matter if you could die because I need it. Don't mind those police in here, they are just making sure you cooperate. If you don't they will be forced to restrain you while we put you to sleep and cut out a piece of your liver.


If you apply it to currency, you soon apply it to everything.


Well, IMO the only way a person gets to be extremely wealthy is by leaching the profits of other peoples' labor.  However, in your example you had a healthy liver, but then destroyed it yourself.  No one has to give you their liver, unless they have such a great liver because they stole livers from other people.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2006, 01:49:19 PM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Good to see a fellow socialist here.

Troubadour I will answer all your points but I don't have time right now, bear with me please.


he's not a socialist, he just thinks he is.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2006, 01:54:00 PM »
Quote from: "troubadour"
he's not a socialist, he just thinks he is.


I'll call myself a capitalist if you make capitalism ensure liberty and equality, as well as if this capitalism will change society itself so that people no longer feel the need for violence and harming other people for self benefit.

But then, does that mean that market socialism is actually capitalism?

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2006, 01:56:08 PM »
Why is the violence for self gain inherent to capitalism? Surely that is a fundamental flaw in human nature
A confused
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #20 on: May 08, 2006, 02:00:37 PM »
It is not inherent to capitalism.  That is why I request a form of capitalism in which society realizes the foolishness of such things, as this form of capitalism would be quite different from society today

?

Cinlef

  • The Elder Ones
  • 969
  • The Earth is a Sphere
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #21 on: May 08, 2006, 02:04:05 PM »
BUt then what you want is just more compassionate and peaceful society. YOur objection to current WEstern society here is that it is violent not that it is capitalist
Or so it seems
An bemused
Cinlef
Truth is great and will prevail-Thomas Jefferson

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Cinlef is the bestest!

Melior est sapientia quam vires-Wisdom

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #22 on: May 08, 2006, 02:11:52 PM »
Quote from: "Gustave5436"
Quote from: "troubadour"
he's not a socialist, he just thinks he is.


I'll call myself a capitalist if you make capitalism ensure liberty and equality, as well as if this capitalism will change society itself so that people no longer feel the need for violence and harming other people for self benefit.

But then, does that mean that market socialism is actually capitalism?


Partial Capitalism is our Economic Model
Constitutional Democratic Republic is our Political Model
And Society in the US is dictated by the people who live in it, and changes.

The problems of violence and harming others are a product of society and/or an individual's development to allow them to do such things. While it has been suggested that our society in the USA is extremely violent, It is very tame compared to medieval europe or the classical era of the greeks and romans, as well as many other past cultures and civilization.

So when you picture the capitalist model as one of dark soulless factories full of slaves, perhaps the person that ran that particular factory that was looked at to make that vison was really irresponsable with how thye handled their employees. During the 2nd Industrialization this WAS the face of the emerging factories and such, but that was almost 100 years ago. Much has changed since then. Society has become more open and less restrictive. You can call out of work without being fired, unlike in the 1910s. You also get benefits, retirement, special rights, and access to other 3rd party benefit programs such as AFLAK(when you're hurt and miss work...). Also the workday is much tamer compared to 1910s when people would work a full 16-18 hours in a factory.
I think your picture of a soulless capitalist society is kinda close to what Japan is like. People go to school and are in high competition with others to get into college. Many Japanesee commit suicide if they do not get into college as it is considered dishonorable and limits your oppurtunities in Japan's Highly-Skilled job market. Even after graduating, many people work 19-20 hour days, or simply stay at the office for weeks at a time. Many people call this Turbo-Capitalism, when the economy and technology simply moves too fast for people to keep up. Of course in the Japanese culture discipline and the fear of failure keep pushing people beyond their limits, so their accelleration of capitalism is a result of their culture in essence. I don't think we will ever get to this point in the US, we are simply too laid back in comparison. This just illustrates how the flavor of capitalism that exists (exploitive, turbo, etc etc) depends on the culture of the people. Much like how nuclear energy can be used to create large bombs, or generate energy. It's up the the people to make the best of the model, not the other way around.


(guns don't kill people, people kill people)

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2006, 06:55:40 AM »
cheesejof,

  I am probably willing to back up most of what you say against this guy who thinks he it all.  

Ignorant Trouble doer (aka the typical unthinking american),

  Never heard of the Birch Society, eh?  You've got a lot to learn aboput american politics.  I have a lot more more books on history than just Noam Chomsky, guy.  My personal library has over ten thousand volumes which I have collected over twenty years.  I just shipped it to Greece.  Having packed it, I constructed forty 2' x 1' x1' plywood crates to ship it and it filled them all to the brink, and over half of it is history (including american, colonial, Orthodox Christian and Church history, eastern and western european, chinese, arab, african, ancient, native american, modern world, russian, greek, jewish, and more.  I consulkt these books much when I have the chance and the african section alone, for example is over four hundred books.  And I have carefully selected books by the right and left, et cetera based on what I deem are worthy volumes not justmerely Chomsky.

Chomsky ...  You are the only individual foolish enough to have questioned the intelligence of this brilliant jewish intellectual when the united states are most starkly obvious to the world a corrupt government than at anytime I can remember in my life.  HIs books are now more in vogue than ever.  The New York Times stated he is arguable the most important intellectual alive.  There are so many people I come across from diverse cultures who are gresat fans of his and avid readres.  He has done a great service to the world.  Your criticism of him reveals a very small time partisan view.  How can you be so stupid?  

  I know I did the right thing to get out of the unioversity as they are hiring morons like you.  You know nothing. And nothing from nothing leaves you.  My long standing interest in history was what caused me to abandon the universities and could not tolerate to have my brain washed.

How can you be so stubborn?  Does it not smack you in the face you parrot all the Bush administration and the rich minority wants?  HOw many times do you have to be hit over the head with a baseball bat to realize that?

  Damn you are an ignorant bastard on middle ages history who knows common stupid kindegarten garbage only.  You parrot the protestant capitalist historians.  Have you never heard of or read Hilaire Belloc or G. K. Chesterton?  Of course, you are going to say they are overrated idiots.  I guess the Bible is overrated garbage as well if it gets in america's way, right?

  The catholic historian Hilaire Beloc's 'Servile State' is one book guaranteed to transform a student of capitalism into a socialist.  Guess that's why you are scared to read books by the opposition, you wimp.

  May God damn capitalism -  the triumph of the few and the corrupt.

The serfs owned their own property and the means of production.  They were a step up from a slave which the Roman empire left society.  As the early Church expanded, slavery declined.  Slaves gradually became serfs who eventually became peasants.  A peasant is an exalted thing in every thing except the history books of historians which you seem to have read exclusively.  The rise of protestant england paralleld the rise of capitalism and the resurgence of slavery.  British social history involves a long struggle of the peasants with the nobility (capitalists) who had stolen their land from them.

  How dare you be sinlge minded and accuse me of having read only one view, you hypocrite?!

  A proletariat is a step down from a peasant.  A peasant owns his own land , but a proletariat has had his land taken from him.  This is what capitalism has done to traditional peoples the world over and resettled them after stealing their land and their sacred traditions in country after country after country after country.  I saw it first hand with aborigines in Australia and I see it now in India.  Then the capitalists run universities and to indoctrinate losers like you with nothing better to do with their lives than to represent their cause and indoctrinate other unthinking students.

And the history of capitalism and colonialism are intertwined with slavery, but do not expect the capitalist historians to emphasize that.  And do not accuse me of ignorance becuse I have stated a viewpoint which you have lazily failed to investigate as you fail to investigate any and everything.  I declare you are not a historian at all in any sense and are completely ignorant of history.  You count a dishonourable peice of paper as knowledge.  Well, my naive friend, a peice of paper and knowledge are two different things.  All the college degrees and Ph.D's in the world are not going to change that.  Knowledge is knowledge.  IF you have it, you have it, and if you don't you don't.  And you're more of a bu**sh** artist than anything.

  One thing the world does have too much of - stupid young americans.

If only they were wiser to the propaganda that is aimed at them.  

  By the way,  I was not served Chomsky books on a plate by a long shot.  I went out and researched and found out about him.  I was a member of the Birch Society at one time and had all their publications since they were founded in the fifties, but I forsook their views as I found out they were wrong after doing loads of research  and reflecting upon it and comparing their views with their enemies, something you have failed to do.  

Tell me, troubledoer, how much do you read non-fiction outside of what is assigned at school and handed to you on a plate?

(Sorry if I cut you off at the pass, MR. cheesejof.)

- DIonysios

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2006, 06:58:45 AM »
Another lie about medieval society - it was stable and not violent.  American society is anything but stable, and the fact that the medieval nobility were more restrained than today's capitalists has everything to do with that.

- Dionysios

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2006, 07:07:35 AM »
cheesejof,

  When you stated good to see a fellow socialist here, you are referring to Gustave 5436 (and not to Troubador), correct?  Correct me if I am wrong.  It seems to me that you, I, and Gustave 5436 take one side of this issue while troubador takes the opposite with Cinlef somewhere in the middle.

- Dionysios

?

joffenz

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1272
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2006, 09:46:03 AM »
Yes Dionysios I was agreeing with you and Gustave5346. I'm going to reply to troubadour's post now but it's very long so I'll have to edit it and do it a bit at a time.

Quote from: "troubadour"
Skilled labor should get paid more...


Quote from: "troubadour"

Explain Bill Gates, a college dropout who is now the richest man in the world.


Slight contradiction?

Quote from: "troubadour"
What are you talking about? Everybody works for someone else, how is that a big deal?


Er..no they don't. You are unfamiliar with your own capitalist system.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #27 on: May 10, 2006, 11:01:13 AM »
This is pretty much how ever single leftist responds on the internet and sometimes in real life when cornered.

Quote from: "Dionysios"
cheesejof,

  I am probably willing to back up most of what you say against this guy who thinks he it all.  


Those who do not agree with you are:
a. wrong
b. stupid
c. uneducated

Move to step 2 of arguement, put down opponent. Use as many stereotypes as possible. Assume he is stupid. Reinforce own's e-peen by talking about all the books you read and the left-wing sources that give credibility to the left wing sources you diefy and quote religiously as fact. Right wing christians have the Bible, Left wing secular humanists have Chomsky. Both hold as much fact as the other.

Quote from: "Dionysios"

Ignorant Trouble doer (aka the typical unthinking american),

  Never heard of the Birch Society, eh?  You've got a lot to learn aboput american politics.  I have a lot more more books on history than just Noam Chomsky, guy.  My personal library has over ten thousand volumes which I have collected over twenty years.  I just shipped it to Greece.  Having packed it, I constructed forty 2' x 1' x1' plywood crates to ship it and it filled them all to the brink, and over half of it is history (including american, colonial, Orthodox Christian and Church history, eastern and western european, chinese, arab, african, ancient, native american, modern world, russian, greek, jewish, and more.  I consulkt these books much when I have the chance and the african section alone, for example is over four hundred books.  And I have carefully selected books by the right and left, et cetera based on what I deem are worthy volumes not justmerely Chomsky.


Quote from: "Dionysios"

Chomsky ...  You are the only individual foolish enough to have questioned the intelligence of this brilliant jewish intellectual when the united states are most starkly obvious to the world a corrupt government than at anytime I can remember in my life.  HIs books are now more in vogue than ever.  The New York Times stated he is arguable the most important intellectual alive.  There are so many people I come across from diverse cultures who are gresat fans of his and avid readres.  He has done a great service to the world.  Your criticism of him reveals a very small time partisan view.  How can you be so stupid?  


Actually no I am NOT the only person that criticizes him, most of academia laughs as him because of the broad generalizations and ridiculous conclusions he makes. Demonizing the very country that made him the multi-millionare he is today. I a many other people smarter then I compare him to a cult leader. By coming up with completely counter to reality opinions and ideas he brings in the people that have no ideas of their own, but know they don't agree with the ones they have seen. Such as impressionable teenagers and college students. Several decades of doing this means that those students he pushed his flith on 20-30 years ago are now writing for liberal papers such as your much-quoted New York Times. It's no surprise that a liberal paper would give awards to the greatest brainwasher and polarizing figure of the left. Ontop of this self-reinforcing cycle he has created, he makes millions from books and speaking tours every year. He ends up putting much of this money into mutual funds and trusts that protect and multiply his money. He is using the very system he preaches against to make himself richer. it just adds to the evidence that he is just as much an "evil" exploitive capitalist as the ones he creates in his writings. He's a genius, when it comes to making money.


Quote from: "Dionysios"

  I know I did the right thing to get out of the unioversity as they are hiring morons like you.  You know nothing. And nothing from nothing leaves you.  My long standing interest in history was what caused me to abandon the universities and could not tolerate to have my brain washed.


You're stupid because you disagree with me and make good points! Screw debate I'm going to attack you and reinforce my E-peen!

Quote from: "Dionysios"

How can you be so stubborn?  Does it not smack you in the face you parrot all the Bush administration and the rich minority wants?  HOw many times do you have to be hit over the head with a baseball bat to realize that?

The Bush administration is evil and eats babies! If you do not agree with me you are stupid!

Quote from: "Dionysios"

  Damn you are an ignorant bastard on middle ages history who knows common stupid kindegarten garbage only.  You parrot the protestant capitalist historians.  Have you never heard of or read Hilaire Belloc or G. K. Chesterton?  Of course, you are going to say they are overrated idiots.  I guess the Bible is overrated garbage as well if it gets in america's way, right?

In an effort to defend myself here, without just furiously stroking my ego like Dionysios, I'm a History grad student. I am currently on the 2nd year of my Ph.D at Umass Amherst and I am a teaching assitant for both a history 100 and history 205 class (world history and middle ages). My undergrad is from the University of Chicago in History and I also have a certificate in Medieval Studies from there. I have written numerous papers on parts of middle ages history and my thesis is going to be on the search for the Historical Jesus. So please, if you want to call me stupid, go ahead. It will just reinforce how irate you make yourself sound.

Quote from: "Dionysios"

  The catholic historian Hilaire Beloc's 'Servile State' is one book guaranteed to transform a student of capitalism into a socialist.  Guess that's why you are scared to read books by the opposition, you wimp.

  May God damn capitalism -  the triumph of the few and the corrupt.

God bless crazy left-wingers. Who would provide humor without them?

Quote from: "Dionysios"

The serfs owned their own property and the means of production.  They were a step up from a slave which the Roman empire left society.... Blah blah blah blah...How dare you be sinlge minded and accuse me of having read only one view, you hypocrite?!...A proletariat is a step down from a peasant.  A peasant owns his own land , but a proletariat has had his land taken from him... Then the capitalists run universities and to indoctrinate losers like you with nothing better to do with their lives than to represent their cause and indoctrinate other unthinking students....

I declare you are not a historian at all in any sense and are completely ignorant of history.  

You count a dishonourable peice of paper as knowledge.  

Well, my naive friend, a peice of paper and knowledge are two different things.  

All the college degrees and Ph.D's in the world are not going to change that.  

Knowledge is knowledge.  

IF you have it, you have it, and if you don't you don't.  And you're more of a bu**sh** artist than anything.

 One thing the world does have too much of - stupid young americans.

If only they were wiser to the propaganda that is aimed at them.  

  By the way,  I was not served Chomsky books on a plate by a long shot.  
- DIonysios


I am so glad you finished off your post with irate rantings to prove my predictions about you as true. Also your knowledge of land ownership in the middle ages is, well, inaccurate. The lords owned the land, the serfs worked it. Let me ask you, if you are such an expert on history, how many primary sources have you referenced to form your opinions on middle ages history? Could you even read them if presented to you untranslated?  You assume way way way too much about academia and other people in general. You just keep making yourself look silly.

Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #28 on: May 10, 2006, 11:03:31 AM »
Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Yes Dionysios I was agreeing with you and Gustave5346. I'm going to reply to troubadour's post now but it's very long so I'll have to edit it and do it a bit at a time.

Quote from: "troubadour"
Skilled labor should get paid more...


Quote from: "troubadour"

Explain Bill Gates, a college dropout who is now the richest man in the world.



Slight contradiction?

Gates created his own business using his own good business sense. He does not fall under the catagory of skilled labor. Factory workers and technicians and office workers are skilled labor. At least you tryed to pick apart my arguements intead of going into a crazy rant about how I'm a stupid idiot bible-beating right-wing christian like Dion is suggesting.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Distributism, Socialism, Or Capitalism
« Reply #29 on: May 10, 2006, 01:52:42 PM »
Quote from: "Gustave5436"
Do you think it makes sense to allow one person to be born on the street, but the other person born with silver spoon in mouth, ready to inherit billions of dollars?


I guess this depends on what you mean by "allow".  I am certainly not wealthy, nor has my family ever been wealthy.  But they certainly do have a greater income than the baseline -- i.e. they're the greedy, selfish bastards who've been leeching off the poor and destitute.  What has my family done -- that's "what has it done", not, "what has it decided not to do" -- that "allowed" somebody to be homeless unemployed and hungry?  I can't see anything.  What I do know is that it has produced goods, services, and labor -- both skilled and unskilled -- over the course of the 20th century.  Goods, services, and labor are things that somebody wanted and was willing to pay members of my family for.

If somebody tried to take away what my family produced or what my family earned, to give it to somebody else who did not produce or earn it, that would be theft.

If my family's products had been so valuable that I was now in a position to inherit millions of dollars, it would not make it any less an act of looting to take that inheritance away.  That said, my mere acceptance of such an inheritance -- without myself producing goods, services, or labor that somebody else wanted -- is no less deplorable.

Quote
I don't understand how anyone, unless they are a greedy rich person themself, can support capitalism.


I certainly think it makes sense that wealth not be uniformly distributed, kind of in the same way that it makes sense that I'm going to die some day and it makes sense that when I let go of a rock it will fall to the ground.

I definitely don't see how it "makes more sense" that wealth be distributed uniformly.  Why should it be so?  Do I benefit from it?  Maybe... if I had less to begin with.  Does society benefit from it?  What exactly determines how good society is?  Sure, if we say society A is better than society B iff society A has a higher poverty line, then yes, a uniform distribution of wealth is good for society.

-Erasmus
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?