Socialism

[Rouger2]

First you say that socialism, an economic system, is run by the people a governing system. I think it would be better for peoples understanding to just define socialism in the old way as an economic system and add the governing system to it like democracy like you did later or totaltarianism as in your revolutionary socialism.

[leviathon]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

First you say that socialism, an economic system, is run by the people a governing system. I think it would be better for peoples understanding to just define socialism in the old way as an economic system and add the governing system to it like democracy like you did later or totaltarianism as in your revolutionary socialism.

The economic system is what is important, but clearly this must be allied alongside some sort of political system.

[Ezra Smack]

Various attempts to implement this system resulted in over one hundred million people being murdered by their own covernments in the last century.

You have much to learn. start here.Liberty Radio Underground
14 Episode 5 [the free market] is probably the best condenced explaination of the free market yet.

[7960]

Originally Posted by leviathon

You're a happy fellow aren't you?

Actually I am, nice you noticed.

...we must agree that justice, not only in law but in life and equality is a good thing and that life will always be unfair is no argument to try to rectify it as much as possible.

Of course it's a good thing, and that's why everyone has the same basic rights. Everyone meets the minimum, I guess is a good way to say it. Some have more money and can afford more/different/better, but your idea to take from some to give to others is counterproductive.

If life is unfair why not just bring back slavery?

How ignorant this is....slavery subjugates a people and takes away their basic rights (see above) so it's wrong. Being born poor doesn't take away any of your rights.

It would boost the economy, provide a better standard of life for all citizens, as slaves would not be citizens, and would ensure the United States remains the sole world super-power given its access to pletiful and free labour. And hey, life's unfair too fucking bad.

Stupid, stupid stupid stupid. This isn't even a decent attempt to strawman a reply.

Not all people, certainly some and of course like in every state corruption would have to be countered. But this is no different to everywhere and with strong democratic principles and various checks and requirements for open government the problem would be no greater, if not less, than in any other nation.

And where has this worked?

No, it supports an equal and flourishing society where all can live in peace and work together for the society.

No, it supports a "do the minimum and we'll provide the rest" society.

[7960]

Originally Posted by leviathon

No, the people would take the land back for themselves. How do you think land was gained in the first place? Who/what is to say that the piece of land your house occupies belongs to you and not to your neighbour, only paper and ink. Property rights represent the inequality engrained in the capitalist which is possibly worse than that found under feudalism and similar systems.

So you'd be ok with me deciding I liked your house better than the one I was in, and while you're away working for the greater good you wouldn't mind if I moved your stuff out and moved my stuff in?

[7960]

Originally Posted by leviathon

But you're not considered "the same". Your life and welfare are considered equal to his,

We've got that today.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by leviathon

=theft.

In opposites world, yes

[leviathon]

Originally Posted by motivez

Isn't the market the people? Aren't people capable of looking out for their own best interests and deciding what's best for themselves?

Why do they need a government telling them what's best for them?

No, the market is a mechanism by which the people can screw each other for some to gain. The governmnet is the people, and it looks out for the interests of all the people, so its the people deciding what's best for themselves without trying to screw each other over constantly.

Originally Posted by motivez

Why wouldn't it be more so in socialism, where the government has an even greater control over more aspects of life? It doesn't make sense that it would be equally disastrous in both systems if in one, the government has far more control.

In my form of democratic socialism all people in power are elected and chosen by the people, so whilst there will still be some risk it is in fact better than in capitalism. For in capitalism power is largely gained by wealth, and so the possibility of abuses of the power and unintelligent wielding of it is higher.

Originally Posted by motivez

But where does that profit come from? From the labor of the people working for the business.. so it's in their own self interest to keep their laborers happy, so they can maximize their profits.

No, that doesn't follow. It's in the business's interests to pay their workers as little as possible for as much work as possible, see the unfettered capitalism which manifests as sweatshops and factories across the developing world.

Originally Posted by motivez

Why do you so easily separate the two? Obviously the entire reason to run a business is to make money so you can improve your situation, but the better job your workers do for you, the more profit you make, and the more successful you become

As that businesses success increases, the workers will demand to profit from their labors as well, and the business will be forced to compensate them for their work.

In practice this doesn't happen, the most succesful (in terms of profit) supermarket in Britain is Tesco, but their workers don't get payed any more than those who work for Asda or Aldi or their local newsagents. Socialism demands profits for the workers so that they are fairly compensated for their work.

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, but it's an oxymoron when it comes to Cuba. It's not Democracy, no one can run against Castro in a free, fair, and open election.. Chavez tried to prevent people from being able to challenge his power in that latest vote and was, thankfully for the people of Venezuela, voted down.

What vote is this? I have not heard that Chavez tried to block opposition to his presidency.

[leviathon]

Originally Posted by Ezra Smack

Various attempts to implement this system resulted in over one hundred million people being murdered by their own covernments in the last century.

You have much to learn. start here.Liberty Radio Underground
14 Episode 5 [the free market] is probably the best condenced explaination of the free market yet.

I support neither China nor the USSR, neither represented socialism nor communism.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

And why not?

Because I'm not a looter and as a result can't understand what drives someone to be one.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by leviathon

No, the market is a mechanism by which the people can screw each other for some to gain. The governmnet is the people, and it looks out for the interests of all the people, so its the people deciding what's best for themselves without trying to screw each other over constantly.

[leviathon]

Originally Posted by 7960

Actually I am, nice you noticed.

Good to hear.

Originally Posted by 7960

Of course it's a good thing, and that's why everyone has the same basic rights. Everyone meets the minimum, I guess is a good way to say it. Some have more money and can afford more/different/better, but your idea to take from some to give to others is counterproductive.

There is a quote:

The remission of debts was peculiar to Solon; it was his great means for confirming the citizens' liberty; for a mere law to give all men equal rights is but useless, if the poor must sacrfice those rights to their debts, and, in the very seats and sancturies of equality, the courts of justice, the offices of state, and the public discussions, be more than anywhere at the beck and bidding of the rich

That will suffice as my answer, and despite being written of a society thousands of years old is still relevant today.

Originally Posted by 7960

How ignorant this is....slavery subjugates a people and takes away their basic rights (see above) so it's wrong. Being born poor doesn't take away any of your rights.

See above about being poor not taking away rights or freedoms. Yeah, it is ignorant, but like you said life's not fair.

Originally Posted by 7960

Stupid, stupid stupid stupid. This isn't even a decent attempt to strawman a reply.

It shows how your answer lacks logic, just because life is unfair does not mean we shouldn't work to rectify it as much as possible.

Originally Posted by 7960

And where has this worked?

Well Venezuela would be a prime example for the moment.

Originally Posted by 7960

No, it supports a "do the minimum and we'll provide the rest" society.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of socialism, think of what Marx said, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his abilities.

[leviathon]

Originally Posted by 7960

So you'd be ok with me deciding I liked your house better than the one I was in, and while you're away working for the greater good you wouldn't mind if I moved your stuff out and moved my stuff in?

Of course not, this doesn't even come close to adressing the point.

[leviathon]

Originally Posted by 7960

We've got that today.

Supposedly, but yes this would not change in socialism.

[leviathon]

Originally Posted by thewise1

In opposites world, yes

Would you care to argue this out or are you happy to make one-liners and play to the crowd?

[leviathon]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Because I'm not a looter and as a result can't understand what drives someone to be one.

Originally Posted by thewise1

Don't bother to answer my question above, I've got my answer. You know, for a poster called "thewise" you sure seem to be lacking in reasoned arguments.

[Ardentfrost]

Maybe study some American history, particularly the capitalist stuff?

The market is not just one controlling group bitch slapping the working class, like you seem to believe. That is pretty much what Marx said, but he said that because his family didn't have money when he was too young to understand the working class, then became well off and said "hey, this is way better than being poor! Everyone should be rich!"

A workplace is a give and take between employers and employees. BOTH groups want to make money. Without the employees, the employer makes nothing and vice versa. Industries have learned that keeping their employees happy and working is the ONLY way to turn a profit. It has been discovered that high turnover KILLS profits. This is why you get really ahead-of-the-curve business plans in some companies, proving that the marketplace works.

Places like Southwest who has said publicly "The customer is not always right." Southwest backs their employees when a customer gets belligerent, not the other way around which is the "norm." And other companies are catching on to this. Because by backing their employees, Southwest has some of the happiest workers out of any company. They have incredibly low turnover, and some of the highest profits in the airline industry.

Companies like SAS have realized similar things. They provide their employees with free on-site checkups and physicals, childcare, gym and golf course memberships, and they work only 7 hours a day. All of that is to reduce the number of days employees feel they need to take off for various reasons (sick days, etc..) and, of course, creates extremely low turnover. SAS is the most successful company in North Carolina.

Companies like these represent the future of the free market. The success they are able to achieve by going against the normalcy of working 40 hour weeks, 8 hour days, taking your own time to go to the doctor or dealing with your family, always trusting a customer over the employee, etc... is spreading. The ideas are NOT counter-intuitive, they make sense and they work.

But even in the bad old days, workers found they had power over the company, and they still do. If something really bad is happening, a localized union can form and take care of issues.

Capitalism isn't a system that forces people to only look out for themselves. It is a system in which people look out for each other because they are better off by someone else being better off. Money is the unifier, which is natural.

Socialism isn't natural. It isn't intuitive for people to work hard so they can get the same government benefits of someone who doesn't work hard. It isn't natural for people to want to do a lot of work unless they're going to get compensated for it. Without entrepreneurship, discovery is stunted.

And that doesn't even begin to address the "slaves to the state" issues.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by leviathon

Don't bother to answer my question above, I've got my answer. You know, for a poster called "thewise" you sure seem to be lacking in reasoned arguments.

I'm not the one that said the market is a place where people screw other for some to gain

[leviathon]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I'm not the one that said the market is a place where people screw other for some to gain

Another classy argument, keep them up.