What Economic System?

[realist]

I hear this kind of talk all the time. For me, such talk is much too conservative, for it entails that the world is in fact never going to change. I do not wish to live in such a world. Your vision of the future is not so acute as you may imagine, I think.

As you grow and learn you will do well. At 17 I'm impressed with the creative ideas that you have even though I think they are much to idealistic. I also apologize for some past posts that were rather harsh. (Voice of Reason's posts have helped me relax a bit) Keep expressing your ideas and keep learning.

 

[Spirit of Nirvana]

Apparently you don't understand Labor Unions. First, they depend on those low paying jobs that so many complain about. Wal-Mart is the first example I can think of. They're always being attacked for low pay among other issues. BUT, how much does a Wal-Mart employee really deserve? If everyone made the same as union members then there would be no need for unions in the first place. Second, if our government was run by an organization that made deals with labor unions to oversee our workers it wouldn't be long until we became a third world nation. Think about shoe companies or clothing companies & where they get their labor. What are the conditions? You can't really believe your idea holds any merit...at least I hope not.

I was refering to industrial unions, not the petty unions which prevail in todays society but however the unions of Eugene Debs time.

I did not say the government would be run by unions the unions would protect the interest of workers, such as in wages and working conditions.

You simply do not understand socialism and unionism, please read these:
Principles of Communism
Revolutionary Unionism

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

I was refering to industrial unions, not the petty unions which prevail in todays society but however the unions of Eugene Debs time.

I did not say the government would be run by unions the unions would protect the interest of workers, such as in wages and working conditions.

You simply do not understand socialism and unionism, please read these:
Principles of Communism
Revolutionary Unionism

I can't believe you actually think these links provide some real solutions to what some call an unfair capitalist society.

Under capitalism I can bargain my own wage...without interference from a labor union. Under your suggestions I could not ever dream of working for myself.

I have been a business owner (my wife still does own & operate the business). I have bargained my own wage to be higher than the average start wage at several of the places I've worked. I have worked for a company that requires me to be in a labor union.

What you're proposing isn't that different from labor unions...it's just on a much larger scale. Government run programs or businesses are never efficient.

 

[stump]

You simply do not understand socialism and unionism, please read these:
Principles of Communism
Revolutionary Unionism

I'd suggest you read Animal Farm by George Orwell.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

I'd suggest you read Animal Farm by George Orwell.

Since this is turning into a suggestive reading thread I'll give mine...

"How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy & Found Inner-Peace" by Harry Stein

 

[Spirit of Nirvana]

I read Animal Farm, which was a critique of the Soviet Union by the socialist author Orwell.

The Soviet Union was not socialist.

 

[GPS_Flex]

The Soviet Union was not socialist.

Sure it was. So was Hitler and his Nazi party. Very different forms of socialism but socialism nonetheless.

 

[V.I. Lenin]

Sure it was. So was Hitler and his Nazi party. Very different forms of socialism but socialism nonetheless.

Well, the Soviet Union wasn't really socialist. It was state-run capitalism, especially under Stalin. Nazi Germany...socialist? Sorry, the whole commies in concentration camps and government alliances with German corporations must've thrown me off.

Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, North Korea and..sadly..Cuba were never socialist. It's like saying America is purely democratic.

 

[GPS_Flex]

At 17 I'm impressed with the creative ideas that you have even though I think they are much to idealistic.

anomaly is 17? This would explain many things if true.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Nazi Germany...socialist? Sorry, the whole commies in concentration camps and government alliances with German corporations must've thrown me off.

I’m not sure whether you’re being sarcastic so I’ll wait for further elaboration before responding.

 

[anomaly]

I’m supprised to see you admit that you “don’t know it”. I would’ve thought someone as enlightened as you would recognize the enemy he faces in a conquest such as yours. You might learn to warm to the idea of utter defeat on every front in time because a warrior who knows not the face of his enemy will visit it often. I hear it goes down easier with a tall glass of Jonestown Kool-Aid.



The economic environment certainly has an impact on our actions but that wasn’t the topic at hand now was it? You continue to skirt the issues and side step the challenges human morality and human nature present to your ideas of socialism.

Let me ask you a point blank question: If Israel annexed Palestine into its province, would that end all of the strife in that region? If you think there is no correlation between the question and your theory of a socioeconomic system you haven’t taken the time to consider the applications of your system or solve the inherent flaws therein. If you haven’t taken your eco/socio model far enough to account for these variables you really “don’t know” and should take an underwater basket weaving class next semester and leave issues like this to those who do know.

Let me reply to the second part of this post, since that first section is just garbage. This issue is that yes, our surrounding political and economic environment has a definite impact on our actions, as well as the way we think. I'm glad to see you've gotten my point. Issues such as greed will always come about, but the very existence of some outlet for this greed is the obvious solution to the problem of 'human nature'. In socialism, if one is greedy enough, they will keep their money to themselves. simple as that. And isn't it exactly the same way today? Now, if the greed of a person causes them to refuse to pay taxes, that's illegal. The degree of greed is obviously important, but it's really no different than today, in that aspect. The difference is that a government supported welffare program and pro-labor government will ease the greed of human beings. Today, all the messages are to get a rich as you can as fast as possible and to hell with anyone who gets in my way. You must of course realize that collectivist societies have existed before, and somehow this 'nature of human beings' stuff you're throwing at me just didn't really effect the society. What affected these societies were capitalist imperialists who, in their day and age, knew that land=power, and therefore wanted all the land they could get. Human nature will never destroy any economic system.

 

[anomaly]

Well, the Soviet Union wasn't really socialist. It was state-run capitalism, especially under Stalin. Nazi Germany...socialist? Sorry, the whole commies in concentration camps and government alliances with German corporations must've thrown me off.

Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, North Korea and..sadly..Cuba were never socialist. It's like saying America is purely democratic.

Actually, VI, I've always viewed these nations as socialist nations (except for Nazi Germany, they were never socialist; they were fascist.). These nations were what I've termed 'authoritorian socialist' nations, meaning socialist economy and tyrannical government. What's obvious is that any government based on tyranny is obviously doomed to failure right away. Socialism involves the government controlloing the means of production. Now if this government consists of a Vanguard over which the people have no control, how successful will this nation be? Not very, obviously. The very nature of socialism entails that for efficiency, democracy must exist. Would you not agree, VI?

 

[anomaly]

anomaly is 17? This would explain many things if true.

Yes, I'm 17, and yes, I realize I'm quite idealistic, although I do not think the system I have proposed is quite as idealistic as many of you might imagine. Socialism is not pretty, it is, as I have described, made up of a rigid, yet democratic, bureacracy. A key thing to understand, though, is that the goal is, in the end. to do away with this bureacracy. I provide some ideas on how this may be done through my political ideas rather than my economical ones. The party I've proposed for gaining power will be made up of divisions, to provide voters with a definite choice, but also to provide an opportunity to advance. There will be a radical wing and a revisionist wing. The revisionists will include the socialists who are not pushing for immediate change and ex-liberals. The radical wing will include communists and anarchists who, obviously, wish to advance to more 'communistic' trends immediately, and under world socialism, these radicals will be the ones pushing for the advance to communism. So it is up to the people, the voters, to decide their own government's actions.

Getting back to your inquiry, however, I'm sure that you knowing I'm 17 will give you a sense that you, the odler one, must be right. Let me inform you that you are incorrect in this thinking. I am idealistic, yes, I admit that (again, I do not think my system is quite as idealistic as I am), but I'd much rather be an idealistic individual searching for truth, societal advance, and beneficial change than an old cynic who can not see beyond his next five minutes. Take that as you may; it is not intended to be about you specifically, but rather the large group of individuals like you.

 

[Spirit of Nirvana]

Actually, VI, I've always viewed these nations as socialist nations (except for Nazi Germany, they were never socialist; they were fascist.). These nations were what I've termed 'authoritorian socialist' nations, meaning socialist economy and tyrannical government. What's obvious is that any government based on tyranny is obviously doomed to failure right away. Socialism involves the government controlloing the means of production. Now if this government consists of a Vanguard over which the people have no control, how successful will this nation be? Not very, obviously. The very nature of socialism entails that for efficiency, democracy must exist. Would you not agree, VI?

These states did not operate a socialist mode of economics because the non-existance of worker-owned industry and a party elite.

A vanguard party-state is meant to be composed of workers and represent workers, the Soviet Union did not do so and the party-state established state-capitalism.

 

[anomaly]

These states did not operate a socialist mode of economics because the non-existance of worker-owned industry and a party elite.

A vanguard party-state is meant to be composed of workers and represent workers, the Soviet Union did not do so and the party-state established state-capitalism.

Labels applied to the Soviet Union, comrade, are irrelevant. What is important is that we show everyone that the USSR does not resemble the socialism we wish to establish. Any denunciation of the Soviet Union is acceptible, would you not agree?

 

[stump]

Labels applied to the Soviet Union, comrade, are irrelevant. What is important is that we show everyone that the USSR does not resemble the socialism we wish to establish. Any denunciation of the Soviet Union is acceptible, would you not agree?

The Soviet Union wasn't what Lenin wanted to establish either. It's simply the logical end result of Marxist policies when done on a large scale.

 

[petrsykora39]

I guess I have just a couple questions for all the pro-Capitalist people out there. I've heard that many are against Communism, Socialism, etc. because there is no incentive for individuals to work hard. That is, you want your sports car and that is only available in your Capitalist society. Alright, if Capitalism offers so much opportunity and incentive for hard workers, why isn't everyone in the U.S. a millionaire driving a fast car while living in a mansion? Are you suggesting that the vast, vast, vast majority of this country are all lazy and that is why they haven't been able to achieve all their wealth? In addition, is it your claim that EVERYONE who is wealthy in this country achieved that wealth through hard work and dedication? Why is our Capitalist government spending vast amounts of money for corporate bailouts financed by the taxpayers? By the way, you can say whatever you want about workers at Walmart. I am of the opinion that they work damn hard for their money and aren't paid nearly enough for their services. Rather, CEO's that make enormous salaries while running their companies into the ground without doing an ounce of work are the ones who are truly overpaid.

Stalin has received a great deal of criticism for his economic policies. However, one fact is clearly unavoidable. Namely, he transformed (actually dragged) the USSR from a farming-based society mired in the Dark Ages to a much more technologically-advanced, modernized nation.

 

[stump]

That is, you want your sports car and that is only available in your Capitalist society. Alright, if Capitalism offers so much opportunity and incentive for hard workers, why isn't everyone in the U.S. a millionaire driving a fast car while living in a mansion?

I can only answer for me and that is because I don't want those things. That's one of the big reasons I prefer capitalism to communism. Freedom and choice. I have the freedom to pursue non material things if I want or material things if I choose.

You're also making a logical mistake by comparing Americans to Americans. Sports cars are sports cars only because they are better than average. The average car in America is a sports car compared to many places. Same with millionaires. If everyone in America was a millionaire then being a millionaire wouldn't mean much. There's only so many resources so what we'd have to have is huge inflation. In Mexico they're living in huts, my house is a mansion to them.

But if you want to compare PPP for America against communist and socialist countries then we are all driving "sports cars" and living in "mansions".

Stalin has received a great deal of criticism for his economic policies. However, one fact is clearly unavoidable. Namely, he transformed (actually dragged) the USSR from a farming-based society mired in the Dark Ages to a much more technologically-advanced, modernized nation.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time. :roll:

 

[josh]

and Capitalism means 50,000 people die each day in Africa from preventable diseases and hunger.

 

[stump]

and Capitalism means 50,000 people die each day in Africa from preventable diseases and hunger.

How do you figure? At worst, capitalism means we know that there is a possibility of preventing 50,000 (?) deaths a day in Africa. Whereas, under communism we wouldn't have the technology to do that so they'd die anyway we just wouldn't know there's a way to save them.

:screwy

Capitalism isn't killing these people. And communism isn't saving them. It's civil wars, fascist leaders, and ignorance that is killing them.

 

[petrsykora39]

I think you completely missed my point. That is, I've heard many Capitalists state that anyone who works hard can achieve material wealth. Well, most Americans ARE NOT wealthy. So, that must mean that either most Americans are too lazy to be successful or claiming that everyone has the opportunity to become successful under a Capitalist economy is pure propaganda. Well, I believe that most Americans DO work hard so I subscribe to the latter. Of course, that doesn't even take into account the fact that not all wealthy people in this country have worked hard to secure that wealth. Although anyone can win the lottery, to suggest that there are numerous opportunities for a hard worker to obtain success under Capitalism is just plain silly.

As for my comments regarding Stalin, you can believe what you'd like. If you don't believe me, try reading a book or two.

 

[petrsykora39]

There's something else that I wanted to add. Namely, we don't live in a democracy. We live in a plutocracy. It's an unfortunate fact, but a fact nonetheless.

 

[stump]

I think you completely missed my point.

Well, sure. Your point was that capitalism is bad and communism/socialism is good.

But regardless of your point, most Americans ARE wealthy in fact I'd say all but a very few are wealthy.

What is the poverty threshold in America? Like $12,000 for a family of 2. That's 4 times the PPP of Cuba. About $3,000 more than the PPP in Russia. And $4,000 more than worldwide PPP.

While it would be great if everyone could be making $40,000 or more a year it's still better, IMHO, to earn $12,000 and be poorer than your neighbors than $6,000 and have everyone be as "rich" as you.

As for my comments regarding Stalin, you can believe what you'd like. If you don't believe me, try reading a book or two.

Resorting to petty insults already? I've actually read 3 books! :mrgreen:

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Well, sure. Your point was that capitalism is bad and communism/socialism is good.

But regardless of your point, most Americans ARE wealthy in fact I'd say all but a very few are wealthy.

What is the poverty threshold in America? Like $12,000 for a family of 2. That's 4 times the PPP of Cuba. About $3,000 more than the PPP in Russia. And $4,000 more than worldwide PPP.

While it would be great if everyone could be making $40,000 or more a year it's still better, IMHO, to earn $12,000 and be poorer than your neighbors than $6,000 and have everyone be as "rich" as you.



Resorting to petty insults already? I've actually read 3 books! :mrgreen:

I've read a bunch...all by the same author...he just happens to be my favorite...the author's name is Cliff Notes...LOL...

 

[GPS_Flex]

Let me reply to the second part of this post, since that first section is just garbage.

While I interjected humor, the point I made is historically and, I would argue, mathematically true and worthy of consideration. If you don’t know your opponent, your dreams are destined to fail. I know you won’t take my word for it because you think me an ignorant capitalist but you’ll learn this lesson in time. If you want a crash course on the subject, I suggest you join your school’s football team.

Issues such as greed will always come about, but the very existence of some outlet for this greed is the obvious solution to the problem of 'human nature'.

I see, you’ve solved the ‘human nature’ problem by providing “the very existence of some outlet” and now it will work, where it never has in the past, why?

In socialism, if one is greedy enough, they will keep their money to themselves.

Are you talking about the money the government gives them or the money they actually create/make? There’s a big difference between the two. Are you implying that the government will take a bias towards those who produce more than those who produce less? If so, how is this any different from the capitalist? If one is rewarded according to skill and production capabilities, all you’ve done is shift the power to decide who is producing and who isn’t to the government.

Yes, I know you think labor elections within a company and government advisors will fix all the problems with production but you haven’t considered what they do with the people who are dumber than sticks and non-productive or the companies that aren’t producing what the government has “planned”. Does the government fire them? Do they just sit at home and draw a “dumber than a stick” check from the government? If so, who pays for it and what’s to stop a guy like me from acting too stupid to be employed if I can still drive as nice a car as the guy who kicks ass in production?

The degree of greed is obviously important, but it's really no different than today, in that aspect. The difference is that a government supported welffare program and pro-labor government will ease the greed of human beings.

You call my “human nature” argument “garbage” and then you post this? What do you think Napolean needed? Do you think he was a freak of nature? This is the biggest flaw in your dream/argument. There’s a reason I call it “socioeconomic” and you might have a vague idea what that means but it’s clear you have no idea what it means in practical applications because you are ignorant of the cultures, values, religions, emotions and psychological tendencies of the masses.

Today, all the messages are to get a rich as you can as fast as possible and to hell with anyone who gets in my way.

I fail to see how this is a “message”. Who is this “message” from? The devil? God himself? Natural instinct?

From the first complex society on record to date, this has been the nature of humans. This isn’t a recent phenomenon. Yet you will change it with what? “[T]he very existence of some outlet for this greed..”? What if it turns out to be the devil spurring this greed in humans? You think your government paying a guy, who would make millions in a capitalist environment, a few extra dollars a month is going to keep him happy?

You must of course realize that collectivist societies have existed before, and somehow this 'nature of human beings' stuff you're throwing at me just didn't really effect the society.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Sure, collectivist tribes have always existed. Your ignorance is glaring. Name one successful complex society that is/was collectivist. You can’t. The sad part is, you don’t even know why you can’t. Think about my last sentence for a second and then tell me the first part of my post was “garbage”. You call it “garbage” because it’s a factor in the equation you can’t define.

What affected these societies were capitalist imperialists who, in their day and age, knew that land=power, and therefore wanted all the land they could get

How quaint! Irrelevant and canned like tuna. Hitler was a socialist but that didn’t stop him from wanting land and power now did it?

Human nature will never destroy any economic system.

How naïve this statement is. How well off do you think Germany was after World War Two? This has to be about the most ignorant thing I’ve ever seen you say. Whether Hitler was a socialist or not, we can debate but wasn’t up for debate is the fact that the “human nature” in Hitler destroyed Germany. How about Napoleon? I could name myriad of leaders and societies to prove your position utterly ignorant.

I respect you but you aren’t as smart as you seem to think you are.