OtherGround Forums It Shouldn't be "Capitalism Vs Socialism"

11 days ago
3/18/14
Posts: 1377

A great irony is that laissez-faire capitalism and end-state communism are pretty much the same thing.

 

Keynes probably provides the most functional theory.

11 days ago
3/18/14
Posts: 1378
Vegito Blue -

Capitalism - God’s way of determining who’s smart and who’s poor

 

Its the only way 

This is true for adults. How about something like this:

 

All children get the chance to prove themself. No inheritance. Universal healthcare for everyone under 18. Free and equitable education for every child. No disparity in schools. Healthy diets.

 

Then when you turn 18 thats it youre on your own. You earn your living, no handouts.  You want further education? You can prove your smarts and work your ass off. Positions are determined by academic performance alone. Let the cream rise to the top.

 

This is a very easily implemented system, and it exists to degrees in some countries. Its not hard to identify who doesn't want it.

11 days ago
4/19/09
Posts: 32689
robert bentley -

This is a childish framing of the discussion and essentially a result of tribalism. People are less interested in discussing whatever the topics are at hand than they are yelling about which team they're on -- and in this case it's "Team Capitalism Vs Team Socialism"

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. 

When you make a topic more about an identity to be protected, you're less likely to listen to good ideas. There are wonderfully functional free-market economies out there in the world that allow for wealth-generation, property ownership, and private enterprise...all while tackling issues such as worker's rights, poverty, education, healthcare, and social support systems.

These systems aren't perfect by any stretch of course - but there are *some* things they're doing better than the U.S and it would make sense to look at how they're tackling these problems instead of dismissing everything that isn't corporate worship as socialism or communism.

For example - I believe in the power of the free market and don't believe there should even BE a minimum wage. However - I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize). The general working class should have more control over what is and isn't acceptable with respect to their treatment, and when they have that power - a federally mandated minimum wage isn't necessary.

BUT - in the U.S perhaps a higher minimum wage IS necessary. If corporations and lobbyists aren't willing to cede ground in allowing people to organize etc then they have no real power to keep corporate interests in check. Perhaps in this scenario a mandatory minimum wage is necessary.

On a very general note there is the benefits to literally everyone in society when that society itself is elevated; so improvements to education, healthcare, and systems in place for when people fall on hard luck -- are all things which maximize the general talent pool. If you want more people contributing to the greater good, and more talent available for medical, scientific, or cultural advancements -- you're going to want fewer people starving or just barely scraping by. 

I

The people you are addressing  on this forum are not politically literate. 

11 days ago
4/1/15
Posts: 1248
rudiger -
Vegito Blue -

Capitalism - God’s way of determining who’s smart and who’s poor

 

Its the only way 

This is true for adults. How about something like this:

 

All children get the chance to prove themself. No inheritance. Universal healthcare for everyone under 18. Free and equitable education for every child. No disparity in schools. Healthy diets.

 

Then when you turn 18 thats it youre on your own. You earn your living, no handouts.  You want further education? You can prove your smarts and work your ass off. Positions are determined by academic performance alone. Let the cream rise to the top.

 

This is a very easily implemented system, and it exists to degrees in some countries. Its not hard to identify who doesn't want it.

Amazing that someone so stupid is capable of typing.

11 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 29344
that's true, given both teams are socialists it should just be socialists vs socialists.
11 days ago
3/13/17
Posts: 8083
The Jentleman -

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.

Lmao. How do people end up believing garbage like this? 

Many services and advantages you enjoy are the product of “socialism”. I guess fire departments are evil. Public schools and libraries are evil. Police are evil!

but capitalist outcomes like corporations polluting a community because they only care about profit... that’s innocuous! Making products with cancerous ingredients because it’s more profitable ... that’s innocuous! 

 

You are exactly what OP is trying to rally against. The simplistic mentality that, capitalism GOOD, socialism BAD, and trying to label things as such... it’s a tribalist approach.

instead we should take the best things from every “system” and strive to be BETTER. Not to accept any less... I pity you and your thought pattern.

11 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4297
Pedro Navaja -
The Jentleman -

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.

Lmao. How do people end up believing garbage like this? 

Many services and advantages you enjoy are the product of “socialism”. I guess fire departments are evil. Public schools and libraries are evil. Police are evil!

but capitalist outcomes like corporations polluting a community because they only care about profit... that’s innocuous! Making products with cancerous ingredients because it’s more profitable ... that’s innocuous! 

 

You are exactly what OP is trying to rally against. The simplistic mentality that, capitalism GOOD, socialism BAD, and trying to label things as such... it’s a tribalist approach.

instead we should take the best things from every “system” and strive to be BETTER. Not to accept any less... I pity you and your thought pattern.

I never said any of that. Please have better comprehension of what I wrote and come back with an actual argument instead of a bunch of strawmen.

11 days ago
8/7/19
Posts: 302
Same crap with Robert, prefaces his remarks with I think both are great but then proceeds to do nothing but tell you why leftist unions and socialist policies are fantastic! Basically just a sales pitch for "Democratic Socialism" which is just rebranded socialism/fascism.


History has proven fully implemented socialism is an abject failure 100% of the time. Every fully socialist country became tyrannical, murdering tens of millions, imprisoning tens of millions, and eventually causing total economic collapse. Once again, this is every single time it's been attempted. Yet he doesn't mention these facts, instead it's some minor crimes (by comparison) by corporations.

What this tells any thinking person is that the concept of socialism is flawed at it's core. It's not a matter of implementation or degree, it's a matter of fact that your basic premise is false as evidenced by your results (not your rhetoric).

So the onus is on those advocating socialism to tell us how they have abandoned the principles that lead to devastation and have revised them with something valid. So far all I see is attaching the same philosophy onto capitalism like a parasite. Having government dictate wages, profits, higher regulations, etc...hmmm seems that's been tried and failed as well, just a slower death.

It's obvious he has no experience with unions or he would acknowledge their level of corruption, intimidation, etc.. can be on par with the worst corporations in history. Yes, they had their time to help, but ultimately became a burdensome special interest group that prevents growth with their ridiculous rules and demands. Look what they have done to the textile and steel industries, not to mention auto and ruining Detroit. Then we have government unions with ridiculous pay, pensions, etc..and no accountability. So just another failed leftist idea.

Le Shat
©



11 days ago
3/18/14
Posts: 1379
DuffyLaCoronilla -
rudiger -
Vegito Blue -

Capitalism - God’s way of determining who’s smart and who’s poor

 

Its the only way 

This is true for adults. How about something like this:

 

All children get the chance to prove themself. No inheritance. Universal healthcare for everyone under 18. Free and equitable education for every child. No disparity in schools. Healthy diets.

 

Then when you turn 18 thats it youre on your own. You earn your living, no handouts.  You want further education? You can prove your smarts and work your ass off. Positions are determined by academic performance alone. Let the cream rise to the top.

 

This is a very easily implemented system, and it exists to degrees in some countries. Its not hard to identify who doesn't want it.

Amazing that someone so stupid is capable of typing.

Why, are your children not very bright? Should we pay for the sins of our fathers? Go back to feudalism?

 

Ive always been an equity of opportunity guy. Its a cornerstone of American and subsequent western freedom.

11 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10704
Le Shat V2 - Same crap with Robert, prefaces his remarks with I think both are great but then proceeds to do nothing but tell you why leftist unions and socialist policies are fantastic! Basically just a sales pitch for "Democratic Socialism" which is just rebranded socialism/fascism.


History has proven fully implemented socialism is an abject failure 100% of the time. Every fully socialist country became tyrannical, murdering tens of millions, imprisoning tens of millions, and eventually causing total economic collapse. Once again, this is every single time it's been attempted. Yet he doesn't mention these facts, instead it's some minor crimes (by comparison) by corporations.

What this tells any thinking person is that the concept of socialism is flawed at it's core. It's not a matter of implementation or degree, it's a matter of fact that your basic premise is false as evidenced by your results (not your rhetoric).

So the onus is on those advocating socialism to tell us how they have abandoned the principles that lead to devastation and have revised them with something valid. So far all I see is attaching the same philosophy onto capitalism like a parasite. Having government dictate wages, profits, higher regulations, etc...hmmm seems that's been tried and failed as well, just a slower death.

It's obvious he has no experience with unions or he would acknowledge their level of corruption, intimidation, etc.. can be on par with the worst corporations in history. Yes, they had their time to help, but ultimately became a burdensome special interest group that prevents growth with their ridiculous rules and demands. Look what they have done to the textile and steel industries, not to mention auto and ruining Detroit. Then we have government unions with ridiculous pay, pensions, etc..and no accountability. So just another failed leftist idea.

Le Shat
©




You demonstrated on the other thread you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and that you're very much one of those cartoon characters made fun of by that meme where you scream that everything is socialism...until it works then it's not socialism - but we can't do those policies becase... it's socialism! 

The happiest countries in the world all have a strong labor union presence. Some call them socialist, or democratic socialist. Others say they'er capitalist but with strong support systems and greater support for the rights of workers to organize. You specifically get caught up in the name and the childish framing warned about in this thread and think all of those other countries *aren't* happy, that despite having far less income disparity, greater education, longer life-expectancy, greater health, and fewer infants dying -- that they're all socialist shitholes and... I'm assuming you just start screaming "USA USA" or something at this point. 

There's absolutely no reason why we have to choose an absolute system, and the fact that there are more than a dozen other economies out there that seem to be making a different system work pretty well for its citizens should give pause for thought. But you're not interested in thinking.

I personally DO have experience with unions, and everything your spouting off about is just nonsense corporate propaganda. There's a reason why the countries with the strongest unions ALSO have better treatment of their employees. There's a reason those countries also have better support systems, higher education, score higher on international education assessments, live longer, happier, healthier lives than most of the rest of the world - including the United States. 

Of course corporations want to convince you that unions are bad - they want to be able to pay their employees the absolute bare minimum they can get away with; and you personally have no problem with that.

 

11 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10705
The Jentleman - 
Pedro Navaja -
The Jentleman -

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.

Lmao. How do people end up believing garbage like this? 

Many services and advantages you enjoy are the product of “socialism”. I guess fire departments are evil. Public schools and libraries are evil. Police are evil!

but capitalist outcomes like corporations polluting a community because they only care about profit... that’s innocuous! Making products with cancerous ingredients because it’s more profitable ... that’s innocuous! 

 

You are exactly what OP is trying to rally against. The simplistic mentality that, capitalism GOOD, socialism BAD, and trying to label things as such... it’s a tribalist approach.

instead we should take the best things from every “system” and strive to be BETTER. Not to accept any less... I pity you and your thought pattern.

I never said any of that. Please have better comprehension of what I wrote and come back with an actual argument instead of a bunch of strawmen.


Yeah - I have disagreements with Jentleman but that's not how I read what he wrote.

I think part of the problem with discussions on this forum is that with every written word there are charitable and uncharitable ways to read something, and varying degrees of each. 

It can be easy sometimes to default to the least charitable interpretation of what's been written -- and in that case you often end up arguing more with yourself than with the person.

I'm guilty of it too of course - but I try to keep an eye out for it.

11 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 29345
Pedro Navaja - 
The Jentleman -

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.

Lmao. How do people end up believing garbage like this? 

Many services and advantages you enjoy are the product of “socialism”. I guess fire departments are evil. Public schools and libraries are evil. Police are evil!

but capitalist outcomes like corporations polluting a community because they only care about profit... that’s innocuous! Making products with cancerous ingredients because it’s more profitable ... that’s innocuous! 

 

You are exactly what OP is trying to rally against. The simplistic mentality that, capitalism GOOD, socialism BAD, and trying to label things as such... it’s a tribalist approach.

instead we should take the best things from every “system” and strive to be BETTER. Not to accept any less... I pity you and your thought pattern.


when you use willfully dishonest strawman arguments like this, it doesn't make your point, it just tells everybody you're a liar who doesn't believe their own ideology.

all those lying trumpets you can't stand, you are one of them.
11 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4298
robert bentley -
Le Shat V2 - Same crap with Robert, prefaces his remarks with I think both are great but then proceeds to do nothing but tell you why leftist unions and socialist policies are fantastic! Basically just a sales pitch for "Democratic Socialism" which is just rebranded socialism/fascism.


History has proven fully implemented socialism is an abject failure 100% of the time. Every fully socialist country became tyrannical, murdering tens of millions, imprisoning tens of millions, and eventually causing total economic collapse. Once again, this is every single time it's been attempted. Yet he doesn't mention these facts, instead it's some minor crimes (by comparison) by corporations.

What this tells any thinking person is that the concept of socialism is flawed at it's core. It's not a matter of implementation or degree, it's a matter of fact that your basic premise is false as evidenced by your results (not your rhetoric).

So the onus is on those advocating socialism to tell us how they have abandoned the principles that lead to devastation and have revised them with something valid. So far all I see is attaching the same philosophy onto capitalism like a parasite. Having government dictate wages, profits, higher regulations, etc...hmmm seems that's been tried and failed as well, just a slower death.

It's obvious he has no experience with unions or he would acknowledge their level of corruption, intimidation, etc.. can be on par with the worst corporations in history. Yes, they had their time to help, but ultimately became a burdensome special interest group that prevents growth with their ridiculous rules and demands. Look what they have done to the textile and steel industries, not to mention auto and ruining Detroit. Then we have government unions with ridiculous pay, pensions, etc..and no accountability. So just another failed leftist idea.

Le Shat
©




You demonstrated on the other thread you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and that you're very much one of those cartoon characters made fun of by that meme where you scream that everything is socialism...until it works then it's not socialism - but we can't do those policies becase... it's socialism! 

The happiest countries in the world all have a strong labor union presence. Some call them socialist, or democratic socialist. Others say they'er capitalist but with strong support systems and greater support for the rights of workers to organize. You specifically get caught up in the name and the childish framing warned about in this thread and think all of those other countries *aren't* happy, that despite having far less income disparity, greater education, longer life-expectancy, greater health, and fewer infants dying -- that they're all socialist shitholes and... I'm assuming you just start screaming "USA USA" or something at this point. 

There's absolutely no reason why we have to choose an absolute system, and the fact that there are more than a dozen other economies out there that seem to be making a different system work pretty well for its citizens should give pause for thought. But you're not interested in thinking.

I personally DO have experience with unions, and everything your spouting off about is just nonsense corporate propaganda. There's a reason why the countries with the strongest unions ALSO have better treatment of their employees. There's a reason those countries also have better support systems, higher education, score higher on international education assessments, live longer, happier, healthier lives than most of the rest of the world - including the United States. 

Of course corporations want to convince you that unions are bad - they want to be able to pay their employees the absolute bare minimum they can get away with; and you personally have no problem with that.

 

Not everything he said about unions is just “corporate propaganda”. Unions aren’t run by all-benevolent people. They’re the same type of people that run corporations. You can always point to the good that unions have done and say, See, unions are great!”. Just like someone can point to a Corporation and overstate the good they have done in providing jobs, but neither are always great; and neither more so than the other. For even unions have their own false propaganda. 

We hear about CEO pay to the average worker, but union propaganda usually only picks the top CEO earners. While overall the average CEO is only making an average wage in 2016 of … $194,350. “Labor union presidents made an average of $252,370 (2016), plus another $31,000 in benefits, according to an analysis by the Center for Union Facts. The analysis looked at federal labor filings for 192 national, state and local unions.”

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/big-labor-slams-ceo-pay-while-ignoring-fat-salaries-for-union-bosses/

We also hear (in the US at least) about how non-union workers in a company that also has a union are benefiting off the unions. That unions are “forced” to negotiate for the same wages for non union as they are union. But what they don’t tell you is that unions purposely make it part of their contracts to be the sole negotiators in a company. They deny non union workers to be able to negotiate on their own behalf because they don’t want nonunion workers to be able to outperform union members or gain in leadership roles that the unions try to lock in for union members only.

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/the-myth-of-free-riders-in-right-to-work-states

11 days ago
8/7/19
Posts: 308
robert bentley - 
Le Shat V2 - Same crap with Robert, prefaces his remarks with I think both are great but then proceeds to do nothing but tell you why leftist unions and socialist policies are fantastic! Basically just a sales pitch for "Democratic Socialism" which is just rebranded socialism/fascism.


History has proven fully implemented socialism is an abject failure 100% of the time. Every fully socialist country became tyrannical, murdering tens of millions, imprisoning tens of millions, and eventually causing total economic collapse. Once again, this is every single time it's been attempted. Yet he doesn't mention these facts, instead it's some minor crimes (by comparison) by corporations.

What this tells any thinking person is that the concept of socialism is flawed at it's core. It's not a matter of implementation or degree, it's a matter of fact that your basic premise is false as evidenced by your results (not your rhetoric).

So the onus is on those advocating socialism to tell us how they have abandoned the principles that lead to devastation and have revised them with something valid. So far all I see is attaching the same philosophy onto capitalism like a parasite. Having government dictate wages, profits, higher regulations, etc...hmmm seems that's been tried and failed as well, just a slower death.

It's obvious he has no experience with unions or he would acknowledge their level of corruption, intimidation, etc.. can be on par with the worst corporations in history. Yes, they had their time to help, but ultimately became a burdensome special interest group that prevents growth with their ridiculous rules and demands. Look what they have done to the textile and steel industries, not to mention auto and ruining Detroit. Then we have government unions with ridiculous pay, pensions, etc..and no accountability. So just another failed leftist idea.

Le Shat
©




You demonstrated on the other thread you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and that you're very much one of those cartoon characters made fun of by that meme where you scream that everything is socialism...until it works then it's not socialism - but we can't do those policies becase... it's socialism! 

The happiest countries in the world all have a strong labor union presence. Some call them socialist, or democratic socialist. Others say they'er capitalist but with strong support systems and greater support for the rights of workers to organize. You specifically get caught up in the name and the childish framing warned about in this thread and think all of those other countries *aren't* happy, that despite having far less income disparity, greater education, longer life-expectancy, greater health, and fewer infants dying -- that they're all socialist shitholes and... I'm assuming you just start screaming "USA USA" or something at this point. 

There's absolutely no reason why we have to choose an absolute system, and the fact that there are more than a dozen other economies out there that seem to be making a different system work pretty well for its citizens should give pause for thought. But you're not interested in thinking.

I personally DO have experience with unions, and everything your spouting off about is just nonsense corporate propaganda. There's a reason why the countries with the strongest unions ALSO have better treatment of their employees. There's a reason those countries also have better support systems, higher education, score higher on international education assessments, live longer, happier, healthier lives than most of the rest of the world - including the United States. 

Of course corporations want to convince you that unions are bad - they want to be able to pay their employees the absolute bare minimum they can get away with; and you personally have no problem with that.

 


Actually on the other thread you simply demonstrated your same head in the sand thinking. Repeating the same leftist tripe that they've used for a century and somehow expecting a different result. The funny part is you somehow think what you are saying is "progressive" and "cutting edge".

I clearly laid our socialist history, and you can't even acknowledge it. There is a reason you need to maintain that dissonance.

The happiest countries have a history of strong capitalist economies that created wealth. When they did start to become to burdensome with social programs they changed course and reeled those back in.

Beyond that you, once again, fail to address principles and look at a temporary snap shot. When all the socialist countries of the past began they said the same thing. Our people all have access to education, health care, etc... But they forgot that Government is not very good at running an economy, they forgot that people are motivated by incentives to improve their lives, they forgot that people will abuse the system and live off of the labor of others, and most importantly they forgot that the system you advocate removes individual liberty and return citizens to serfdom.

Everything I said about unions is established history. We have court cases, economic history of cities and industries, our current debt with government unions. This is not an opinion, or a debate, it is established fact.

It's a funny thing when guys like you come around wanting to appear open to both sides. You're pressed just a bit on your claims, you're confronted with what your systems has actually produced versus it's rhetoric, and you're reduced to claiming facts are lies and somehow the past will not repeat itself.

That's just sad.

Le Shat
©
11 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4299
robert bentley -
The Jentleman - 
Pedro Navaja -
The Jentleman -

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.

Lmao. How do people end up believing garbage like this? 

Many services and advantages you enjoy are the product of “socialism”. I guess fire departments are evil. Public schools and libraries are evil. Police are evil!

but capitalist outcomes like corporations polluting a community because they only care about profit... that’s innocuous! Making products with cancerous ingredients because it’s more profitable ... that’s innocuous! 

 

You are exactly what OP is trying to rally against. The simplistic mentality that, capitalism GOOD, socialism BAD, and trying to label things as such... it’s a tribalist approach.

instead we should take the best things from every “system” and strive to be BETTER. Not to accept any less... I pity you and your thought pattern.

I never said any of that. Please have better comprehension of what I wrote and come back with an actual argument instead of a bunch of strawmen.


Yeah - I have disagreements with Jentleman but that's not how I read what he wrote.

I think part of the problem with discussions on this forum is that with every written word there are charitable and uncharitable ways to read something, and varying degrees of each. 

It can be easy sometimes to default to the least charitable interpretation of what's been written -- and in that case you often end up arguing more with yourself than with the person.

I'm guilty of it too of course - but I try to keep an eye out for it.

I appreciate this post 

11 days ago
4/24/07
Posts: 39691
Ghengiseanie - 
robert bentley -

This is a childish framing of the discussion and essentially a result of tribalism. People are less interested in discussing whatever the topics are at hand than they are yelling about which team they're on -- and in this case it's "Team Capitalism Vs Team Socialism"

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. 

When you make a topic more about an identity to be protected, you're less likely to listen to good ideas. There are wonderfully functional free-market economies out there in the world that allow for wealth-generation, property ownership, and private enterprise...all while tackling issues such as worker's rights, poverty, education, healthcare, and social support systems.

These systems aren't perfect by any stretch of course - but there are *some* things they're doing better than the U.S and it would make sense to look at how they're tackling these problems instead of dismissing everything that isn't corporate worship as socialism or communism.

For example - I believe in the power of the free market and don't believe there should even BE a minimum wage. However - I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize). The general working class should have more control over what is and isn't acceptable with respect to their treatment, and when they have that power - a federally mandated minimum wage isn't necessary.

BUT - in the U.S perhaps a higher minimum wage IS necessary. If corporations and lobbyists aren't willing to cede ground in allowing people to organize etc then they have no real power to keep corporate interests in check. Perhaps in this scenario a mandatory minimum wage is necessary.

On a very general note there is the benefits to literally everyone in society when that society itself is elevated; so improvements to education, healthcare, and systems in place for when people fall on hard luck -- are all things which maximize the general talent pool. If you want more people contributing to the greater good, and more talent available for medical, scientific, or cultural advancements -- you're going to want fewer people starving or just barely scraping by. 

I

The people you are addressing  on this forum are not politically literate. 


So because we don't agree with your opinion, we are politically illiterate? And you wonder why people are sick of the left and leaving in droves.  That's the major problem with the left. It's not a matter of opinion anymore. You people think you are just right and everyone else is either stupid or evil. That's exactly what makes you disgusting people. 

11 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10706
The Jentleman - 
robert bentley -
Le Shat V2 - Same crap with Robert, prefaces his remarks with I think both are great but then proceeds to do nothing but tell you why leftist unions and socialist policies are fantastic! Basically just a sales pitch for "Democratic Socialism" which is just rebranded socialism/fascism.


History has proven fully implemented socialism is an abject failure 100% of the time. Every fully socialist country became tyrannical, murdering tens of millions, imprisoning tens of millions, and eventually causing total economic collapse. Once again, this is every single time it's been attempted. Yet he doesn't mention these facts, instead it's some minor crimes (by comparison) by corporations.

What this tells any thinking person is that the concept of socialism is flawed at it's core. It's not a matter of implementation or degree, it's a matter of fact that your basic premise is false as evidenced by your results (not your rhetoric).

So the onus is on those advocating socialism to tell us how they have abandoned the principles that lead to devastation and have revised them with something valid. So far all I see is attaching the same philosophy onto capitalism like a parasite. Having government dictate wages, profits, higher regulations, etc...hmmm seems that's been tried and failed as well, just a slower death.

It's obvious he has no experience with unions or he would acknowledge their level of corruption, intimidation, etc.. can be on par with the worst corporations in history. Yes, they had their time to help, but ultimately became a burdensome special interest group that prevents growth with their ridiculous rules and demands. Look what they have done to the textile and steel industries, not to mention auto and ruining Detroit. Then we have government unions with ridiculous pay, pensions, etc..and no accountability. So just another failed leftist idea.

Le Shat
©




You demonstrated on the other thread you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and that you're very much one of those cartoon characters made fun of by that meme where you scream that everything is socialism...until it works then it's not socialism - but we can't do those policies becase... it's socialism! 

The happiest countries in the world all have a strong labor union presence. Some call them socialist, or democratic socialist. Others say they'er capitalist but with strong support systems and greater support for the rights of workers to organize. You specifically get caught up in the name and the childish framing warned about in this thread and think all of those other countries *aren't* happy, that despite having far less income disparity, greater education, longer life-expectancy, greater health, and fewer infants dying -- that they're all socialist shitholes and... I'm assuming you just start screaming "USA USA" or something at this point. 

There's absolutely no reason why we have to choose an absolute system, and the fact that there are more than a dozen other economies out there that seem to be making a different system work pretty well for its citizens should give pause for thought. But you're not interested in thinking.

I personally DO have experience with unions, and everything your spouting off about is just nonsense corporate propaganda. There's a reason why the countries with the strongest unions ALSO have better treatment of their employees. There's a reason those countries also have better support systems, higher education, score higher on international education assessments, live longer, happier, healthier lives than most of the rest of the world - including the United States. 

Of course corporations want to convince you that unions are bad - they want to be able to pay their employees the absolute bare minimum they can get away with; and you personally have no problem with that.

 

Not everything he said about unions is just “corporate propaganda”. Unions aren’t run by all-benevolent people. They’re the same type of people that run corporations. You can always point to the good that unions have done and say, See, unions are great!”. Just like someone can point to a Corporation and overstate the good they have done in providing jobs, but neither are always great; and neither more so than the other. For even unions have their own false propaganda. 

We hear about CEO pay to the average worker, but union propaganda usually only picks the top CEO earners. While overall the average CEO is only making an average wage in 2016 of … $194,350. “Labor union presidents made an average of $252,370 (2016), plus another $31,000 in benefits, according to an analysis by the Center for Union Facts. The analysis looked at federal labor filings for 192 national, state and local unions.”

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/big-labor-slams-ceo-pay-while-ignoring-fat-salaries-for-union-bosses/

We also hear (in the US at least) about how non-union workers in a company that also has a union are benefiting off the unions. That unions are “forced” to negotiate for the same wages for non union as they are union. But what they don’t tell you is that unions purposely make it part of their contracts to be the sole negotiators in a company. They deny non union workers to be able to negotiate on their own behalf because they don’t want nonunion workers to be able to outperform union members or gain in leadership roles that the unions try to lock in for union members only.

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/the-myth-of-free-riders-in-right-to-work-states


Like anything it's going to be a lot messier than one side being pure of intention and the other side being evil.

Another problem I've noticed in unions can be the role of the lawyers - someone who has a vested interest in certain disputes going on longer than they should.

Having said that - and acknowledging these points you make, if given a choice between accepting those diliterious issues or those associated with corporate control - I'll take the problems associated with Unions. They do more good than harm. The same can't be said of corporate use of power - as wages for the bottom tiers of American worker have stagnated for decades despite skyrocketing productivity.

Millions live without insurance, millions make barely enough to get by, and jobs that used to be able to support a family no longer do; all the while the corporations themselves are taking in record profits. Part of that is because of sendig jobs overseas, part of that is automation, and part of that is the erosion of the bargaining power Americans used to have over their treatment.

This sort of ties in with the whole Capitalism V Socialism issue in that these are highly complex problems that require nuanced thought and solutions without "picking sides". We should be able to look at countries that are doing well and find out what they're doing right. 

If things continue on their current trajectory things are going to get really ugly when people just scraping by have to deal with costs increasing faster than they're able to earn. This isn't something that can be fixed by telling them all to just "get another job" because those jobs still need to be filled, and not everyone can just get another job.

11 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4300

^I had a much longer post but lost it.

In a nutshell. Corporations do mostly good too. Most people without insurance are in entry level jobs. Most CEO’s provide benefits and make less than unions bosses.

Much of the degradation of “bargaining power” is by unions themselves who block people from bargaining on their own behalf or joining a separate union.

I have no problem with greedy and corrupt CEO’s being called out, but that’s not your average CEO. If you want more “bargaining power” with unions than unions need to actually be for the workers and follow more “moralistic” (free market) values and allow competition instead of following the greedy and corrupt CEO’s in their bid for more money and power. You would see a big uptick in unionized workers if they did that.

11 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10707
The Jentleman - 

^I had a much longer post but lost it.

In a nutshell. Corporations do mostly good too. Most people without insurance are in entry level jobs. Most CEO’s provide benefits and make less than unions bosses.

Much of the degradation of “bargaining power” is by unions themselves who block people from bargaining on their own behalf or joining a separate union.

I have no problem with greedy and corrupt CEO’s being called out, but that’s not your average CEO. If you want more “bargaining power” with unions than unions need to actually be for the workers and follow more “moralistic” (free market) values and allow competition instead of following the greedy and corrupt CEO’s in their bid for more money and power. You would see a big uptick in unionized workers if they did that.


Is that what you feel is happening in countries where unions have a much stronger presence? 

Are these issues you mention more a problem with American unions and not so much unions as a whole?

11 days ago
3/6/06
Posts: 29352
David@accu - 
Ghengiseanie - 
robert bentley -

This is a childish framing of the discussion and essentially a result of tribalism. People are less interested in discussing whatever the topics are at hand than they are yelling about which team they're on -- and in this case it's "Team Capitalism Vs Team Socialism"

It shouldn't be a one-or-the-other, it should be "How can we make our current system better" - period.

And if that means taking ideas from other systems, or tweaking aspects of your current system, then so be it. 

When you make a topic more about an identity to be protected, you're less likely to listen to good ideas. There are wonderfully functional free-market economies out there in the world that allow for wealth-generation, property ownership, and private enterprise...all while tackling issues such as worker's rights, poverty, education, healthcare, and social support systems.

These systems aren't perfect by any stretch of course - but there are *some* things they're doing better than the U.S and it would make sense to look at how they're tackling these problems instead of dismissing everything that isn't corporate worship as socialism or communism.

For example - I believe in the power of the free market and don't believe there should even BE a minimum wage. However - I also believe that employees should have more rights than they do now (particularly the right to organize/unionize). The general working class should have more control over what is and isn't acceptable with respect to their treatment, and when they have that power - a federally mandated minimum wage isn't necessary.

BUT - in the U.S perhaps a higher minimum wage IS necessary. If corporations and lobbyists aren't willing to cede ground in allowing people to organize etc then they have no real power to keep corporate interests in check. Perhaps in this scenario a mandatory minimum wage is necessary.

On a very general note there is the benefits to literally everyone in society when that society itself is elevated; so improvements to education, healthcare, and systems in place for when people fall on hard luck -- are all things which maximize the general talent pool. If you want more people contributing to the greater good, and more talent available for medical, scientific, or cultural advancements -- you're going to want fewer people starving or just barely scraping by. 

I

The people you are addressing  on this forum are not politically literate. 


So because we don't agree with your opinion, we are politically illiterate? And you wonder why people are sick of the left and leaving in droves.  That's the major problem with the left. It's not a matter of opinion anymore. You people think you are just right and everyone else is either stupid or evil. That's exactly what makes you disgusting people. 


if you were politically literate you would know how ridiculous the lies you tell are. you'd at least know how to tell plausible lies.

also your post is one of the most epic examples of a strawman, selectibe outrage, hypocrisy, irony, and complete lack of self-awareness I have ever seen, so congrats for that! amazing to see you fit it all into such a short post!
11 days ago
3/13/17
Posts: 8090
Pura Vida - 
Pedro Navaja - 
The Jentleman -

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.

Lmao. How do people end up believing garbage like this? 

Many services and advantages you enjoy are the product of “socialism”. I guess fire departments are evil. Public schools and libraries are evil. Police are evil!

but capitalist outcomes like corporations polluting a community because they only care about profit... that’s innocuous! Making products with cancerous ingredients because it’s more profitable ... that’s innocuous! 

 

You are exactly what OP is trying to rally against. The simplistic mentality that, capitalism GOOD, socialism BAD, and trying to label things as such... it’s a tribalist approach.

instead we should take the best things from every “system” and strive to be BETTER. Not to accept any less... I pity you and your thought pattern.


when you use willfully dishonest strawman arguments like this, it doesn't make your point, it just tells everybody you're a liar who doesn't believe their own ideology.

all those lying trumpets you can't stand, you are one of them.

Right.

Socialism is inherently evil? And capitalism (private ownership whos principal interest is profit) is innocuous?

I wasn't dishonest in any way. Just bringing up real life examples. A system which prioritizes profit over everything else is in no way AMORAL. And a system which is based on community and sharing, is in no way 'inherently evil'.

He used a caveat explaining that immoral people will make innocent capitalism worse than it is, and good people will make socialism better than it is.

in that case why even say one "system" is evil and the other amoral? If it only matters who is applying it. Which I actually agree with. 

An axe in one persons hand can be a murder weapon, in anothers could be a tool to build a home. 

11 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4302
robert bentley -
The Jentleman - 

^I had a much longer post but lost it.

In a nutshell. Corporations do mostly good too. Most people without insurance are in entry level jobs. Most CEO’s provide benefits and make less than unions bosses.

Much of the degradation of “bargaining power” is by unions themselves who block people from bargaining on their own behalf or joining a separate union.

I have no problem with greedy and corrupt CEO’s being called out, but that’s not your average CEO. If you want more “bargaining power” with unions than unions need to actually be for the workers and follow more “moralistic” (free market) values and allow competition instead of following the greedy and corrupt CEO’s in their bid for more money and power. You would see a big uptick in unionized workers if they did that.


Is that what you feel is happening in countries where unions have a much stronger presence? 

Are these issues you mention more a problem with American unions and not so much unions as a whole?

I’m not so certain about unions in other countries and if they make it impossible for other unions to exist within a company, or try to keep nonunion members from bargaining on their own behalf. And I would never say as a whole because I’ve dealt with good people in unions, and a few bad. 

I would say they’re just like corporations here. You have mostly good people and some corrupt people. It’s easy to find those with the most desire for money/power/both in a microcosm and put the onerous on them all, but I find in general that most people are good. The one problem that unions have over even those “evil corporations” is their complete hypocrisy in saying they’re for the workers when they actually limit workers from being able to negotiate. And this has been common practice here in the States.

11 days ago
10/6/17
Posts: 4303
Pedro Navaja -
Pura Vida - 
Pedro Navaja - 
The Jentleman -

Capitalism is innocuous, amoral. Yet because of that it is the only moral economic system. It does not force conditions onto people, and leaves the decision making to those of free will. Yet also because of that, it is susceptible to immorality by individuals, corporations, and groups. These immoral actions can be regulated, but regulating the free market itself is a blight against our rights as human beings and free will.

Socialism is immoral in nature. It forces people under threat of severe punishment to work under very specific standards. This does not mean that relatively good people won’t try to use Socialist policies to try and do things that they agree with as being good, but that comes at a price of forcing others to your wants. To work and give up more of their earnings to your whims. That’s inherently evil.

Lmao. How do people end up believing garbage like this? 

Many services and advantages you enjoy are the product of “socialism”. I guess fire departments are evil. Public schools and libraries are evil. Police are evil!

but capitalist outcomes like corporations polluting a community because they only care about profit... that’s innocuous! Making products with cancerous ingredients because it’s more profitable ... that’s innocuous! 

 

You are exactly what OP is trying to rally against. The simplistic mentality that, capitalism GOOD, socialism BAD, and trying to label things as such... it’s a tribalist approach.

instead we should take the best things from every “system” and strive to be BETTER. Not to accept any less... I pity you and your thought pattern.


when you use willfully dishonest strawman arguments like this, it doesn't make your point, it just tells everybody you're a liar who doesn't believe their own ideology.

all those lying trumpets you can't stand, you are one of them.

Right.

Socialism is inherently evil? And capitalism (private ownership whos principal interest is profit) is innocuous?

I wasn't dishonest in any way. Just bringing up real life examples. A system which prioritizes profit over everything else is in no way AMORAL. And a system which is based on community and sharing, is in no way 'inherently evil'.

He used a caveat explaining that immoral people will make innocent capitalism worse than it is, and good people will make socialism better than it is.

in that case why even say one "system" is evil and the other amoral? If it only matters who is applying it. Which I actually agree with. 

An axe in one persons hand can be a murder weapon, in anothers could be a tool to build a home. 

You were very dishonest.

You’re closer to making a more valid point, but still can’t be truthful with what I posted.

And yes, Capitalism is innocuous; it is indeed amoral. Because the immorality/morality only comes into play based on individual/corporate /group actions that in no way is built in.

Socialism is inherently evil. It’s a system built directly on the action of taking from those who may not agree with how their money is being used under threat of extreme punishment.

Your example is partially true. Capitalism is just the means of creating the axe. Socialism is the act of using it as a tool for some while a weapon against others.

11 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10709
The Jentleman - 
robert bentley -
The Jentleman - 

^I had a much longer post but lost it.

In a nutshell. Corporations do mostly good too. Most people without insurance are in entry level jobs. Most CEO’s provide benefits and make less than unions bosses.

Much of the degradation of “bargaining power” is by unions themselves who block people from bargaining on their own behalf or joining a separate union.

I have no problem with greedy and corrupt CEO’s being called out, but that’s not your average CEO. If you want more “bargaining power” with unions than unions need to actually be for the workers and follow more “moralistic” (free market) values and allow competition instead of following the greedy and corrupt CEO’s in their bid for more money and power. You would see a big uptick in unionized workers if they did that.


Is that what you feel is happening in countries where unions have a much stronger presence? 

Are these issues you mention more a problem with American unions and not so much unions as a whole?

I’m not so certain about unions in other countries and if they make it impossible for other unions to exist within a company, or try to keep nonunion members from bargaining on their own behalf. And I would never say as a whole because I’ve dealt with good people in unions, and a few bad. 

I would say they’re just like corporations here. You have mostly good people and some corrupt people. It’s easy to find those with the most desire for money/power/both in a microcosm and put the onerous on them all, but I find in general that most people are good. The one problem that unions have over even those “evil corporations” is their complete hypocrisy in saying they’re for the workers when they actually limit workers from being able to negotiate. And this has been common practice here in the States.


I'm almost on the same page with respect to the idea that most people are good, but I draw the line at corporations - but for purely pragmatic reasons. 

The nature of a person is going to be guided by things like empathy, their desires, their nature, greed in some measure (of course) as well as compassion and kindness. Most people also want very similar things. But there is a limit to an individual's greed, and a limit to what they'll do to accomplish their own individual goals. Not just legal limits - but things they'll feel bad about doing.

In a corporation you have an entity that has one primary function, the enrich the shareholders - and each part and each cog in this larger organization (each made up of good people who have the same or similar moral concerns as you or I) does their specific part to ensure that happens. So this larger conglomeration of people doesn't have the same individuals stops in place that you or I do. We make our decisions as a whole. Not only that - we do so understanding that if we are caught red-handed we can't simply dissolve the legally culpable entity to rebuild another one in its place. 

In many cases it's not a specific act of "Evil" per se, but a series of sub-optimal decisions that all work towards contributing towards what ends up becoming an enormous disaster. For example - a common strategy to insure that profits keep going up in a chemical plant is to put metrics in place so that each department's manager is held accountable. Each manager gets a bonus on reducing costs while increasing output. (this is a heavy oversimplification - but I think my point is clear) Now in the various departments or plants that are of course safety measures and restrictions...but managers find that they have no problem just skirting the edges of these limitations to achieve the best ration and best bonuses for themselves. Everything *should* be okay but if an unforseen event pushes something over the edge the result could be (and in some cases has been) catastrophic. 

This type of scenario is what can lead to giant environmental disasters where people can suffer enormously. Basically - a powerful entity whose primary concern is profit with many moving parts has actions or decisions separate enough from the individual that their motivations are going to vary.

I don't have a specific corporation in mind with the above (although in some ways the various safety failures in the Union Carbide disaster appear similar) -- my point is that if an entities motivations are primarily financial, they have a lot of power, and decisions are broken down in such a way that no one individual can be genuinely held accountable for something that goes terribly wrong... this is not a moral entity in the same sense you or I are.

11 days ago
6/7/08
Posts: 14030

The argument is more government vs less government.