It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Enf0rc3r
Difference here is that in real life u dont get a liberal professor failing you automatically. In real life, if u work hard, u will make money. Simple concept that has made America the power house it is today. The professor was a complete idiot, ad used a biased model of capitalism based on his political views to hammer home a point that some people aren't good enough in his world to succeed.
Originally posted by ANOK]
Are you serious? Then why are you here, you should be educating yourself before you debate something you've never heard of.
In a socialist system money is not the motivator, a person shouldn't become a doctor because they get paid more than someone else.
That concept of wage competition will not exist as money will not be important. The shop sweeper is as important as the doctor in the grand scheme of things. If you lived in London during the 70's and witnessed the garbage strike you'd have a clue to the importance of such workers.
It's just snobbery, oh I'm better than that person I know more, I've been to school. But you wouldn't do their job if you were paid like a doctor. So why should they?
A person should be motivated by their desire to be a part of, and to help their communities. People should want to be doctors because that's their calling and their desire. I don't want a doctor who's motivation is to make as much money as possible. This is why it's so expensive now, and people are made to take unnecessary tests and unnecessary drugs just because it makes the doctor more money. Your money being redistributed through unfair practices because the system motivates people to be unfair and self-serving.
If money is not their motive then we can only expect better doctors, those doing it for the right reason.
Socialism is about meeting peoples needs, not their greed.
When it comes to doctors, it’s commonly assumed that they are guided primarily by financial considerations when they decide where, when, and how to practice. Therefore, so the theory goes, doctors won’t co-operate or change their behaviour unless they believe there is a financial incentive for them to do so.
The evidence casts significant doubt on this assumption. Doctors are not purely “economic creatures,” and while money is important to them, it is only one of many factors that influences their behaviour.
Money is not the only and certainly not the best motivator.
Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by oozyism
Impossible for people under you to go up? Not in America, enjoy New Zealand.
Originally posted by 547000
I've never heard of collectives. But I know what socialism is. I just consider it communism lite.
In capitalism, you have the opportunity to be rewarded for how productive you are. If you get the same no matter what you do, why should you put in effort and do something difficult? You're not relying on rational incentive but irrational feelings as to how people should and will behave. Not all people are driven with the passion to do something difficult; in fact, most would rather do the bare essentials and get by, as long as they have free time.
If money can buy goods and services money is important. Salary is usually just a measure of how difficult/risky a job you do. If you just go changing light bulbs it is not wise to be paid the same as someone who cuts open humans and try to heal them. There is more risk/difficulty associated from the latter than the former. There's no reason to study hard, go to med school, apart from wanting to. This assumes most people have a passion to accomplish something.
It isn't snobbery to be paid according to how difficult your job is. And believe me, if people were paid the same to change light bulbs as to be doctors many people would try to be light bulb changers.
Again, you're claiming that people should desire X rather than Y because you say so. What if a person doesn't give a crap about his community and just wants to go the easy way with working little, getting paid much? Throw him in the Gulag? Medicate him till he agrees?
You can expect less doctors too. There's no rational reason to want to be a doctor when you can be paid the same as a light bulb changer.
Being paid for how difficult/risky your job is is not greed. It's just rational. Socialism depends on irrational ideals to work. But not all people have the same values or idealism.
Do you? If you don't know what a collective is then how can you know what socialism is? You only think you know what it is. You can consider it what you want but you're simply wrong in your consideration I'm afraid.[/QUOTE]
Then why does it suffer from the same pitfalls of communism if it's not communism lite? Why does it rely on idealism rather than rationality? In my opinion socialism is merely a transition to communism. Same arguments new generations make that their fathers suffered and learned dearly from.
No, you don't get awarded for how productive you are, you get a pay raise when the boss feels like it, or you strike to get better pay.
Your rate of pay for your labour is in the hands of the capitalists and what they're willing to pay you.
In a collective all the workers benefit DIRECTLY from the profits made.
Your incentive to work is you get paid more if the company does well, if it doesn't then you don't get paid well.
If you're valuable to the company, you will get paid well. If you're not valuable, you get paid average or are fired. These capitalists you talk about are people who take on the risk of starting and/or running a company. They take on risks, so do you, bidding for contracts on the job market.
And how would you deal with piss-poor workers who just hang on leeching the profits from good workers? If you get paid $10 dollars when distributing it out to do something well and $9 dollars to do it crapily, while the other workers slog, what rational incentive do you have to do a good job?
I'm asking for a rational incentive, not feeling good about yourself or being an honest person or any other irrational things that depends on an individual's ideals.
People do many difficult things where money is not the motivation, playing an instrument for example. All it takes is doing something you have a passion for. Not everyone has what it takes to be a doctor, if changing light bulbs suits them, and their community needs that done, then the light bulb changer is as important as the doctor to that community.
Again, you're relying on irrational reasoning. Just because some people have ambition or desire doesn't mean all people do. A system that irrationally assumes the best from everyone will fail because it's not based on rational reasoning. What rational incentive do people have to do such things? Feeling good about yourself isn't very rational, as some people just don't care about that. Different upbringing breeds different types of people and different mindsets.
But socialism can allow for differences in pay scales as long as it's a voluntary agreement between the workers involved. Nothing is written in stone except that private ownership of resources is changed to worker owned, that is the only real difference.
Who decides who gets how much money if it's all worker owned, instead of a single owner? Some workers will not agree with getting paid less, etc. Even a democratic system can get oppressive since it can be 51% to 49%. If everyone who works there owns it, who's voice is the loudest?
You are basing everything on money again. Capitalism itself has nothing to do with money. Money is an unnecessary tool used to control the capitalists distribution of artificially scarce resources. The control of resources is how capitalists create their wealth.
Without money you would need to barter, unless you're suggesting everyone's property is society's. Also money allows you to distribute the work and allow free trade in society: A teacher can buy bread from people other for whom he rendered service to, a farmer could sell fruits to X and buy a tractor from Y, etc.
People being motivated by money imo is not a good idea for the reasons I mentioned.
It's also the most rational incentive to try to make people not do things half-assedly. You may not like money being a motivation, but it's still a rational one.
Well if people want to be light bulb changers why shouldn't they be?
If too many people try to be light bulb changers then there would be a lot of out of work light bulb changers, and I think that would motivate people to do something else.
You seem to have a low expectation of people, and think we would all take the easy path, this has been proven over and over again to be untrue.
Look how many doctors join the military, they get paid the same as the supply officer.
Well that person can do that if they want, but they shouldn't expect to reap the benefits of being a part of society. People should be free to do what they want, that is the point of socialism. In the capitalist system you are coerced to work for a private owner at the wage they decide your labour is worth. It's not your choice even though they make it seem as it is.
Nothing wrong with less doctors. Most of the patience doctors see now are for reasons created by the need to make money anyway.
Again money is only important in the capitalist system because it keeps resources artificially scarce. If the means of production were owned by the workers then the need for money would decrease as production would raise to meet our needs, not kept artificially scarce to feed capitalist greed. (production in Spain rose 20% in just 2 years).
If resources are in abundance they would be cheap to purchase.
So again money would no longer be the motivator to work.
In capitalism the owner doesn't have to work, he takes profit from simply owning not producing, without the owner all the profits would go to the workers.
If the doctors office is making huge profits then the doctors would get huge pay checks, along with their light bulb changer. The motivation to work is still there as you benefit directly from your labour, be that cutting people up or lighting peoples way.
Originally posted by Maslo
You can have all the socialism and communism you want in free capitalist system. Just make a deal with like-minded people, and you can own your means of production together.
But please stop forcing people who accomplished something to give it to those who did not, if they dont want to.
And dont forget that people have to be paid according to their contribution to society, not according to their hard work. Without excessive government or criminal behaviour, the only rich people in free capitalist society would be those who (or whose parents) contributed to the society the most.
Hmmmm isn't hard work a contribution? Why should some people be rich, resulting in others being poor, when we could all have what we need? Your notion is a little naive. Who benefited from slave labour, arguably the hardest working group of people ever? The slave, their children? No it was the capitalist owner of the means of production. Without slavery the capitalists would not have gained the wealth they now have, and if they were allowed do you think we would not be literal slaves now?
Originally posted by Enf0rc3r
In real life, if u work hard, u will make money.
Originally posted by taskforce4256
I think your last sentence was the key. If you don't contribute, you don't deserve anything. Capitalism is for those who contribute. Those who are unable to contribute due to physical or mental defect will be cared for. Those who choose not to contribute, either because they "opt out of the system" or because their choices led them to non-contribution (drug dependence, etc.) are not the responsibility of society. Apparently, they have chosen to starve.
Slavery was possible only because the government of that time supported it by violence, and this is the exact opposite of a free capitalist society, where the "slave" would be free to leave his master and establish his own farm.
Rich-Poor Divide Growing
Between 1980 and the late 1990s, inequality also increased within 48 of 73 countries for which good data are available, including China,
Russia, and the United States. These 48 nations are home to 59 percent of the world’s population and account for 78 percent of the
gross world product. This trend contrasts sharply with earlier declines in the gap between rich and poor in a number of countries between the 1950s and the early to mid-1970s, a period of stable global economic growth.
Originally posted by gncnew
Easy way to show this debate:
Socialism = idealistic dream land
Capitalism = realistic nightmare
Bottom line is that only in the classroom does "everyone should work for the better..." actually work.
That's like saying we only have crime because people don't have what they need... even rich people commit crimes. People are people and they will never live up to the ideals we all sit and wish for.
So, we adopt a system that actually works - Capitalism.