The Concise Reason Why Socialism Will Never Work In The Western World!

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by coltcall
reply to post by votan
 


The idea of success is to be adaptable. If one system doesn't work for you, jump ship to another system that will work.

You find that abhorrent?


That was not even my point. My point is that if the current system is considered "evil" it will not matter if we change to another system simply because that "evil" will just move on over to the new system.

I find the "evil" abhorrent not adaptation to be successful. .
edit on 9-3-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-3-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-3-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by votan
It won't work simply because the ones who want wealth power and the spotlight will make sure they jump ship on the previous ism to head up the new ism to continue their aspirations.


But that can only happen by consent of the people.

If we owned the means of production in common, individuals or organizations would have a hard time gaining enough wealth to gives them the power to manipulate, and control, the economy, and politics.

Capitalism is what gives people the power to accumulate more wealth than others. It is the mass inequality in wealth that gives people the power to control, and manipulate, the system, and people, to their benefit.

Capitalism creates mass inequality, which empowers oppressive tyrannical regimes. Without that inequality in wealth authority is powerless.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Duamutef9
 


I've seen lots of homeless people who read books. They spend their days and nights in the public library reading books. They even have library cards. They take books with them to underneath the bridges where the sleep.

Now, are you asking me if these homeless people are happy?

Hmmmm....I've observed them. They seem to be in a twilight zone between happiness and numb. Like modern day Zen monks wandering the streets with library books under their arms. Could be they are void of feeling. A protective barrier between themselves and the rest of the world.

The other members of Pink Floyd said that their pal Syd Barrett lived in that state after he left the band. Others say Syd was schizophrenic, his mind washed out by too much '___'. Ostensibly Syd amassed enough money in his days with Pink Floyd that he could afford a warm jacket. The other members of Pink Floyd gave money to Syd's family to care for him. Though they say Syd was devoid of knowing when he was comfortable from when he was simply reading a book because he didn't know what else to do with his time.

Time? Time dissolved for Syd Barrett. He simply did it, then died.

Did Syd Barrett have happy memories about those days when he frolicked like a wild hippie with Pink Floyd? I don't know what went through Syd's mind. He was productive in creating Pink Floyd. Then he went away in his mind to sit in the library.

Why Roger Waters is angry at the rest of the members of Pink Floyd is up to conjecture. Possibly it is endemic to rock star life. I watched a biography about The Eagles. They threatened to beat each other up before the band broke up. They reunited seventeen years later, only to threaten to beat each other up again. Nobody can argue that The Eagles weren't successful. Were they happy? I suppose.

Can one find happiness sitting beneath a bao tree reading books all day? They say many mystics in India do just that. They supposedly lower their heart beats down to a couple of thumps per minute...per hour. There does seem to be contentment in the mystical lifestyle of Indian mystics.

I don't think Mark Zuckerberg would be happy spending his days in such a fashion. I could be wrong. I don't know Mr. Zuckerberg personally. I suppose happiness is in the eye of the beholder.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Duamutef9
 


As for athletics, I don't think taking steroids can be equated with naturally occurring testosterone. Steroids builds muscle and speed at an alarmingly fast rate. Professional wrestlers are known to use steroids. Far as I know, there is no governing agency regulating steroid usage in professional wrestling ranks.

I don't even know if there is steroid regulations in the Ultimate Fighting ranks. Unlike bicycling, which they apparently do a lousy job of regulating.

There is joy in winning. There is suffering and pain in losing. Tennis great Jimmy Connors said, "I hate losing more than I love winning." Either one has the competitive urge within themselves naturally, or they don't compete for greatness and glory.

Steroids doesn't create a competitive personality. Steroids enhances the ability for the body to compete and win and dominate.

But, alas, everyone is taking steroids. Steroids is on a level playing field among professionals.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by votan
 


I find losing to be evil.

An idle mind is the devil's workshop. Idle hands end up serial killing. Sitting in prison all day doing nothing makes an inmate more of a candidate for recidivism.

One really can't win if one is not competitive by nature. The Nanny State philosophy is a huge fantasy.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I have one primary question & a several minor questions. Feel free to ignore the minors if you wish, but I'd appreciate very much if you'd respond to the primary quesiton.

Primary question:

Are you willing to allow capitalism to compete side-by-side with syndicalism? That is, if you had the power to decree the sort of economic order that a given society would function under, would you allow capitalism to compete with syndicalism, should there be individuals who'd prefer to operate under a capitalist economic order?

Minor questions:

How is risk distributed when workers own the means of production? (By "risk" I mean the risk that private owners of the means of production must contend with in a world of uncertainty.)

What role, if any, does division of labor play in syndicalism?

What do you mean when you write that capitalists exploit laborers?

Thank you.
edit on 9-3-2013 by Kovenov because: labor to laborer



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by coltcall
 


First of all, most of the reason the homeless people are in the libraries is for shelter.

Secondly, did you ask them *why* they are homeless? Or did you just assume that because they are homeless they are shiftless and lazy or somehow inferior? How many of them lost jobs? How many of them are the victims of the system you are defending? We are supposed to believe that everyone is in it for themselves and if they can't hack it, that's their problem. But when the system fails to provide adequately as it is supposed to, the blame is shifted on those who get left by the wayside. I'm reasonably certain that most them had jobs at one time and lost them, and I'm also willing to bet that the people who caused their homelessness are sleeping comfortably with nary a care in the world.

Syd Barrett, by your own admission, had a mental illness. Does every homeless person? The interpersonal relationships of bad 1970's rock bands has little to do with my point, by the way. Clearly you don't understand the difference between "artistic creativity *for it's own sake*" and artistic creativity as a business venture, which both Pink Floyd and the Eagles were.

Mark Zuckerberg is guilty of investor fraud, which is why Facebook stock dropped like a rock shortly after it's initial offering. He's just spent a lot of money keeping that under the rug. The entire system at this point is held up by nothing but lies and duct tape. The only growth industry left is accounting fraud, and it's not long until it comes crashing down.

You seem to equate success, happiness, and acquisition, just like every other short-sighted and delusional capitalist. So were people happy at all before capitalism? Bear in mind that capitalism is a young human invention. It's only been around for a few hundred years. Humans have been around for several thousand.

For every man that profits, there is a man who has lost everything. This is the dirty secret that capitalists spend so much energy trying to hide. It is also why people read books. To learn about things they don't know. Perhaps your homeless people were reading about how to put their lives back together after they have been completely destroyed by the greed you seem so eager to justify.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Duamutef9
 


Talk to homeless people? That would be nice. Except there is a trend that when someone interrupts a homeless person's little corner of concentration, they often get a wild eyed look. Become violent at times.

They want to be left alone to seek shelter in the public libraries. They want to put distance between themselves and authority figures. Which is why librarians rarely attempt addressing a homeless person badly in need of a bath. More and more libraries are using police security to deal with communicative attempts with the homeless.

The homeless are socialism in America personified. "Don't talk to me until I deign to talk to you first!" And "I really don't want to hear what you have to say. You will say something that is not politically correct to the socialist homeless lifestyle."

It's no surprise that the Occupy Movement was manned by the homeless.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by coltcall
reply to post by Duamutef9
 


Talk to homeless people? That would be nice. Except there is a trend that when someone interrupts a homeless person's little corner of concentration, they often get a wild eyed look. Become violent at times.

They want to be left alone to seek shelter in the public libraries. They want to put distance between themselves and authority figures. Which is why librarians rarely attempt addressing a homeless person badly in need of a bath. More and more libraries are using police security to deal with communicative attempts with the homeless.

The homeless are socialism in America personified. "Don't talk to me until I deign to talk to you first!" And "I really don't want to hear what you have to say. You will say something that is not politically correct to the socialist homeless lifestyle."

It's no surprise that the Occupy Movement was manned by the homeless.


I was homeless for awhile. I had a choice, I could have food, shelter, or an education but I didn't have the money for all three so the shelter went away. I would spend my days in school, work until the school closed and I got kicked out for the night, then goto a crowded parking lot (hotel parking lots worked great), put up a sun shade so no one could see me inside, and get some sleep. Eventually my car was totaled in an accident by a driver without insurance. My insurance didn't pay enough for a new car so I ended up sleeping outside instead. The great part about that was it's illegal to be homeless in my town so I would get to spend the nights hiding from cops and instead sleep on campus instead as I quickly learned that sleeping under the few bridges in town just didn't work.

Every homeless person has a story, most aren't violent. They just want to get through each day.

As for how you make the connection between the homeless and socialism I have no idea. The homeless are for the most part the people that have lost the most in a capitalist system. Remember, every dollar you make has to come from somewhere. It's a zero sum system (aside from inflation).



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   
dd
edit on 10-3-2013 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Socialism is not the problem.

Capitalism is not the problem.

The real problem is that we allowed the once tightly regulated corporate charter system to run amok; paving the way for a nefarious marriage of corporate greed and a corrupt government that no longer exists to protect the rights of the individual.

That's called fascism!

Socialism has nothing to do with it and if we had a little more social awareness in America we may not be in the position we are in.
edit on 8-3-2013 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



Agreed with this post I think, well said.

I spent most of yesterday almost addicted to the other thread on socialism, and I'm not doing the same here so I'm out!



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by coltcall
 


It is clear to me from your answers that you are incapable of thinking critically. Your answers display a marked tendency for simplistic and two-dimensional, either-or thinking. I'm certain you are proud of this. Whoever shackled you did a magnificent job. Any further discussion would merely be a waste of both of our time.

Enjoy your slavery. I'm sure you already do.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

But big corporations do not own monopolies in true capitalism, they own monopolies in Socialism.


But "true capitalism", which I assume is to you free market capitalism, did NOT work in the Western world, and it doesn't seem like it will, at least not with the current political system in place.

Fact: consolidation DID occur in the US, at quite a few times since the beginnings of the Republic. It began with Rockefeller centralizing the oil industry by both savage means and political means, then with the banker's monopoly over a fiat currency, arranged in 1913 with the Jekyll Island then sealed by Roosevelt. Then several monopolies were shaped with the manufacturing/banking cartels during the '30s-'40s, then now since the financial crisis, where there's been unprecedented consolidation.

Problem with capitalism, as I said so many times here, is that it's based on an idealist philosophy (Adam Smith) that had little foot in political realism. Hence why Marx was superior to Smith, because his entire philosophy is based upon the recognition that society is just a big power struggle (the class struggle).

...but that's not a statement in support of socialism, which I'm pretty much against. Just that if you're going for the free market rhetoric, you got to be accountable for it. Free market is free, liberty means you can take all the means to reach one end (as long as it doesn't negate other people's liberties, no?).

If you want free market, you gotta decriminalize a lot of things, almost anything, which means you gotta bring down most of the judicial/prison system, because this, in essence is feeding off a repression of the free markets.

...not that I don't agree with that, but how can it be achieved?

But don't try the Ron Paul thing... didn't work, as far as I know.
edit on 10/3/13 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


Maybe you went about this 'Getting Educated' thing in the wrong order?

You could have gotten a job....say, become an L:A. police officer.....then gone to night school to get your law degree.

You could have retired from the L.A. Police to open a law practice while writing best selling crime and courtroom novels.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Duamutef9
 


Whenever a socialist tells me they can't follow my critical thinking, I feel good about myself. They've reaffirmed that I'm on the right track in life.

If a socialist starts telling me they understand and agree with me, then I know it is time for rehab.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by coltcall

Whenever a socialist tells me they can't follow my critical thinking, I feel good about myself.
LOL

Thats like someone saying "I dont know how computers work, so I must be Smarter than a Computer."

Too Funny



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


How in the world did you ever come up with equating the thought processes of a socialists with the speed of a computer?

Oh, yeah....I almost forgot...that's socialist logic. It doesn't make sense.

Never mind...



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Duamutef9
 



For every man that profits, there is a man who has lost everything. This is the dirty secret that capitalists spend so much energy trying to hide.


I want to address this identity you've put forward. Namely, that the quantity of men who profit is equal to the quantity of men who lose everything.

Context makes clear that your definition of profit goes something like this: the return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met. (def. number 2 at www.thefreedictionary.com...). If this is not true than your treatment of capitalism (viz. def. 1 at www.thefreedictionary.com...) is, in my view, arbitrary.

At face value the statement is not certain. Maybe it's true, but maybe it isn't. Only an empirical study can show whether this identity is true at a given instance in time. For that matter the instance would be over a range of time, but social scientists do their best. Anyway, if you're claiming that the identity is a general principle of capitalism--that there is an as yet unknown, time-invariant constant to capitalism such that the identity is found to be true after repeated studies, then you've got your hands full to make that case. I would even say that if you could demonstrate this if-then hypothesis with a very strong degree of confidence, then you would be hailed as one of the greatest minds in history.

How about this: profit is the interest earned from the proceeds of production.

Some people believe that profit earned from the proceeds of production is exploitation. The contention is that capitalists do not pay the full product of labor input as a factor of production. Fundamentally, this is socialism's economic argument against capitalism. As it goes, it is incorrect. The spread value for labor & all other factors of production are less than the market value of the end product (what conusmers buy). In other words, consumers aren't buying units of labor that went into producing a calculator, nor individual electronic components, casing & etc. It's that simple.

Fact is the market value spread for the factors of production is less than market value price of the end product--at least for a business that wants to sell its product(s). Fact is that the market value spread determines the wage-rate of laborers. Socialists ought to critique consumers rather than capitalists. It's that simple.

To be clear I have no objection to voluntary socialism & I do not endorse the pervasive cronyism that exists in modern capitalist societies. I advocate for an unhampered market--one where government does not intervene. Whatever economic order develops from an unhampered market is the only one that I (and this is my departure from economic evaluation) believe is ethically warranted.

edit on 10-3-2013 by Kovenov because: there to their
edit on 10-3-2013 by Kovenov because: by to buy



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are many socialist programs in every nation in the western world

pure capitalism doesn't exist


Governments handouts are not socialist programs.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and yes the predominant economic system the world over is capitalist.

Socialism is an economic system, not something governments do.

Governments handouts is liberalism, capitalism with a state supplied social safety net. Socialism is the workers common ownership of the means of production.


who said anything about handouts ?

what %age of the US economy comes from public sector jobs ?



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Kovenov
 


You are correct in your assessment of my definition of profit. And I will grant your definition of profit as being the interest earned from the proceeds of production.

My critique of Capitalism is simply this. It is a systemic feature of Capitalism as an economic system that it *must* exploit its workers because of the profit motive. You can claim all you like that the market sets prices for goods and services and I will agree with that. However, when it comes to choosing between lowering the cost of labor, or increasing the prices on an item to cover increased costs incurred during production, I find it to be quite telling that nobody, *ever* suggests that an enterprise part with an increased share of profits to maintain both wages and prices, even though such an action, especially in a depressed economy such as our current one would be squarely in the interest of both labor and capital alike. No, they have to either stick it to the workers or the consumers. Why? If people had more money to spend, they would be spending it, which is good for the merchants, or saving it and investing it, which is good for the banks, and the economy would improve for everyone. This is why organized Labor is being systematically destroyed around the world. The Unions knew all of this a century ago, and they successfully fought to claw back at least *some* of the value that they were being denied in the market. Profits are sacrosanct, untouchable, to Capitalists and because of this, combined with the utter lack of an ethical or moral component to the profit motive, the market is treated as though it is some force of nature to be contended with and mastered by "the rulers of the universe", instead of a thoroughly human invention, fundamentally based on ignorance and fallacious thinking, that serves the interests of a few who are capable of snowing people into believing anything they say. Your (and most other Capitalist's) argument proceeds from the premise that consumers will always buy that which is cheapest for them, or that which provides the greatest value for the least money. This is a fallacy. Were it true, there wouldn't be as much of a price range on any given item. There would be no luxury items, there would only be a race to the bottom in prices in order to sell. People make purchases based on several factors, most of which are psychological (hence the obscene amounts of money spent on advertising, which these days is an obvious form of emotional and psychological manipulation). I, for example, buy Union whenever I can, even if it costs more, because the *value* to me isn't merely monetary. I am conscious of who I am supporting with my money. More people should pay attention to this, and I think that as more people begin to think this way, a new economic system will have to come into being to replace Capitalism. One that is more conscientious, ethical, and intelligent. Will it be Socialism? Probably not, but it will have many of it's features.

Perhaps if I had enough time and resources I could prove my assertion about the one-to-one ratio of profit and utter loss. If I were a young man and working on my university degree again it might make a good doctoral dissertation to perform such an empirical study, or at least lay the theoretical framework for it.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join