"Deep" thoughts on Socialism and Capitalism... (Split from retux thread)

[TrashyMG]

Socialism is about killing your own culture and promoting that of others, if you are fine with that, i suppose socialism rocks!

How so?

 

[fusion_power]

"Practice without theory is blind. Theory without practice is sterile." -- Karl Marx

 That's also precisely why Communism / Socialism fails in real life. Well said Karl!

I also have one quote from Karl Marx: "I'm not a Marxist!"   He knew that things would go very wrong if his works and ideas were ever used as a form of State doctrine, fascinating actualy.

Social Democracy is a form of socialism by definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Be careful, Social =/= Socialism!

You know what capitalism is? Getting fucked.

Yupp, but with the option to become a Fucker by yorself one day. "The hope dies at last" it's said.
Overall, everything has good and bad sites, it is important what people do. "Real" Socialism may not be bad but there never was real socialism yet, not in the GDR (I was born in east germany) and not in other "socialist" Countries.

The current Predator Capitalism that is so glorified and teached as a good thing is also very wrong. It's far from a healthy social market economy, it causes greed and the gap between rich and poor becomes bigger and bigger.

 

[Foxgod]

The socialist movements in north west europe are always for a social security system that is as free as possible, this to support the lower side of society, however the lower side mainly consists of first generation immigrants that lack ambition and tend to reproduce a lot, they are also way over accounted for in crime numers.

Anyone who critizises this is bombarded to a xenophobe racist, but nobody is judging color. we are instead judging the fact that the lower side of society is turned into some sort of communistic layer with no incentive or stimulation to be a part of society according to western values and standards, but as soon as you poke that giant sleeping bear of a problem in our society,s you are automatically a racist.

Thank Socialism for a new rise in anarchy sweeping trough the poor parts of our mayor city`s, and noone who dares to do anything about it, too scared to become falsely targeted by the anti racist movements, that tend to be overly emotional and physical.

Not to mention how this also affects the rise in right extremist movements..... aggresion and violence left and right, thanks socialism.... for once again splitting society,s.

 

[comradekingu]

Socialists are thieves, nothing more nothing less.


They make up all kinds of rhetoric to pretend their theft is more ethical than the common mugger, but it's not.

>rhetoric to pretend

>Socialists are...

>thieves/common mugger

>but it's not

 

[Caine]

>rhetoric to pretend

>Socialists are...

>thieves/common mugger

>but it's not

Polarizing rhetoric was intentional Nothing like lighting a fire to get some discussion going.
The way I view it is the political spectrum is divided mainly amongst Collectivism vs Individualism.

This holds for both the ethics of society (i.e. the social organization of the country) and the market organization (i.e. the economical organization). While a collectivistic ethic seems to favour a collectivistic market (i.e. planned economy) and an individualistic ethic (e.g. libertarian) favours an individualistic market (laissez faire capitalism), these are separate concepts. Indeed most social democracies (collectivist ethics) are combined with (regulated) capitalistic markets.

There are some other dimensions (statism vs anarchy, religious vs secular), but let's not focus on those for the moment. Most countries are extremely statist and few are anarchistic. I personally do not think that religion belongs in politics, but in practice it is part of it more often than not.

Obviously from my prior comments, I am an individualist. I am in favour of small-government (justice, defense) combined with laissez faire capitalism. That said, I have trouble determining where to place the proper limits. Though I am at least convinced that the European wellfare states have gone too far.

The problem with the political systems, in fact with any -ism, is that they cannot deal with people who willfully and intentionally sabotage that system. I.e. they assume that everyone adheres to the same ethics or at least does not openly fight or flee. In that sense, they are not evolutionary stable.

So, let's take a look at some of these systems.

History has demonstrated the main problems with the planned economies. They disincentivize work, are too slow to react to demand, stifle innovation (new technology leads to loss of jobs) and in general the outcome seems an overall very low standard of life. It does not utilize human nature to get the most out of the system. Communism is in no way a halfway decent implementation of Marxism, but I am not convinced that the premise will ever work.

On the other extreme, a laissez faire capitalistic market (which does not currently exist), assumes rationality in all its actors. I.e. that everyone acts as fair traders and none will use fraud to cheat others out of their possession. Such "randian heroes" do not exist. Very few, if any, people can consistently act like that and I have strong doubts that the justice system will be capable of filtering them out. In other words, those who cheat, win. It also seems to require abundance of resources since any individual or corporation which completely controls are primary resource (essential for survival) would become the defacto dictator and could break the system at will.

The social democracies try to walk the middle ground where a collectivistic ethic is combined with a regulated capitalistic market. Yet, it is always a system of tension. They reward doing nothing and punish work. Maybe it is the most stable due to it swinging back and forth with every government change. The biggest issue is that large governments will only become larger. Politicians are notoriously bad at eliminating laws. So in due time, any social democracy slowly converges to a planned economy. Indeed, it even seems to be the goal of many parties within these type of governments.

So what is wisdom?...I really don't know. I like the libertarian ethics and am strongly in favour of capitalism. Yet, we do not have any real-life examples but only fantasy depictions, BioShock, Atlas Shrugged, ... Naturally each of them written with their own agenda.

 

[Klumpen]

Every form of state is just a matter of oppression by suppressing the sins of some people while supporting the sins of others, mostly greed.

It doesn't make any difference how you call a state, in the end everything depends on details, especcially the direct human behaviour of the people in it and that's where cultural aspects like philosophical basics in the upbringing come into play and since philosophy is one of the lowest valued disciplines today, the result is a varying degree of complete shit in most places of course.

How many people do you know that actually live the categorical imperative? At least one? No? Zero? I thought so.

The main problem of the currently most dominant way of life is, that "modesty" isn't regarded as a virtue anymore but rather as a vice.

 

[Haraldur]

Property is theft.

Intellectual property is intellectual theft.

This is fun.

 

[bzar]

For the sake of an argument, let's assume the ultimate metric of any system of government was how high the lowest standard of living in it was if given enough time. What kind of system would you pick to maximize that one metric?

 

[ElPoco]

The financial side of it is all about spreading the resources equally, this removes the incentive to do more then others, causing a shortage of docters and other much needed specialists.

This is a common misunderstanding that has been spread since the wrong conclusions were drawn from observartions made during the Cold War.

Basically, some people observed that the West was more innovative and productive than the East, which was mostly correct. But then they went on to say that the reason for this was that people in the West were financially rewarded for being innovative and productive while in the East they weren't. This is where the thinking were wrong. They were many other differences between the East and the West that could explain this.

Many studies, since then, have proven that financial incentives are not the best way to motivate people and to encourage productivity. People are more productive and innovative when they care about something, not when they're paid for that. And this was also one major difference between the East and the West. The most innovative and productive companies in the West were made by people who were driven by passion, not greed. Meanwhile, in the East you were told what to work on, and what results to get.

 however the lower side mainly consists of first generation immigrants that lack ambition

Many immigrants are people who had the uncommon courage to leave everything they got in the hope of a better life. They are incredibly hard workers, ready to take on the jobs that no residents want and often taking multiple jobs to be able to get by. Compare that to rich kids (or even not so rich kids) who spend 3 years partying while officially studying "arts history" and then complain (on the facebook they access from their latest smartphone with their expensive plan) that they can't find a job. Or even worse, those same kids who then say it's the fault of immigrants, but get upset when you offer them the jobs these immigrants are actually taking.

 

[Hồng Thất Công]

"Practice without theory is blind. Theory without practice is sterile." -- Karl Marx

Both are needed if you want to do things right.

He's a Marxist, I don't believe in what he said  

 

[Mr_Loon]

For the sake of an argument, let's assume the ultimate metric of any system of government was how high the lowest standard of living in it was if given enough time. What kind of system would you pick to maximize that one metric?

Given enough time, I'd start with Capitalism, morph towards Social Democracy, wait until the development of Robotics / AI Systems renders the concept of money / consumer goods irrelevant and then adopt Socialism. Could work if you ask me

 

[Caine]

For the sake of an argument, let's assume the ultimate metric of any system of government was how high the lowest standard of living in it was if given enough time. What kind of system would you pick to maximize that one metric?

I would challenge that metric. E.g. if the standard of living was raised by pillaging and murdering defenseless countries then the height of the standard is irrelevant as it is founded on a basis of unacceptable ethics.

 

[Klumpen]

For the sake of an argument, let's assume the ultimate metric of any system of government was how high the lowest standard of living in it was if given enough time. What kind of system would you pick to maximize that one metric?

I would challenge that metric. E.g. if the standard of living was raised by pillaging and murdering defenseless countries then the height of the standard is irrelevant as it is founded on a basis of unacceptable ethics.

You mean the American way is wrong and they should give the land back to the mostly slaughtered natives.

The secret of this wealth always was "lots of ground for free/cheap".

That's what capitalism was about from the start, wasn't it? Wealth by exploitation and theft instead of work and sweat.

BTW: Every country I know of was created on the basis of murder and theft at some point, with Pakistan, Israel and some others in this area being some of the younger examples but in the end it was the same everywhere.

 

[comradekingu]

So outside of examples constructed in fictional books, where do you draw your conclusions from, because pillaging and murder is real and does happen.

 

[Caine]

I am quite conflicted myself on the ethics of these systems, hence I enjoy discussing it and to hear the various viewpoints about it.

You mean the American way is wrong and they should give the land back to the mostly slaughtered natives.

I have the tendency to condemn the actions of the European settlers towards the indigenous population of the states as criminal.On the other hand, I do not think that children are responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. So no, I don't know the proper course of action here.

The typical defense given by objectivists that the natives were savages and taking their land was thus justified always sounded like convenient bullshit to me.

One of the points where, for convenience sake, they drop the consistency of their own system. And this goes back all the way to Rand herself.

That's what capitalism was about from the start, wasn't it? Wealth by exploitation and theft instead of work and sweat.

I do not think it was. Just as Marxism was never about starting a dictatorship by a small elitist club of politicians.It seems to be that in the hands of flawed animals (which we all are), the systems converge to something else than intended.

BTW: Every country I know of was created on the basis of murder and theft at some point, with Pakistan, Israel and some others in this area being some of the younger examples but in the end it was the same everywhere.

Indeed. There is no denying the violent and horrible past of humanity. I do not see it as a valid argument to continue like that however.

So outside of examples constructed in fictional books, where do you draw your conclusions from, because pillaging and murder is real and does happen.

Which ones in particular? My preference for individualism? I like the non-agression principle. I.e. I will not initiate any act of physical violence against a fellow human being.The only way that one will involuntarily spend half of his/her income to support the livelihood of others, is to apply or threaten with physical violence (which is what social democracies do, try not paying your taxes).

I do not see how if someone fails to take responsibility for his/her own life why I am obligated to compensate for that.

These are very fundamentally different views on life and I'm not sure if there is a strong rational argument for one or the other (if there is I would love to hear it).

I am getting more and more convinced that methodically applying either of them just creates a big mess. Hence that no pure systems exist today.

 

[bzar]

For the sake of an argument, let's assume the ultimate metric of any system of government was how high the lowest standard of living in it was if given enough time. What kind of system would you pick to maximize that one metric?

I would challenge that metric. E.g. if the standard of living was raised by pillaging and murdering defenseless countries then the height of the standard is irrelevant as it is founded on a basis of unacceptable ethics.

Let's start with domestic, not foreign policy.

 

[Caine]

Let's start with domestic, not foreign policy.

Seems like the countries that are doing the best in the world combine a capitalistic market with a limited form of government regulation on top of it.
I.e. it seems like currently the social democracies are in the lead.

However, these measurements tend to focus on average standard of living (a metric which inherently favors the low-income masses and thus tends towards socialistic constructions).

Are there any numbers available on "the lowest standard of living"? Even in socialist countries there are hobos who choose not to not use the social security benefits.

Is that the lowest standard of living then? Would they themselves agree?

 

[comradekingu]

So outside of examples constructed in fictional books, where do you draw your conclusions from, because pillaging and murder is real and does happen.

Which ones in particular? My preference for individualism? I like the non-agression principle. I.e. I will not initiate any act of physical violence against a fellow human being.The only way that one will involuntarily spend half of his/her income to support the livelihood of others, is to apply or threaten with physical violence (which is what social democracies do, try not paying your taxes).

I do not see how if someone fails to take responsibility for his/her own life why I am obligated to compensate for that.

These are very fundamentally different views on life and I'm not sure if there is a strong rational argument for one or the other (if there is I would love to hear it).

I am getting more and more convinced that methodically applying either of them just creates a big mess. Hence that no pure systems exist today.

The point where you apply it to society is interesting, because that is real, and can be observed. Outside of your personal scope, the countries with the highest taxation,

are also the ones that are most happy to contribute to society that way. For the time being they are also the selection of countries that are best off.

If willingness was different, it would all be within your scope, but I think as long as it is outside of it, and those societies do exists, you should be more willing to follow suit.

Does the distinction matter?

 

[_wb_]

Let's start with domestic, not foreign policy.

Seems like the countries that are doing the best in the world combine a capitalistic market with a limited form of government regulation on top of it.

I.e. it seems like currently the social democracies are in the lead.


However, these measurements tend to focus on average standard of living (a metric which inherently favors the low-income masses and thus tends towards socialistic constructions).


Are there any numbers available on "the lowest standard of living"? Even in socialist countries there are hobos who choose not to not use the social security benefits.


Is that the lowest standard of living then? Would they themselves agree?

Minimum wage, minimum pension and/or minimum subsistence income would be good indicators...

 

[bzar]

Even in socialist countries there are hobos who choose not to not use the social security benefits. Is that the lowest standard of living then? Would they themselves agree?

Is whether they use it or not relevant? I consider for example "access to free health care" and "access to free education" benefits that by their very existence count towards improved standard of living. I don't own a ball-peen hammer, but because it's trivial for me to get one should I ever need one it doesn't limit my standard of living. I live just as happily as I would with a ball-peen hammer because I know I'll have one when I need one.