CAPATALISM
- Thread starter mrraskal666
- Start date
THE QUESTION WAS TO EVERYONE TO ANSWER ON THE VIEW ON THE U.S. BUT I DIDNT MEAN IN MONEY WISE, I MEANT IN GOVERNMENT WISE
BUT Y IS IT THAT PEOPLE FLEE TO THIS COUNTRY? AND NOT CANADA? ECT.
AND Y DOES THIS WORLD HAVE TO BE RUNNED BY MONEY? WE SHOULD ALL BE EQUAL AND HAVE THE SHIT WE WANT, PEOPLE OWN THIS AND OWN THAT CUZ THEY HAVE MONEY I THINK THATS STRAIGHT BULLSHIT. IF WE ALL CAME TOGETHER AS A WHOLE IN THE WORLD NOT JUST THE U.S. THEN THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE
LAISSEZ-FAIRE-"TO LET (PEOPLE) DO (WHAT THEY WANT)"
BUT Y IS IT THAT PEOPLE FLEE TO THIS COUNTRY? AND NOT CANADA? ECT.
AND Y DOES THIS WORLD HAVE TO BE RUNNED BY MONEY? WE SHOULD ALL BE EQUAL AND HAVE THE SHIT WE WANT, PEOPLE OWN THIS AND OWN THAT CUZ THEY HAVE MONEY I THINK THATS STRAIGHT BULLSHIT. IF WE ALL CAME TOGETHER AS A WHOLE IN THE WORLD NOT JUST THE U.S. THEN THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE
LAISSEZ-FAIRE-"TO LET (PEOPLE) DO (WHAT THEY WANT)"
In my personal opinion the pros and cons of Capitalism vs. Socialism are that with Capitalism people are driven to do better and work harder (you get better quality service), everyone has a motive that drives their personal work and ambition. Everyone is trying to get ahead. People have the freedom of personal enterprise with little government interference, you have the freedom to own property as well. The only problem is that for Capitalism to work, a cheap labor force is needed. People can manipulate others into doing all the hard work for close to nothing while they reap the profits.
With complete Socialism, the government distributes the wealth and controls all aspects of business. All the money you would make, the government takes and redistributes amongst the population. Now I think does more harm than good. It takes away the motive and ambition to produce quality product and service. Takes away motive to work harder and get ahead. Look at any social service, take for existence Social healthcare. Although the benefit of Social healthcare is that everyone is guaranteed service, the quality of service suffers because the practitioners have little motive to provide quality service. This is just one example. The benefit of socialism is basically for the working class who would otherwise not be able to receive certain services and such.
With complete Socialism, the government distributes the wealth and controls all aspects of business. All the money you would make, the government takes and redistributes amongst the population. Now I think does more harm than good. It takes away the motive and ambition to produce quality product and service. Takes away motive to work harder and get ahead. Look at any social service, take for existence Social healthcare. Although the benefit of Social healthcare is that everyone is guaranteed service, the quality of service suffers because the practitioners have little motive to provide quality service. This is just one example. The benefit of socialism is basically for the working class who would otherwise not be able to receive certain services and such.
The first problem is you're comparing an economic system (capitalism) to a form of government (socialism).
It's important that people understand the difference.
Socialism, in Marxist terminology, is the transition period from Capitalism to Communism. Under communism there would be no government (for example, Marx theorized that during socialism and on into the transit to communism the state would slowly wither away).
I don't agree with this. Why work harder when you know that you have to work 8 hours a day 40 hours a week despite how hard you work? The only real incentive is the possibility of a pay raise but even then that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to work hard.
Why work more efficiently at work if you know you have to be there for 8 hours no matter what? I know I don't.
No, I think you get worse quality service. Everyone is trying to sell their product - doesn't mean if the product is a complete piece of shit the company wants to sell it to make profit. For every 1 good quality product there are 100 shitty ones.
Companies sell products even if they know it is not the best product or even if it is dangerous/hazardous to ones health. The almighty profit steps in the way of everything else.
This is a silly. People still own personal items under communism too. Communism is about the relationship to the means of production - not about owning personal items. The argument isn't about owning a personal item or not - not about deciding between a big-screen tv or the "common good". The question is about how to go about getting to that big-screen tv.
We produce the wealth socially, but the profit goes into private hands.
Complete or true socialism would start with a dictatorship of the proletariat so it would be 100% democracy and ran by the people.
Under socialism the incentive is different. The incentive to come up with more efficient ways to do things is that we'd have to work less time to do the same amount of work, which means, more free time, vacation, more time for research, etc. "The amount of NECESSARY labor needed to produce the things we NEED."
Under capitalism, the ruling class does everything they can to effect the way we think. Through media, education, religion, etc. we are raised with values of a capitalist system, which is that 'dog eat dog', 'every man for himself' "bling bling" mentality. This isn't human nature, this is something we have been conditioned to think. Or in Marx's explanation - a form of false consciousness.
This kind of mentality doesn't benefit the common man...only the very rich.
This mentality would slowly go away under socialism. Since conditions determine consciousness, new generations would see the world entirely different. Think about when a baby is born. It does not know about race, violence, sexual harassment, being materialistic, greed, etc. it only learns about these things when they are passed down by society.
But in reality self-interest remains under socialism. Workers will form a class consciousness by understanding where their true self-interest lay. The bourgeoisie on the other hand have a self-interest under capitalism, in this case a class interest in controlling the class consciousness of the workers - shoring up the false consciousness of the workers that their self-interest lay with the promotion of the class system (remember the old slogan that what's good for GM is good for America--nationalism is a good tool for propping up false consciousness as is religion).
It's important that people understand the difference.
Socialism, in Marxist terminology, is the transition period from Capitalism to Communism. Under communism there would be no government (for example, Marx theorized that during socialism and on into the transit to communism the state would slowly wither away).
I don't agree with this. Why work harder when you know that you have to work 8 hours a day 40 hours a week despite how hard you work? The only real incentive is the possibility of a pay raise but even then that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to work hard.
Why work more efficiently at work if you know you have to be there for 8 hours no matter what? I know I don't.
No, I think you get worse quality service. Everyone is trying to sell their product - doesn't mean if the product is a complete piece of shit the company wants to sell it to make profit. For every 1 good quality product there are 100 shitty ones.
Companies sell products even if they know it is not the best product or even if it is dangerous/hazardous to ones health. The almighty profit steps in the way of everything else.
This is a silly. People still own personal items under communism too. Communism is about the relationship to the means of production - not about owning personal items. The argument isn't about owning a personal item or not - not about deciding between a big-screen tv or the "common good". The question is about how to go about getting to that big-screen tv.
We produce the wealth socially, but the profit goes into private hands.
Complete or true socialism would start with a dictatorship of the proletariat so it would be 100% democracy and ran by the people.
Under socialism the incentive is different. The incentive to come up with more efficient ways to do things is that we'd have to work less time to do the same amount of work, which means, more free time, vacation, more time for research, etc. "The amount of NECESSARY labor needed to produce the things we NEED."
Under capitalism, the ruling class does everything they can to effect the way we think. Through media, education, religion, etc. we are raised with values of a capitalist system, which is that 'dog eat dog', 'every man for himself' "bling bling" mentality. This isn't human nature, this is something we have been conditioned to think. Or in Marx's explanation - a form of false consciousness.
This kind of mentality doesn't benefit the common man...only the very rich.
This mentality would slowly go away under socialism. Since conditions determine consciousness, new generations would see the world entirely different. Think about when a baby is born. It does not know about race, violence, sexual harassment, being materialistic, greed, etc. it only learns about these things when they are passed down by society.
But in reality self-interest remains under socialism. Workers will form a class consciousness by understanding where their true self-interest lay. The bourgeoisie on the other hand have a self-interest under capitalism, in this case a class interest in controlling the class consciousness of the workers - shoring up the false consciousness of the workers that their self-interest lay with the promotion of the class system (remember the old slogan that what's good for GM is good for America--nationalism is a good tool for propping up false consciousness as is religion).
I never said americans are currently ready for socialism, I did however say that "conditions determine consciousness" and "new generations would see the world entirely different."
If/when America reaches the point of revolution and moves towards socialism, Britney Spears and the MTV generation would wither away.
What percentage of americans enjoy their jobs? 5%? 10%? How many useless jobs are there in america? (sales, mortgage, advertising, insurance, etc.). These jobs do not benefit society as a whole. It's such a waste of man power. Society would advance so much faster/further if only we actually spent time on actual needs
If/when America reaches the point of revolution and moves towards socialism, Britney Spears and the MTV generation would wither away.
What percentage of americans enjoy their jobs? 5%? 10%? How many useless jobs are there in america? (sales, mortgage, advertising, insurance, etc.). These jobs do not benefit society as a whole. It's such a waste of man power. Society would advance so much faster/further if only we actually spent time on actual needs
We are beyond actual needs. Most people in America are relatively well fed, clothed, and provided for. Those who aren't have more resources at their disposal then people in nearly any other place in the world.
The fact that food, shelter, etc. is not simply given away to everyone does not detract from the vast amount of help that *is* out there...and I dont see reducing the level of the entire country to subsistence because some people lack benefiting the rest of us.
The fact that food, shelter, etc. is not simply given away to everyone does not detract from the vast amount of help that *is* out there...and I dont see reducing the level of the entire country to subsistence because some people lack benefiting the rest of us.
Let me tell you something. We have social healthcare in the U.K. meaning there is no need to buy health insurance, or is there?
Most people who can afford it buy private health insurance anyways, why? because if you buy private health insurance you're guaranteed better service.
Like I said, with socialist services (like social Healthcare) the quality of service is usually poor because the practitioners are underpaid and they have little incentive to better their service or make a name for themselves. They aren't driven by ambition. They can never get ahead in the business. See what I'm getting at?
Most people who can afford it buy private health insurance anyways, why? because if you buy private health insurance you're guaranteed better service.
Like I said, with socialist services (like social Healthcare) the quality of service is usually poor because the practitioners are underpaid and they have little incentive to better their service or make a name for themselves. They aren't driven by ambition. They can never get ahead in the business. See what I'm getting at?
We've all worked these type of jobs, the fact is you're not forced to have such a job the rest of your life. It's not as if you're stuck with these jobs indefinitely, those smart enough clearly find ways to get ahead. You perceive it as a kind of slave work, while I perceive it as a rung on the ladder that I'm about the climb up. And that's what I mean by incentive and ambition. I can't possibly see what incentive workers would have in a purely socialist government.
This should be even more incentive to try and get ahead. So you're not stuck with such a job. No one likes the jobs they first have when they're young, but you don't have to be pessimistic about it. You have to look at the opportunity around you and grasp it.
So then tell me what's stopping you from building your own private business and making those hands your own?
I'm talking about personal incentive... what would be the point of working hard and giving your job your all if it's not going to get you a big nice house and brand new car? What's the incentive in socialism to work hard and not be apathetic? tell me.
Whose to say this wouldn't happen under socialism? And look and countries who have implemented communism (I know you're going to say "well they didn't do it right"), they used media control more than anything to manipulate the population.
I would argue that it has always been human nature to be somewhat ego-centric and selfish. This natural "survival of the fittest" behavior is primitive, not conditioned. Although true, individualism is a problem that should be addressed, complete socialism is not the solution.
Wait how would socialism eliminate racism, violence and sexual harassment?
I don't see that. I can see how it would eliminate materialism and greed but how are these other things related?
Would understand where their true self-interest lay? You can easily understand your true self-interest in Capitalism regardless of class. If you're an idiot you probably wouldn't realize your true self-interest and remain in a low-wage job your entire life. But that's the point, we can't all be doctors and lawyers, the world needs ditch-diggers as well.
But those smart enough aren't as easily manipulated and they get ahead. While those who are gullible remain stuck. Like I said, the world needs ditch-diggers too.
Well if promotion is one way to get ahead then I'd say promotion is in your self-interest. And the thing about Capitalism is that basically anyone can start a private business. So no, it is not stuck within the confounds of promotion, you can attempt to promote yourself.
This should be even more incentive to try and get ahead. So you're not stuck with such a job. No one likes the jobs they first have when they're young, but you don't have to be pessimistic about it. You have to look at the opportunity around you and grasp it.
So then tell me what's stopping you from building your own private business and making those hands your own?
I'm talking about personal incentive... what would be the point of working hard and giving your job your all if it's not going to get you a big nice house and brand new car? What's the incentive in socialism to work hard and not be apathetic? tell me.
Whose to say this wouldn't happen under socialism? And look and countries who have implemented communism (I know you're going to say "well they didn't do it right"), they used media control more than anything to manipulate the population.
I would argue that it has always been human nature to be somewhat ego-centric and selfish. This natural "survival of the fittest" behavior is primitive, not conditioned. Although true, individualism is a problem that should be addressed, complete socialism is not the solution.
Wait how would socialism eliminate racism, violence and sexual harassment?
I don't see that. I can see how it would eliminate materialism and greed but how are these other things related?
Would understand where their true self-interest lay? You can easily understand your true self-interest in Capitalism regardless of class. If you're an idiot you probably wouldn't realize your true self-interest and remain in a low-wage job your entire life. But that's the point, we can't all be doctors and lawyers, the world needs ditch-diggers as well.
But those smart enough aren't as easily manipulated and they get ahead. While those who are gullible remain stuck. Like I said, the world needs ditch-diggers too.
Well if promotion is one way to get ahead then I'd say promotion is in your self-interest. And the thing about Capitalism is that basically anyone can start a private business. So no, it is not stuck within the confounds of promotion, you can attempt to promote yourself.
Right because we all have the chance of becoming rich! The American dream!
Of course blame the individual who is obviously too stupid to become rich. Yes, it is you’re fault, dummy, for being born in the inner city and attending under funded schools and not making it to Harvard.
How far are you going to climb the corporate latter? All the way to the top I’m sure.
I thought I explained that already – “The incentive to come up with more efficient ways to do things is that we'd have to work less time to do the same amount of work, which means, more free time, vacation, more time for research, etc. "The amount of NECESSARY labor needed to produce the things we NEED."”
What percentage of people enjoy their work? I’m guessing it’s pretty low. And I already know what you’re going to say – “they are too stupid, it’s their fault, no one is forcing them, etc.” Not everyone has the opportunities to select a perfect job for them, no that’s not how the system works if it did, there would be no dish washers, telemarketers, salesmen, etc. The real incentive to work harder is "work so you can pay your rent, your mortgage, your interest on credit card and school loans, your over-priced food, healthcare, transportation, and entertainment, and so on or you STARVE".
Over 85% of small businesses fail for a reason - they cannot compete with big business. As Marx accurately predicted, as capitalism grows comes the disappearance of the independent small business sector and self-employed professionals. This is more evident today than ever before.
That is personal incentive!
Who said anything about not receiving a nice house and nice car????
It has happened in some cases but as you already know in most of those cases it was not true socialism.
Humans are social creatures. We only advanced this far not by competing against each other and crushing one another in the struggle to "get ahead", but through cooperation. Only by cooperating were humans able to combine their resources to hunt, build shelters, build the pyramids, cities, etc., etc.
Primitive humans needed to cooperate if they were to survive the elements. A baby cannot survive on it’s own it needs the care of its mother/father for years in order to survive. It is in our genetic makeup to be social. For the vast majority of human existence, there were no classes, and we lived communally in small groups, dividing up the work and dividing up the wealth in the interests of everyone.
It’s against our interests to be greedy and selfish.
As I explained, these negative qualities are something that is relatively new to the human species. As I said, "conditions determine consciousness,” in other words, our environment determines to a large degree how we think. We are raised to have the values of the capitalist system.
I didn’t say it would end it I used that as an example – these things are only taught to the child they are not born with these negative qualities (again, "conditions determine consciousness”
.
According to you, what is the self-interest of the workers under Capitalism?
Again, you blame the individual for not being smart enough. Blame the worker for being exploited.
Of course blame the individual who is obviously too stupid to become rich. Yes, it is you’re fault, dummy, for being born in the inner city and attending under funded schools and not making it to Harvard.
How far are you going to climb the corporate latter? All the way to the top I’m sure.
I thought I explained that already – “The incentive to come up with more efficient ways to do things is that we'd have to work less time to do the same amount of work, which means, more free time, vacation, more time for research, etc. "The amount of NECESSARY labor needed to produce the things we NEED."”
What percentage of people enjoy their work? I’m guessing it’s pretty low. And I already know what you’re going to say – “they are too stupid, it’s their fault, no one is forcing them, etc.” Not everyone has the opportunities to select a perfect job for them, no that’s not how the system works if it did, there would be no dish washers, telemarketers, salesmen, etc. The real incentive to work harder is "work so you can pay your rent, your mortgage, your interest on credit card and school loans, your over-priced food, healthcare, transportation, and entertainment, and so on or you STARVE".
Over 85% of small businesses fail for a reason - they cannot compete with big business. As Marx accurately predicted, as capitalism grows comes the disappearance of the independent small business sector and self-employed professionals. This is more evident today than ever before.
That is personal incentive!
Who said anything about not receiving a nice house and nice car????
It has happened in some cases but as you already know in most of those cases it was not true socialism.
Humans are social creatures. We only advanced this far not by competing against each other and crushing one another in the struggle to "get ahead", but through cooperation. Only by cooperating were humans able to combine their resources to hunt, build shelters, build the pyramids, cities, etc., etc.
Primitive humans needed to cooperate if they were to survive the elements. A baby cannot survive on it’s own it needs the care of its mother/father for years in order to survive. It is in our genetic makeup to be social. For the vast majority of human existence, there were no classes, and we lived communally in small groups, dividing up the work and dividing up the wealth in the interests of everyone.
It’s against our interests to be greedy and selfish.
As I explained, these negative qualities are something that is relatively new to the human species. As I said, "conditions determine consciousness,” in other words, our environment determines to a large degree how we think. We are raised to have the values of the capitalist system.
I didn’t say it would end it I used that as an example – these things are only taught to the child they are not born with these negative qualities (again, "conditions determine consciousness”
. According to you, what is the self-interest of the workers under Capitalism?
Again, you blame the individual for not being smart enough. Blame the worker for being exploited.