Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here.

[coins4commies]

Stolen?  Are you sure?

You are completely ignoring the cost of capital and the initiatives and the entrepreneurship of the capitalists.  

BTW, nobody is stealing anything from workers.  Workers work willingly.  

Who is taking the risk?  Capitalists or workers?

The risk in any venture is correlated with the potential ROI.  What do workers risk?  Not being bored at work?

Why do you think the Apple employees deserve the 400k/year?  Who risked their capital?  Apple employees or the capitalists who own the company?

Do you want to benefit from Apple success?  Buy the APPL stock.

PS.  BTW, workers control the value of their labor.  They ask for wages or salaries.  Where did you get this idea that workers are not in control of their lives or their labor?  In democratic societies, we are all free to pursue whatever we desire as long as it is legal.  You can go to university, get your Ph.D., start your own company, hire people who can be trained and help them better their lives.  Run your company, invest and retire early.  Nobody is stopping you.

Capitalists take much more than the cost of capital.  If they only took the cost of capital, that would be fair and no one would be complaining.  Its misleading to say workers choose to work for capitalists, they work or starve.  That is coercion.  This is why homelessness and poverty are necessary for sustaining capitalism.  If you ended them, there wouldn't be a viable threat to coerce people into accepting these predatory work agreements.   This is why there is so much slander of anything remotely socialist.  Any policy that might help people take control of their lives (funds for welfare, education, healthcare or starting your own business) is an existential threat to capitalism as we know it.

I'm glad you brought up risk because capitalists don't really risk much at all.  They risk not making as much money as they could have made elsewhere.  Thats it.  Meanwhile, workers risk everything.  They risk their life.  If a machine blows up, capitalists aren't going to lose a finger, an arm, or their lives.  Capitalists aren't going to develop cancer because of the conditions in their factories.  Capitalists aren't going to fall to their death at work.  It is workers who risk the most.  

If apple workers paid the company for the capital and kept the phones, they would be arrested.Workers have no control.  They live under dictatorship of the capitalist above them.  

A worker cannot decide to work in a different way because the current way is a bit too dangerous.  A worker cannot decide to stay home when they feel like it. Their only decision is which capitalist they will work for.  

The bold quote is very out of touch for most of the working class.  This is something true for people born into the capitalist class.  Working class people cannot afford to stop working.   They cannot afford expensive graduate tuition and they certainly do not have the capital to start their own company or they wouldn't be working class, they'd be capitalist class.  

It may be true to say that anyone could become capitalist class but capitalism requires most people to be working class.

Are we in the 1920s?  Are you sure?  Who in the western countries works because they starve?  Most work because they have mortgages, car loans, and cc debt and no income-generating investments.  Food is cheap and abundant.

There are so many opportunities in the capitalist societies that is just not funny anymore.  

BTW, any worker can become capitalist.  There is no law that says if you are born poor you must die poor.  This is not 1300s England.

People stay poor because of their inability to understand the system, or simply they stay poor by choice.

Who says that the working class has to move up to the 1%? The education system is designed to produce workers, managers, and future leaders.  Only a small percentage of people born in the working-class families can improve their socio-economic status.  Why?  Because of the IQ distribution.  You have heard of scholarships, haven't you?  Score perfect on SATs and you are guaranteed free education in the US.

The system works well with nature.  IQ distributions are natural.  So is the system.  Is it cruel?  Sure, so is nature.

People aren't starving but they are hungry.  40 million Americans are food insecure.  This is the visible threat of what will happen if you refuse to have your labor value stolen. 

When you use western countries to define capitalism you are falling into the capitalist trap of externalized costs.  Capitalism does a great job at externalizing costs.  As time progresses, more and more of the working class is located outside of the western countries.  We live well by importing cheap goods but they are cheap because we are externalizing the costs.  We aren't paying for our goods but the poor workers are paying for them with most of their labor value.    Producing a car or a phone is not any easier in china but it is significantly cheaper because more can be stolen from people with less power. 

So no its not the 1920 but eventually capitalism runs out of things and people to exploit...

Any worker can become a capitalist but most workers cannot.  That is the issue.  The fact that anyone can win the lottery does not tell us anything about realistic probability. 

IQ scores don't measure intelligence.  IQ is a farce.  Stop pretending this social constructed test is "natural" and so that you can use it to try to justify the hierarchal oppression of the masses.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931870-400-the-truth-about-intelligence-do-iq-tests-really-work/

[1714214793]

1714214793

[1714214793]

1714214793

[1714214793]

1714214793

[1714214793]

1714214793

[1714214793]

1714214793

[Ciscopro2000]

My choice is capitalism.  You work hard and you get to keep most of what you earn. 

[TECSHARE]

Except Florida and California are real places. Socialism is a concept. You showing me a subjective picture about a subjective topic that exists only within your mind is not proof of its efficacy. In fact it is not even an argument, it is just you repeating your pathological need to always play the role of the educator, and anyone who disagrees with you is simply ignorant and in need of your benevolence graced upon them via your superior knowledge. It is a stale shtick and you are essentially a walking appeal to authority.

Florida and California are political constructs superimposed over actual native nations.  Its all subjective which is why a political map is important for showing you which specific location on Earth I am talking about.  Even if we call them different things, the map specifies where we are referring to.   

The same can be said about the compass.  Regardless of what you call different points on the map, I, and everyone else in these threads is quite far away from the ideology you constantly refer to.   The compass solves the problem of semantics.  Reasonable critics may argue its not completely accurate, a bit skewed, or unnecessary, but only a person who prefers a semantic debate would refuse to acknowledge the existence of 4 quadrants of political ideology.

Right, so now Florida and California are not real places you can go to, they are concepts. yeah. ok. This is a perfect example again of your Postmodernist mind mush. You aren't wrong, all you need to do is describe the premise into such a contradictory way until you are right again! You are a walking example of the Hegelian Dialectic.

Your pretty picture is subjective, and so are the topics within it. Your continuation of presenting false choice fallacies again is not a support of your argument.

The only argument you've made about it being "stealing the property of rights of others" is that printing money does that which is already standard procedure.

Not the only argument, but yet another argument you have been unable to refute. Printing money does steal buying power from the currency holders. Just because it is standard procedure already doesn't make it good or acceptable. By that logic since the system of Capitalism we operate under is standard procedure, we should keep being Capitalist. Again, I never advocated for inflation, you did as a requirement for your implementations of Socialism.

Who said anything about "endless money printing".  This is a very specific policy used in a very specific way.  Money loses some of its value when you grow the economy but where do you think the value of the dollar comes from?  What has happened to the value of the dollar over the last 50 years?  What is so bad about that?

The buying power of the dollar has plummeted over the last 50 years. What is so bad about that is people who work and save for a lifetime suddenly find their savings are worth a small fraction of what they worked for. What is so bad about that is you have to debase the ENTIRE ECONOMY to do this. It is like cutting off your legs below the knee, and taping them on top of your head then telling everyone to look at how much taller you are.

The value of the dollar constitutionally is a very specific amount of gold and silver. Over time this backing was removed and we entered into a system that essentially was backed by the utility of being easy to use for buying and selling oil. Over the years they have just printed so much money though the economy is completely debased and a global economic collapse is now unavoidable. You create a magic button that prints money and expect it not to be abused? Please.

When people do it its called counterfeiting, when banks do it its called "quantitative easing".

Have you never heard of HR?   Supply and demand being used on humans is what makes capitalism such a moral quandry. Capitalists need to reduce costs to stay competitive in the market so they keep wages as low as possible and terminate jobs that extract less profit.  Market forces means jobs chase poverty.  This is why GM is moving their plants overseas. 

Yes, and? GM is moving overseas because they are failing. They are failing because people aren't buying the cars they are producing. People aren't buying cars because the value of the currency has been so debased, no one trusts the economic system any more. As a result people aren't taking risks and starting business that would employ people and allow them to afford to buy more vehicles.

This system is what makes the use of natural resources most efficient. Jobs that aren't creating profit are not creating resources, they are only burning them. Simply consuming is not the path to a functional economy.

No one said "burning through resources" was "automatically better".   That was the straw man because the argument was about creating companies in areas of need with workers who are unemployed to fill in the gaps of the economy capitalism cannot address.

Actually, this is exactly what you advocated:

"...Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money. "

Here your logical progression is, if we simply pay people more, they will spend more and the economy will be better! That is like someone telling you they have a huge credit card bill and you suggest they use their credit card to pay it off. The initial profit and resources still have to come from somewhere and can not just be invented into existence without theft via inflation, or some other form of theft of rights.


   

Democracy is mob rule. Individuals, minority groups, and fringe individuals have no rights under a pure Democracy. In a pure Democracy the many always take the rights of the few. This is how power is centralized via pure Democracy, by uniting the majority against the minority.

ok I'm glad we have finally established that it is democracy you are against. 

I am against pure democracy. Mobs do not make smart choices and are easily lead around because they don't make the effort to be informed and have no problem pretending to be. More importantly the rights of the marginalized, minorities, and individuals are sacrificed by the dictate of the majority.

What you have is a pretty fantasy. You keep telling me about how great it would be but you aren't giving me any details on how that is going to happen without systematically robbing and stripping people of their rights.

The idea I have laid out have been done and do not strip any rights.  You haven't mentioned any rights that would be stripped but have only repeated that statement.  Its almost as if you have operant talking points that were crafted by someone else against something else. 

Oh it has been done? Where, your precious go to one hit wonder Marcora laws that I already broke down as being capitalist in nature except for the government subsidies? I have mentioned exactly rights that will be taken. Property rights. Since all rights are forms of property rights, this is pretty fucking important. The right to have a dollar remain to be worth a dollar. The right to not be stolen from via inflation, confiscation, or taxation to fund ever expanding handouts.

I find it so cute when people like you take the "big words" they found most impressive out of my speech, and try to throw them back at me in a refractory manner, the whole time never even bothering to look up the definition of the word.

That word makes no sense in the context of that statement, and I used the term "operant conditioning" to describe your tendency to simply repeat yourself over and over in the hope that people will hear it enough times to just accept it via brute force much like a musical jingle in a commercial that gets stuck in your head.

This demonstrates to me you think language is just some kind of superficial game we engage in and the one who has the most sophistic skill wins, not that there is any kind of logic, critical thought, or meaning behind these words that determine their veracity. Of course why would I expect anything different from you Captain Postmodern?

[mOgliE]

Yes, and? GM is moving overseas because they are failing. They are failing because people aren't buying the cars they are producing. People aren't buying cars because the value of the currency has been so debased, no one trusts the economic system any more. As a result people aren't taking risks and starting business that would employ people and allow them to afford to buy more vehicles.

Just popping by to make you notice how funny it is that TECSHARE refuses any kind of argument or hypothesis which is not backed up by at least 3 different sources of raw data (not infographic mind you cause that can be manipulated, raw data only please) and still in a single paragraph you find 10 different hypothesis or logical links that are backed up nothing but his good faith:

1-GM is failing
2-GM is moving overseas BECAUSE they're failing
3-People aren't buying the cars they're producing
4-GM is failing BECAUSE people aren't buying the cars they're producing
5-People aren't buying cars
6-No one trusts the economic system
7-It's because currency is heavily debased
8-People aren't buying cars because they don't trust the economic system
9-People aren't starting businesses
10-Starting businesses is what provides economy with jobs

Funny thing is that you're exactly "debating" like this asking everyone to prove with empirical data EVERYTHING they say. Sounds ridiculous right? Well that's what you do, but in a less organized way because you don't even take the time to separate the different hypothesis you're asking other ones to prove. At least it would make it possible to move forward...

In your paragraph I'd say numbers 2/5/7/8/9 are false at least. But hey, burden of proof isn't on you of course 

[TECSHARE]

Yes, and? GM is moving overseas because they are failing. They are failing because people aren't buying the cars they are producing. People aren't buying cars because the value of the currency has been so debased, no one trusts the economic system any more. As a result people aren't taking risks and starting business that would employ people and allow them to afford to buy more vehicles.

Just popping by to make you notice how funny it is that TECSHARE refuses any kind of argument or hypothesis which is not backed up by at least 3 different sources of raw data (not infographic mind you cause that can be manipulated, raw data only please) and still in a single paragraph you find 10 different hypothesis or logical links that are backed up nothing but his good faith:

1-GM is failing
2-GM is moving overseas BECAUSE they're failing
3-People aren't buying the cars they're producing
4-GM is failing BECAUSE people aren't buying the cars they're producing
5-People aren't buying cars
6-No one trusts the economic system
7-It's because currency is heavily debased
8-People aren't buying cars because they don't trust the economic system
9-People aren't starting businesses
10-Starting businesses is what provides economy with jobs

Funny thing is that you're exactly "debating" like this asking everyone to prove with empirical data EVERYTHING they say. Sounds ridiculous right? Well that's what you do, but in a less organized way because you don't even take the time to separate the different hypothesis you're asking other ones to prove. At least it would make it possible to move forward...

In your paragraph I'd say numbers 2/5/7/8/9 are false at least. But hey, burden of proof isn't on you of course 

Now you need to make up lies about me to make your arguments? 3 sources eh? I don't recall ever demanding a specific number of sources for anything but please feel free to quote me (not that you can because it never happened). This is just your SOP.

I ask for people to state a clear premise and back that premise with empirical data yes. This is the standard by which practically any professional operates from. The difference between you and me is that I ask for empirical data in relation to the core topic, while you use this deconstructivist method to endlessly divert the discussion on to side topics in a pathetic and refractory attempt to "hold me to my own standards".

Really all it is though is a sad divisive move designed to use up as much time and energy as possible WITHOUT actually refuting any of my core arguments, supporting any of your own premises, or providing a drop of empirical data.


Hey but just for fun to demonstrate how perpetually misinformed you are to everyone else, here are some sources:

2-GM is moving overseas BECAUSE they're failing

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2018/11/27/economists-advice/2120444002/

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/general-motors-fail-article-1.374800

https://fox17online.com/2018/11/26/gm-to-close-canadian-plant-but-thats-just-the-beginning/


5-People aren't buying cars

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/03/01/february-2018-u-s-auto-sales/384210002/

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180709/RETAIL/180709775/gm-car-sales-sedan-crossover

http://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/13667/used-car-values-are-plummeting-faster-and-faster-across-america-report-claims

http://www.autonews.com/article/20170720/OEM01/170729956/uaw-gm-talking-about-impact-of-slumping-car-sales-on-u.s.-jobs



7-It's because currency is heavily debased

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/08/-us-inflation-is-the-worlds-most-important-economic-variable.html

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com/index.php/easyblog/entry/3-ways-how-inflation-destroys-an-economy

https://thedailycoin.org/2018/11/04/inflation-is-destroying-the-middle-class-blame-the-fed-video/


8-People aren't buying cars because they don't trust the economic system

This is a misinterpretation of my words. The debating of the economy results in less risk being taken by would be business owners who would otherwise be employing people, enabling them to afford to buy more cars.


9-People aren't starting businesses

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2015/02/12/the-decline-of-american-entrepreneurship-in-five-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6abcb8ffdce0

https://www.coastal.edu/media/administration/honorsprogram/pdf/Alyssa%20Sharples.pdf

[SCheek]

A couple of recent threads saw us going off topic and we found ourselves arguing the merits of capitalism vs. pitfalls of socialism.   

Can you guess where I stand on the issue?  If not I'll tell you.  Freedom is not compatible with socialism, and I'm more inclined to remain free and provide for myself than I am to accept handouts and be enslaved.

What about you?

Socialism only works if all consumers act in a fair and honest way. Capitalism works even if you're not fair and honest.

[mOgliE]

Oh my god you actually did xD

The whole point was to show you how innefficient, useless and not intuitive asking for empirical data for everything you say is! Not to make you do it!

You didn't do it at first because that's not very useful and that's how civilized people debate. You exchange each other reasonning and only when you disagree or don't believe a precise point of their argumentation you ask for specific proofs on this specific topic.

Asking someone to back every premise he states with empirical data is NOT useful and is NOT constructive and NOT the "standard". It might be your but it's yours only.

Concerning your points I can't really discuss them cause most of your sources aren't available in european countries/from my computer  
Not your fault of course, I just can't say much about them as I can't access the articles...

[mOgliE]

A couple of recent threads saw us going off topic and we found ourselves arguing the merits of capitalism vs. pitfalls of socialism.   

Can you guess where I stand on the issue?  If not I'll tell you.  Freedom is not compatible with socialism, and I'm more inclined to remain free and provide for myself than I am to accept handouts and be enslaved.

What about you?

I would argue a bit here but you're right that complete freedom isn't compatible with socialism.

But is it compatible with anything else than anarchy?

You're not free at all under capitalism either. Anyone cares to give me one capitalist country where you're free? But it's true that in equivalent situations, I'd say you might be less free in socialism than in capitalism.

[TECSHARE]

Oh my god you actually did xD

The whole point was to show you how innefficient, useless and not intuitive asking for empirical data for everything you say is! Not to make you do it!

You didn't do it at first because that's not very useful and that's how civilized people debate. You exchange each other reasonning and only when you disagree or don't believe a precise point of their argumentation you ask for specific proofs on this specific topic.

Asking someone to back every premise he states with empirical data is NOT useful and is NOT constructive and NOT the "standard". It might be your but it's yours only.

Concerning your points I can't really discuss them cause most of your sources aren't available in european countries  
Not your fault of course, I just can't say much about them as I can't access the articles...

I know exactly what your point was, and I did it anyway just to prove how fucking lazy and disingenuous you are refusing to support your own arguments. Also to prove the point that I don't just make shit up because it sounds good like you do. Civilized people debate using facts and empirical data. Asking for proofs of your premise is literally all I have been asking for you to do but this seems to be beyond your abilities otherwise you would have done it by now.

EMPIRICAL DATA IS THE SOURCE OF ALL KNOWN SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.

You go ahead and pretend your subjective Postmodernist deconstructivist cancer is equivalent to logic and empirical data, but it is not. Either you care enough about the topic to support your arguments, or you don't, but lets not pretend demanding empirical data is extraordinary.

[mOgliE]

I know exactly what your point was, and I did it anyway just to prove how fucking lazy and disingenuous you are refusing to support your own arguments.

I've never refused. You simply have never asked me to prove a specific argument you're just saying "you're not proving your premise". Please do the work I've done for you and list the hypothesis you want me to prove and I'll kindly oblige.

Also to prove the point that I don't just make shit up because it sounds good like you do. Civilized people debate using facts and empirical data. Asking for proofs of your premise is literally all I have been asking for you to do but this seems to be beyond your abilities otherwise you would have done it by now.

EMPIRICAL DATA IS THE SOURCE OF ALL KNOWN SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.

Yes, agreed. Of scientific TRUTH. Not of scientific debate, scientific logic, scientific work... You need empirical data to say "ok, we're sure it works that way" not to say "hey does it work that way?"

You go ahead and pretend your subjective Postmodernist deconstructivist cancer

Ahah no idea wtf is that 

is equivalent to logic and empirical data, but it is not.

Never said it was

Either you care enough about the topic to support your arguments, or you don't, but lets not pretend demanding empirical data is extraordinary.

When the thing we talk about doesn't exist, it's quite extraordinary ^^

[BADecker]

Involuntary socialism is slavery. Why? Because all people are capitalistic by nature... they want to improve themselves by their own activity. Even those who volunteer into socialism do it for personally capitalistic reasons. All socialism really is, is, a stepping stone to more capitalism... especially when it is slavery. Then it is capitalism for the slave makers.

[cizatext]

The socialist failed due to the brake down of the whale when the cold war ended that also saw to the end of the socialist mode of economic system due to the fact that the socialist created a breading ground for mediocrity because every one will leave it all in the hand of the government there by limiting the citizens from discovery, but capitalism on the other hand is more or less decentralized and at that everyone will be all out to develope and maximize profits.

[Spendulus]

....
Socialism only works if all consumers act in a fair and honest way. Capitalism works even if you're not fair and honest.

Socialism works when the corrupt overloads are not fair and honest. Capitalism works only because the free market forces it.

[TECSHARE]

I know exactly what your point was, and I did it anyway just to prove how fucking lazy and disingenuous you are refusing to support your own arguments.

I've never refused. You simply have never asked me to prove a specific argument you're just saying "you're not proving your premise". Please do the work I've done for you and list the hypothesis you want me to prove and I'll kindly oblige.

I see so the fact that you refuse to state a clear premise is my fault now is it? I have actually asked you to state your premise several times, but every time I examine it critically suddenly "thats not what I meant" again, and it shifts.

Frankly if you can't even state a premise you feel comfortable standing behind either you are completely disindigenous or you are ignorant on what you speak. Of course everyone sees you do this to avoid having to support an idea you KNOW you can't support.

Also to prove the point that I don't just make shit up because it sounds good like you do. Civilized people debate using facts and empirical data. Asking for proofs of your premise is literally all I have been asking for you to do but this seems to be beyond your abilities otherwise you would have done it by now.

EMPIRICAL DATA IS THE SOURCE OF ALL KNOWN SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.

Yes, agreed. Of scientific TRUTH. Not of scientific debate, scientific logic, scientific work... You need empirical data to say "ok, we're sure it works that way" not to say "hey does it work that way?"

Actually yes Scientific debate, yes scientific work. You chide me and insinuate I have never had any experience with science, yet you think empirical data is not a critical part of scientific work and debate. Also, yes, you do need empirical data to answer the question "hey does it work this way?".

You go ahead and pretend your subjective Postmodernist deconstructivist cancer

Ahah no idea wtf is that 

I know you have no idea what that is, because your ideology is specifically designed to prevent you from looking into ideas that would threaten its primacy over the loose collection of a few dozen cells you call your brain.

is equivalent to logic and empirical data, but it is not.

Never said it was

Yet you try to argue that subjective information alone is sufficient for finding truths by dismissing the very concept of burden of proof, or even arguing a clear premise!

Either you care enough about the topic to support your arguments, or you don't, but lets not pretend demanding empirical data is extraordinary.

When the thing we talk about doesn't exist, it's quite extraordinary ^^

I am glad you have finally admitted you have no empirical data to back up your premise, you could have saved a lot of time and energy doing this sooner. If the premise you support has ZERO empirical data to support it, just perhaps it is a bad idea with little basis in reality, and you should get another one to advocate for.

Either that or identify your discussion as a philosophical one and stop trying to pretend any of your ideas have the backing of science, reality, or history.

[coins4commies]

Capitalists operate under the USSR as the definition of socialism. This is a contextualization issue.  You flew in a one plane 100 years ago and now you use your knowledge of that specific plane to represent the meaning of flight.

Involuntary socialism is slavery. Why? Because all people are capitalistic by nature... they want to improve themselves by their own activity. Even those who volunteer into socialism do it for personally capitalistic reasons. All socialism really is, is, a stepping stone to more capitalism... especially when it is slavery. Then it is capitalism for the slave makers.

Somehow people have confused a socialist economy to mean simple redistribution where everyone makes the same earnings.  I'm not sure where this one even comes from as the USSR didn't even have that. 

How can someone be so brainwashed to think that slavery is a socialist concept.  Its as if you have never read any Marx or Engels.  Socailism is all about giving people complete control of their labor.  You literally cannot get any further from slavery than that.  The freedom argument is strange.  What capitalists insists is freedom to control other people without realizing that people cannot be free if other people have freedom to control them

If you're going to think only about Soviet style systems when thinking about socialism then fine, your mind is made up, but if you're willing to take a step back and think about the actual meaning of socialism, you will see that it is only the socialist ideal that guarantees freedom over oneself to each person.  Capitalism gives freedom to exploit. 

[TECSHARE]

Capitalists operate under the USSR as the definition of socialism. This is a contextualization issue.  You flew in a one plane 100 years ago and now you use your knowledge of that specific plane to represent the meaning of flight.

Involuntary socialism is slavery. Why? Because all people are capitalistic by nature... they want to improve themselves by their own activity. Even those who volunteer into socialism do it for personally capitalistic reasons. All socialism really is, is, a stepping stone to more capitalism... especially when it is slavery. Then it is capitalism for the slave makers.

Somehow people have confused a socialist economy to mean simple redistribution where everyone makes the same earnings.  I'm not sure where this one even comes from as the USSR didn't even have that. 

How can someone be so brainwashed to think that slavery is a socialist concept.  Its as if you have never read any Marx or Engels.  Socailism is all about giving people complete control of their labor.  You literally cannot get any further from slavery than that.  The freedom argument is strange.  What capitalists insists is freedom to control other people without realizing that people cannot be free if other people have freedom to control them

If you're going to think only about Soviet style systems when thinking about socialism then fine, your mind is made up, but if you're willing to take a step back and think about the actual meaning of socialism, you will see that it is only the socialist ideal that guarantees freedom over oneself to each person.  Capitalism gives freedom to exploit. 

Well by your own arguments of what you call Socialism, inflation would be required to support subsidies. This is a form of wealth redistribution where everyone is robbed by inflation to fund those programs.

He compares it to slavery because under your system, no one is ever free to truly enjoy the fruits of their own labor, because they will always be forced to pay into your subsidy programs, either by tax or hidden tax of inflation. This is not brain washing, it is common sense and logic.

Its funny reading this last paragraph, if you were to replace the word "Socialism" with "Christianity", it is amusingly a very similar argument based in faith alone. Christians believe in Christ, and some atheists believe in the God of the state, Socialism.

"If you're going to think only about Soviet style systems when thinking about Christianity then fine, your mind is made up, but if you're willing to take a step back and think about the actual meaning of Christianity, you will see that it is only the Christian ideal that guarantees freedom over oneself to each person."

Much like I don't like religious fanatics forcing their beliefs on others, I don't like secular religious fanatics that worship the state as their God, pushing their ideology on people either.

[coins4commies]

The only argument you've made about it being "stealing the property of rights of others" is that printing money does that which is already standard procedure.

Not the only argument, but yet another argument you have been unable to refute. Printing money does steal buying power from the currency holders. Just because it is standard procedure already doesn't make it good or acceptable. By that logic since the system of Capitalism we operate under is standard procedure, we should keep being Capitalist. Again, I never advocated for inflation, you did as a requirement for your implementations of Socialism.

But we are arguing about capitalism vs socialism.  If we change from capitalism to socialism and everything else stays the same, you cannot make an argument against socialism that is entirely based on one of those other variables.  If printing money is bad, it is bad regardless of your economic system.  That belongs in a gold standard vs fiat discussion.  

Who said anything about "endless money printing".  This is a very specific policy used in a very specific way.  Money loses some of its value when you grow the economy but where do you think the value of the dollar comes from?  What has happened to the value of the dollar over the last 50 years?  What is so bad about that?

The buying power of the dollar has plummeted over the last 50 years. What is so bad about that is people who work and save for a lifetime suddenly find their savings are worth a small fraction of what they worked for. What is so bad about that is you have to debase the ENTIRE ECONOMY to do this. It is like cutting off your legs below the knee, and taping them on top of your head then telling everyone to look at how much taller you are.

The value of the dollar constitutionally is a very specific amount of gold and silver. Over time this backing was removed and we entered into a system that essentially was backed by the utility of being easy to use for buying and selling oil. Over the years they have just printed so much money though the economy is completely debased and a global economic collapse is now unavoidable. You create a magic button that prints money and expect it not to be abused? Please.

When people do it its called counterfeiting, when banks do it its called "quantitative easing".

We don't want people saving money in mattresses. Having some inflation is great because instead of holding money for 50 years, people go out and spend that money.  This kind of monetary policy (a little inflation, but not too much) encourages economic growth and has nothing to do with who owns the means of production.  Gold and silver have limited value, fiat does not.  Value of the US dollar is derived from the governments ability to collect tax.  As long as the US dollar is the only currency accepted by the IRS, and the US government is able to enforce its taxes, there will be a massive demand for the US dollar.  Growing the economy and specifically income taxes creates more tax revenue, which adds to this arbitrary value.  Money held in a mattress cannot put goods in motion nor be taxed and is useless to society.

Have you never heard of HR?   Supply and demand being used on humans is what makes capitalism such a moral quandry. Capitalists need to reduce costs to stay competitive in the market so they keep wages as low as possible and terminate jobs that extract less profit.  Market forces means jobs chase poverty.  This is why GM is moving their plants overseas. 

Yes, and? GM is moving overseas because they are failing. They are failing because people aren't buying the cars they are producing. People aren't buying cars because the value of the currency has been so debased, no one trusts the economic system any more. As a result people aren't taking risks and starting business that would employ people and allow them to afford to buy more vehicles.



This system is what makes the use of natural resources most efficient. Jobs that aren't creating profit are not creating resources, they are only burning them. Simply consuming is not the path to a functional economy.

The idea that GM was failing is why capitalism is inefficient and immoral.

GM said made about $2.8 billion on its North American business in the third quarter, up from about $2.1 billion a year ago.

If 2.8 billion in profit is failure, then what does it take for capitalism to succeed?  This should be enough empirical evidence that this system is completely unsustainable.  How much money do you have to extract before it is "enough"?  

By contrast, GM employees could all be sharing that 2.8 billion profit and not have to worry about being laid off due to calculations that the shareholders can steal even MORE money from workers overseas.

The only thing efficient about capitalism is that its efficient at redistributing labor value away from the worker and to the 1%.  

No one said "burning through resources" was "automatically better".   That was the straw man because the argument was about creating companies in areas of need with workers who are unemployed to fill in the gaps of the economy capitalism cannot address.

Actually, this is exactly what you advocated:

"...Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money. "

Here your logical progression is, if we simply pay people more, they will spend more and the economy will be better! That is like someone telling you they have a huge credit card bill and you suggest they use their credit card to pay it off. The initial profit and resources still have to come from somewhere and can not just be invented into existence without theft via inflation, or some other form of theft of rights.

The profit already exists and under capitalism, is being stolen by shareholders.  Think about that 2.8 billion dollars from GM that is now about to be spent moving production to another country.  Had GM been a cooperative, the workers would have that 2.8 billion to spend here.  
   

Democracy is mob rule. Individuals, minority groups, and fringe individuals have no rights under a pure Democracy. In a pure Democracy the many always take the rights of the few. This is how power is centralized via pure Democracy, by uniting the majority against the minority.

ok I'm glad we have finally established that it is democracy you are against. 

I am against pure democracy. Mobs do not make smart choices and are easily lead around because they don't make the effort to be informed and have no problem pretending to be. More importantly the rights of the marginalized, minorities, and individuals are sacrificed by the dictate of the majority.

This is your first argument directly against what we want and it is how you should lead your arguments against socialism.  I am frustrated that we wasted so much time getting here.  Instead of wasting time strawmanning about why the Soviet union was bad, just come right out and say you hate democracy.

Isn't "making bad choices" just the cost of freedom?  I feel like people learn the hard way in democracy.  If a "mob" makes a bad choice, they will pay the consequences and probably won't make that choice again.  Its like burning your hand on a hot stove.  We shouldn't treat people like babies who have to be bossed around.  

What you have is a pretty fantasy. You keep telling me about how great it would be but you aren't giving me any details on how that is going to happen without systematically robbing and stripping people of their rights.

The idea I have laid out have been done and do not strip any rights.  You haven't mentioned any rights that would be stripped but have only repeated that statement.  Its almost as if you have operant talking points that were crafted by someone else against something else. 

Oh it has been done? Where, your precious go to one hit wonder Marcora laws that I already broke down as being capitalist in nature except for the government subsidies? I have mentioned exactly rights that will be taken. Property rights. Since all rights are forms of property rights, this is pretty fucking important. The right to have a dollar remain to be worth a dollar. The right to not be stolen from via inflation, confiscation, or taxation to fund ever expanding handouts.

None of these things listed are rights.  You don't have rights to control what other people do.  You don't have rights over society.  Money is controled by all of us.  If you don't like money, don't use it.  No one is forcing you to use US dollars.  Hold your money in bitcoin.  If you don't like taxes, then don't participate in and benefit from our economy.  Again, this paragraph has nothing to do with the economic system and everything to do with your disdain for not having complete control over society.  If everyone doesn't have to do everything your way then your rights have somehow been violated.  

I understand the desire but why do capitalists feel entitled to control over other people.  

[mOgliE]

If 2.8 billion in profit is failure, then what does it take for capitalism to succeed?  This should be enough empirical evidence that this system is completely unsustainable.  How much money do you have to extract before it is "enough"?  

I think you sum up rather well one of the main failure of capitalism here.

Capitalism is possible and sustainable only with a high growth.

High growth isn't sustainable in long periods of time.

Capitalism isn't sustainable in long period of times.

Quite easy to understand, a kid could understand that infinite growth isn't possible. But they try to make you believe it is thanks to services and financial market, even though any economist knows you must separate financial market and real life industry...

[tarball]

I am aware of hoarding and tax loopholes.  Tax loopholes should be closed.  I am also aware that although speculative investment happens, it is unrealistic that every vacant property would be simultaneously off the market to a point where new businesses could not obtain leases.   

The only reason there are tax loopholes is because there is a tax system in the first place. Remove the system, et voilà! No more tax loopholes. Also, hoarding is not bad. However, is better to use a more sophisticated vocabulary, the word being 'savings.'

1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy.  

'It is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption' (Jean-Baptiste Say, A treatise on political economy).
Spending more doesn't actually do anything; that is the Keynesian illusion.
See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHAsnzALQJk

Saving is more important. If you have capital to to start a business, that business will grow, growing or stimulating the economy.

For example, if you use bitcoin to buy a cup of coffee everyday, you are not growing the economy. However, you can save that bitcoin to start a business, that will.

Lets just call them System 1 and System 2.


System 1: People are oppressed by a power hierarchy.  The fruits of labor are stolen by force or contract.  People do not have the liberty to do what they want with their own lives. In the end, needs are not even met.

Where the gun in the workers' heads forcing them to work?

Also, if you are a socialist (which means you despise a concentration in wealth), why are you into crypto? There is a huge concentration of wealth in crypto. Most coins are owned my few persons (for altcoins).

[BADecker]

Capitalists operate under the USSR as the definition of socialism. This is a contextualization issue.  You flew in a one plane 100 years ago and now you use your knowledge of that specific plane to represent the meaning of flight.

Involuntary socialism is slavery. Why? Because all people are capitalistic by nature... they want to improve themselves by their own activity. Even those who volunteer into socialism do it for personally capitalistic reasons. All socialism really is, is, a stepping stone to more capitalism... especially when it is slavery. Then it is capitalism for the slave makers.

Somehow people have confused a socialist economy to mean simple redistribution where everyone makes the same earnings.  I'm not sure where this one even comes from as the USSR didn't even have that. 

How can someone be so brainwashed to think that slavery is a socialist concept.  Its as if you have never read any Marx or Engels.  Socailism is all about giving people complete control of their labor.  You literally cannot get any further from slavery than that.  The freedom argument is strange.  What capitalists insists is freedom to control other people without realizing that people cannot be free if other people have freedom to control them

If you're going to think only about Soviet style systems when thinking about socialism then fine, your mind is made up, but if you're willing to take a step back and think about the actual meaning of socialism, you will see that it is only the socialist ideal that guarantees freedom over oneself to each person.  Capitalism gives freedom to exploit. 

Sounds like you have been tricked into a misunderstanding of what Marx and Engels were really saying. Giving people anything that is a requirement for happy living for them, is slavery. If you can control people, so that you GIVE them the fruits of their labor, that's holding them in slavery.



True capitalists simply use their knowledge to interact with other true capitalists. For example. Pete is an unwise capitalist. George is a wise capitalist. Pete has Object A that he wants to trade with George for Object B that George has. George agrees, and they make the trade. Pete benefits by making $100 off the trade. But George makes $1000 off the trade. If Pete had been a little smarter, he could have made the $1000, himself.

George didn't force Pete to make the trade; in fact, it was Pete's idea to make the trade. George is not in the business of being a teacher for people like Pete. George is simply in the business of trading. Both are capitalists with a certain knowledge of the benefits of trading. George's knowledge is simply a little better than Pete's.

The banker uses inflationary tactics to make money off both George and Pete. The banker is a capitalist by getting paid for providing a money system that benefits both Pete and George, and millions of other people, as well. Bitcoin comes along, and Pete and George and many other people find a cheaper way to trade than using the banker's money.



All of the example has nothing to do with GIVING anybody the fruits of their own labor, like you were controlling them. All of the example is capitalism... the freedom to use what they have to individually make their own capitalistic decisions.

Socialism would exist if Pete and George had been forced to use the money system, or had been forced to give some of their value to other people, or had been forced to receive and use a value-system/money-system that they didn't want to use.

Once the value (Objects A and B, or money for the banker) of the trade has been transferred to somebody else, the other person might use that value to leverage his own position. He might use it better than the person he got the value from. But he might not use it as well as someone else.



There are a lot of hidden points in Marx and Engels. But the points all rely on the idea of people doing what they do, at times voluntarily, and at times through force. Even if things are done voluntarily, someone else might be able to leverage his capitalism value position better.

In many countries, there is a fine line between what might be considered socialism and capitalism. But capitalism lies in the hearts of all people. Capitalism in the hearts of fools is the reason why they complain and rage against the wise when the wise leverage themselves into more wealth. The fools want more socialism so that they can get some of the wealth of the wise... they think. But it is really capitalism they want. If they didn't want it, they would be content with what they had.