Topic: Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here. - page 10. (Read 21323 times)

The use of the word savings implies need.  Saving more than you need is when it becomes hoarding.  Personal savings beyond personal needs happen at the expense of the current needs of others and is what makes hoarding so problematic.  

You and that video are looking at this from the perspective of what you, as one person should do in a capitalist system instead of looking at the society as a whole should do. Imagine if everyone tried to take the same approach of saving to fill gaps in the market by opening businesses.  The gaps in the market would all close as demand would crash.  Companies relying on that spending would close, jobs would be lost, and there would be fewer people who could afford to buy lattes as well as many other things.  

Using bitcoin to buy a cup of coffee is not growing the economy but it is maintaining the coffee industry.  If everyone suddenly stopped buying coffee, less coffee would be produced, shops would layoff baristas or close and the economy would shrink.  

Capitalists fail to think beyond the individual choices of one person.  Smart moves in capitalism are only smart if a few people are able to make them.  There is no way for all or even most people to make smart moves simultaneously.  This is also why capitalism requires systemic inequality in access to basic needs like education and healthcare.  If everyone had those things then everyone would have opportunity and the "smart moves" would no longer be smart without anyone left to exploit.
 





In the literal sense, the police have the gun on behalf of the capitalist class.  They are there to enforce the laws of private property.  So if the workers don't work, they will literally be dragged out of their homes by men with guns.  

I am into crypto for many reasons.

1. I am searching for coins that could be used to aid socialist ideas (coins for commies).  Google "blockchain communism" and you will realize that the possibilities of communist applications of crypto are endless.  Here are the ones I have focused on.  Keep in mind that crypto tokens or blockchain technology do not have to represent money.  

-Smart contracts could be used to make direct democracy, basic income, and social dividends more practical.  
-Microtransactions could be used to monitor and score input and consumption of collectivized commodities
-Blockchain management of a IOT shared network of goods.  

There is a lot of disgusting things in the world of crypto but that doesn't mean the technology is bad.   Even though there would never be any currency in a communist society, all communists recognize that a socialist society has currency and is a transition towards someday not having it.  I am one who believes it would take several generations and much better technology under socialism before we could come close to achieving communism.  Crypto is a step in the right direction of taking money out of our lives.  Crypto doesn't ssem like real money because you never see it.   That is a huge mental step towards realizing money is not even real to begin with.

Iotas tangle could be used to help AI manage traffic or to track records of anything really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81rXoSRIRSA
I am also an environmental Scientist so this type of application in the video really gets me excited.

Definitely, public tax helps to pay for the public roads, law enforcement, health care, education etc. These basic welfare requirements are essential for all countries.

The reason the US government was able to survive off trade was because it was small and limited. However, today, the government is much bigger and therefore requires tax to function.

I misunderstood, I thought you wanted to remove the tax system.  

Today, the government needs taxes and lots of them.  The debt interest payments increase every year, not to mention spending and the size of the government.  You know, building border walls, fighting wars that cannot be won, spending money on immigrants etc.

There is no way the government can survive without taxes.  They barely survive with them.

You misunderstand me. I was not advocating of removing the tax system. I was merely point out the fact that tax loopholes only exist because a tax system exists in the first place.

However, before the 16th amendment was created, how do you think the government made money? Not through taxes, but mostly free trade. There are alternatives to taxes.

Who paid the guys who set up the Constitution and worked at getting it and the Bill of Rights ratified? Nobody. They did it voluntarily. Why? Because they wanted a voluntary form of government.

But some criminals have worked their way into the voluntary government, and tricked the people into thinking that they owe taxes, and that government can't work through voluntary giving or through purchasing what you want from government, just like you purchase things at Walmart.

You guys are not only stupid but dangerous.

Without the tax system, there would be no country.  The government can either collect taxes or go into debt.

Someone needs to pay YOUR bills.

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.

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.'


'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.


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).

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...

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.  

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.

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

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.  

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.

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.

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. 

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.





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?".




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.



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!



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.

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

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.

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.

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.
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?"
Ahah no idea wtf is that 
Never said it was
When the thing we talk about doesn't exist, it's quite extraordinary ^^

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.

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.