Topic: Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here. - page 13. (Read 21323 times)

*Entitled to* has a specific meaning. You have now changed the quote to fit what you meant which is fine, you clarified it, but don't act like I made up the original quote or you saying it was already true.

Capital can be purchased.  New capital is always purchased.  Land can be purchased.  Anything currently owned by one person can be purchased by a group of people.    Yes if you wanted to instantly transform into a socialist economy and quickly move towards communism, then the government needs to take pre-existing capital but socialists in my school of thought realize that fast transitions are not feasible. 

I already explained government financing but you skipped over it.   The government finances capitalism all of the time.  TARP, the auto bailout, and amazon is getting 2 billion dollars to build an HQ2 they were already going to build. 

Yes, I said people already have the right to work their own land and raise their own animals. Everything else is bullshit you made up to try to speak for me because the only way you can argue with me is by literally making shit up, pretending I said it, then arguing against that instead of my actual arguments.

Socialism ABSOLUTELY DOES require taking property rights by force. You claim everyone is entitled to all this capital, but you never seem to be able to explain how all this capital they are entitled to just comes into existence magically. SOCIALISM REQUIRES THE STATE TO TAKE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO GIVE IT TO OTHERS THEREFORE IS INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN.

There is a big difference between capitalism and just being a greedy cont. About as big as a difference of being a socialist and a using motherfooker.

The system in the middle is called a working society.

1.  It was you who said this is ALREADY being achieved.  Please explain how it is being achieved.

2. Socialism doesn't require taking property rights of some to go give to others.  Some socialist systems use that means to the end of worker ownership, but the one I subscribe to only distributes new wealth to the workers who generated it.  Over time, it is the workers who accumulate wealth. 

When you have absolute beliefs about things and say something always happens, it leads you to being close minded regarding said issue.  The idea that you just happened to be born at a time where society has reached a point where everything functions optimally and cannot be improved is naive.

That pretty much sums it up. Strong people are pro individualism. Weak people demand collectivism, but still want to pretend they are strong.

They are both the same capitalism and socialism - it just depends on if your an arsehole or not. (not directed at anyone)

There are plenty of rich socialists and capitalists and plenty of poor socialists and capitalists.

Plenty of giving socialists and plenty of giving capitalists.

Plenty of selfish socialists and plenty of selfish capitalists.

I can see only one difference (in general) and its the wannabe's - wannabe capitalists struggle to be socialists or even want to even entertain the fact, because they cant be fully capitalist because they are failing at it terrible and cant believe they need help.

Oh, I see so people are entitled to land, animals, and capital now? Who's property rights do you have to violate to provide this capitol to these people by force? Don't tell me no force is involved, because if it was voluntary it would be called charity. Socialism requires taking property rights of some to give to others. This is not even debatable, it is a law of economics. Because of this Socialism will inevitably degrade into totalitarianism as the pool of people who can be robbed shrinks ever smaller until the working class begins eating itself. The only disconnect is in your brain stem where you claim you can entitle people to capital without taking rights from others.

This is far too complex of an issue for me to know which has the highest probability for ensuring the best standard of living for the greatest amount of people in the fairest way. I was thinking about it just the other day.

I would (from where i got to in my wondering) say capitalism is "better". However, if left unchecked I think both lead to a reset and chaos at some point because the majority reach a point of critical discontent in end.  

I could be wrong but I still think capitalism is the most natural human way to approach it. There is no substitute for freedom and natural input and output expectation.

The only issue is to me it "capitalism" seems a bit like monopoly. Once the winners start to emerge their domination only increases until they would own everything.

Perhaps socialism has never had an opportunity to flourish without it's core design being mutated by unavoidable human traits such as greed, fear etc. So socialism may fair better with a race that could operate happily without those traits. It is by trying to work against natural human traits (some that are net positive for communities and some negative) that I think socialism creates a less natural life for humans. So although when taken to extremes both systems fail and need reset in the end the path there is less enjoyable the socialist route for many. Not all because those that are in a position to compete least well will I think offset their lack of freedom for a potentially more positive existence in other ways. Does that mean I think socialism fits well for losers. No not at all perhaps those that are less well designed to compete are actually in some ways less developed than those that do not have the "selfish singular" traits that contribute to competing well and that have that drive for singular success. Not all very wealthy people seem that smart, nor started off wealthy, ...right time right place and luck can account for some but it's strange some of the very smartest people are also quite poor too. Their competitive nature does not seem as strong as some of the mediocre or even below standard individuals. Perhaps socialism stunts creativity though which could be huge driver for individual success?  I don't know really just working it through ...

It's seems to me humans are always going to suffer internal conflict that is insoluble to a degree. I think there could be innate drives that were more beneficial in our early evolution that will take a long time to adapt to being part of a more massive social machine. We know that co-operation is the only way forward to bigger things and security but those things that ensure great co-operation may be in conflict with more ancient hard wiring. So perhaps the more advanced we become (if being advanced is losing a lot of human emotions and traits and operating on more like complex probability of assured success models) the perhaps the balance will swing to the socialist ideology. It is strange because when I studied (briefly and with my usual inability to concentrate without going off in huge tangents) marx for a while I really liked and agreed with what he said in principle. I was explaining to some religious friends that it is possible that it was a control system to maintain the unfair status quo. It was an interesting discussion but I didn't push that theory since I was out numbered at the time.

Then again perhaps i don't exactly understand fully the concept of capitalism nor socialism and I should read up more on many many things rather than to sit there trying to fathom these things for myself. Then again did plato have the internet or bunches of smart people to ask like I have now.  When you read some of these ancient philosophers (not plato) their ideas seem quite ludicrous as much of what i say to people probably is. Still sometimes reading how things are or how smart people believe them to be can take the fun out of it.

I have no idea how you think people can do that when most people don't even own fields, animals, or modern capital (the means of production).  Our entire criticism of capitalism is based around the disconnect between labor and capital.    

So you intend to argue people now are not entitled to work their own fields, raise their own animals, and so on? What? How are they not able to do this? This is what you call an argument? This is pathetic tripe.

So how is the goal of
already being achieved?


You still didn't give any explanation of this.  I read that quote as the goal of socialism and am aware of the obvious contradiction of the socialist ideal already being achieved without socialism.  I interpret the two quotes to have the same meaning and have no explanation from you to get insight to your interpretation. 

Theres no way for me to understand what you are talking about when you say something is being achieved with no supporting explanation or reasoning for why you think it is being achieved.  The cryptic one liner leaves me to assume it is because you have a different definition of "everyone", "entitled"  ,or "own". 

No, you said that I said everyone already owns the means of production. You say you aren't moving goal posts but you literally make 2 statements about what "I say"  that contradict themselves right next to each other.

Quote one never happened. I did say "The goals you are describing are ALREADY being achieved... WITHOUT Socialism or Communism."

This was a direct reply to:


People are already entitled to "work their own fields, raise their own animals and so on". These things are happening now, under Capitalism.

What you call "misinterpreting" is you ignoring the cognitive dissonance resulting from the gap in your logic and your inability to argue it, and attributing it to my "misunderstanding". I understand, I disagree, and this is me describing how and why you are wrong.

You claimed that everyone already owns their means of production but gave no explanation.  You just said that the goals "are already being achieved" without socialism.

I cannot even wrap my head around that yet alone reply to it.  I never moved any goal posts.  You just misinterpreted where I originally placed them by inssisting I wanted an authoritarian society.

Yeah, why reply to me when you can reply to low hanging newbie fruit and avoid a response...

This is strawman developed by capitalists that has gained a foothold over society.  Socilaists do not advocate for any of what you have bolded.  Please read a socialist platform, Marx, or any site like the one below.  You won't find anything like what you mentioned and something more close to the opposite.
https://www.socialism101.com/basic/

This site also debunks a lot of common misconceptions about socialism.

-socialism actually unites workers with the reward side of their labor
-socialism rewards workers based on their labor
-the equality in socialism comes from the democratic nature of decision making---(not equal pay)

The point of this conversation is finding the most suitable solution for society, not just proving a point, who is right or who is wrong won't solve any issue, my opinion is that you kill people's spirit when you remove the reward side from their labor, when you see everyone gets the same no matter their efforts or intelligence, that's not healthy for anyone in my opinion, politics to help the needy improve it's living conditions should be the point of discussion, I understand the good side of communism, the same opportunities, the same starting point for everyone, however it's counter effects are of a higher magnitude than the good part of it.

Except for individual families, capitalism is all that exists. Why? Because everybody is out to advance for himself. Few people really care about the other guy, especially when they themselves are in poverty. They might act socialistic, but they are really deriving, at least, brownie points for themselves.

Socialism only exists when people need help to get out of their poverty. They let others direct their strength, hoping that others are smarter than they are. Dictators use this. It's the flaw in socialism.

First of all, these issues must be objective. Capitalism is bad, but perhaps more suitable for modern civilization. Socialism is great, but more suitable for the future of human civilization. If socialism is implemented now, people will not go to work because the rewards for labor or refusal to work are the same.

I don't want your olive branch. I am not here to be your friend. I am here to do my fair share of butchering in the slaughterhouse of the marketplace of ideas. Your arguments simply don't stack up. The moment you give me a legitimate argument based on empirical data I will address it. So far all you have is sophistry, moving goal posts, rhetoric, and refractory platitudes. You claim I am just using semantics and personal attacks all day, but I am putting to you very simple questions, facts, and references.

Really this whole time you don't even really argue, you just imagine your point was something else and argue that after realizing you have no reasonable reply.

I do so relish the absolute brazen bald faced gall you have to now talk to me as if I am the one who can not stick to a definition when literally it has been your nearly exclusive debate tactic from day one. Have you ever heard of projection? You might wanna study up on that one "Mr. Educator".

The goals you are describing are ALREADY being achieved... WITHOUT Socialism or Communism.

It is me trying to extend an olive branch to you. everytime I have described the socialist ideal, you say its not socialism and that actual socialism is defined by authoritarianism.  Its an endless cycle until someone lets go of their definition.  I just tried to concede that but even then you are unwilling to move forward.   So I have made a tremendous effort to move forward with you but every one of your post is either based on personal attack or semantics.   Luckily, I have the patience of an educator and will try to have an actual discussion.  I haven't redefined anything but am willing to operate in your definitions because without common definitions of words, we can't have a conversation. 
--------------------------------


I will start from scratch back on topic.  You said socialism wasn't the only way to achieve....

  I really just want to revert to the topic and the answer to the question:

If not by socialism (other than workers owning their means of production), how else can this be achieved?

If your answer is going to involve the words socialism, capitalism, communism, don't you think it would be helpful if everyone knew what you were talking about when you used those words?