Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 19. (Read 30794 times)

Agreed, this is the general course of things, historically. The concentration of wealth entailed by private property needs to be enforced by a state, whether public or private. Violent upheaval is the usual result.

@MadAlpha, the state which doesn't provide social services and only use force to protect rights of the rich won't last long - enough part of population will treat them as gang or terrorists and start the war!

I don't think it's the job of the government to build houses or grow food. Some other person has to build that house, or grow that food, they don't just magically appear from the bowels of the government.

The only task of government should be to secure the rights and freedoms of the people.

No man can have a "right", which another man has to provide. No man can have a "right" which makes a slave out of another man. You can have a right to own a house, but you cannot have a right which guarantees you'll get one.


I agree.

Strong private property rights will lead to strong wealth inequality and collapse of the system in final. History proved this axiom many times!

Many people in Eastern Germany regret about joining Western Germany with dismantling own socialist model.
South Korea has strong anti-communist censorship so nobody can tell good words about North Korea good without risking being imprisoned.
Both Finland and Estonia are capitalist states (Finland is just "welfare state" with market economy).

There can be no solution to poverty in capitalism but you can google for the words of Geoge Carling about how you can deal with some poverty problems nowadays

A system of strong and reasonable private property rights.

The ability for every citizen to get a piece of land, (even for free) and have the right to keep it indefinitely.

Capitalism AND Socialism (where it makes sense).


A few basic things can be provided by the government. A house. Reasonable infrastructure. Access to food and water.

Everything else can run in a free market with restrictions so as to make everyone owner of the environmental resources of the land that is owned by the population.


Strong private property rights are the most important thing in an economy.

Time and time again, where people own their land and things they thrive.


Look at the differences between South And North Korea and you'll see how much of a difference private property rights make in the general Wellfare of a population.

(Other historical examples: Germany and Eastern Germany. Finland and Estonia, China and... China).

There are several industries that have permanently shrunk as a result of our latest economic downturn. As a result there is a glut of people that have skills in industries that there is no demand for, so people try to apply for jobs they are not qualified for. 

You are right, there are a lot of socialist parties around the world and they can significantly differ one from another. Communist party was just USSR version of socialism.
As you know its ideology had a lot of drawbacks and offering this model unchanged again is stupid. Also with the word "socialist" many people associate modern welfare states (which are even worse than USSR's model IMHO).

To remove ambiguity, I prefer to use words "capitalism"/"free market" and "planned economy".

Take a look at http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-29/employers-arent-just-whining-skills-gap-real, it explains both side, and it reflects what I feel in the software industry.
Unemployment is not created by lack of jobs right now, but by lack of skills.

 

Stalin called his party the Communist party because he did not want to be associated with the existing socialist parties. They were not socialist enough for him so he wanted to set his own party apart. Socialism and communism are synonyms.

@gts476, the term "socialism" (Marxism) typically describes state ownership on the means of production combined with planned economy, however communism assumes elimination of the money altogether (i.e. everyone can take everything without have to work). Also, good luck to you fighting back desperate unemployed crowd, stupid insane libertarian!

Nice try Comrade!

Socialism, a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Communism, a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

Yeah so.....

So Socialism is a function of communism!

Socialism = Ax(Communism)^B + C

No one will fall for your lies you pinko commie bastard!

Most likely countries with planned economies won't repeat USSR's mistake in the future and grant you no-return exit visa. It's better to lose 1 non-loyal man than to fight 1 enemy on own territory.

State-wide information system (e.g. Cybersyn) will collect and process all information needed. You should read this book:
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

You, as many other people, miss the total number of jobs destroyed vs jobs created.

Universal robots like Baxter which can be easily reprogrammed to perform another task will completely crush your argument!

I don't think so. Socialism ≠ Communism!

So many communists here, wtf bitches, THIS IS BITCOIN!

Indeed, well explained. I agree, on your remark, that the tech elite will not accept the robbery, and that unconditional income will create nothing but speaking monkeys. (in France we already have that actually)
But having a planned economy means that I will not have my free will to do what I want, the time I want and for who I want.
In other word pure slavery, if that happen, I would quickly dive into the black market for trading my skill.
Also, a free market have all the information it needs to adapt itself. Even if temporary disturbance to equilibrium are felt, a planned economy in an excel spreadsheet would miss most of the information and would make disturbance even wider. (Interestingly enough, Argentina Economy minister advocated for spreadsheet run economy http://mises.org/daily/6739/You-Cant-Run-an-Economy-with-Spreadsheets)

However, I don't agree with the premise (the graph).
Even if machine are autonomous, in the meaning that they don't need to be maintained, or can be automatically replaced, we would have jobs.
The invention of trucks have not create lots of job for car repairers.
What it did though, is creating a market where trucks need to be better and better, and more specialized, so they don't become obsolete.
This is what create skills for knowledge workers : the economical incentive for employing knowledge workers is to hedge against obsolescence.

A machine can't adapt itself to the market condition and to the human knowledge that keep expanding, and never will.
Innovations comes from the meeting of ideas into a single mind at the right time.
With the explosion of idea spreading I see more and more opportunity for innovators, and I don't see it stop anytime soon.
Making obsolescence even more dangerous, and thus knowledge needed. A sort of virtuous circle for the knowledge worker, only stopped by skill shortage.
But yes, I expect physical effort jobs being totally extinguished in the long term.

WTO 

Past performance does not guarantee future performance.

I remember reading about computers replacing bankers... That doesn't seem to have happened so far. 

Explained very well in this thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/technological-unemployment-is-almost-here-318001