Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 36. (Read 30782 times)

In theory there will not be poor people in socialism. Everyone would get exactly the same amount of resources regardless of how much you contribute to society.

My viewpoint is controversial.

Not everything should be tied to a profit motive, not every cost to a marketplace. I view  Socialism and Capitalism as carbon and iron. Two metals that by themselves are weak but when combined create a alloy called steel.

Volunteer work, modest safety nets are important. But the market place with the exception of life threatening illness is the best way to determine price and thus profit motive is needed. There is no clear answer as to how much carbon or iron should be used to create this form of steel. It changes day to day, week to week and month to month.

My solution to poverty is both. Provide a vibrant economy with a profit motive to  generate small business growth that creates jobs, provide some public services to allow individuals tor recover from catastrophic events.

You still get more freedom with capitalism.
Economical freedom at least.

Sweet, a socialism debate =D

Socialism is the opposite of Republicanism.  Capitalism is a financial system.

Socialism = People Above All
Republicanism = God Above All
Tyranny = Government Above All

The place where God isn't, is called HELL and the one in hell is a TYRANT!!

Capitalism is the opposite of giving a crap for the sake of selling out for money, nowadays.  Capitalism is about bringing people together to strengthen businesses and build an economy between people and businesses.  People buy good and get hired by businesses.  In socialism, the government uses the people to build more governmental assets instead of people building a life for themselves.  In sort, most jobs available are governmental.  In Tyranny, government does as it wishes.

You can't compare a political party with a financial system.  Most of the world is under some kind of political socialism.  Most of Europe and British born nations (CDN, AUS, NZ) live under socialism; they just call it democracy.  It works for them and surely doesn't make everyone happy.  Socialists rejoice of course; that shit don't sell well in U.S. #PiersMorgan

People in those countries need to revolt against the machine if they want a better life, no politician will do anything for them; if not the total opposite.  My mantra is "Give me liberty or give me death".  I live in a "free" country too because I fight for my rights; without making a scene of course, I (unwillingly) live in the British empire so I beat them at their own game every single time.  Outsmart the smart.  That's all I'll say without getting in the historical reality being hidden, people don't like being shown the lie they live, makes them upset...  Socialists...  Never own up, without God, they are filled with fear.

No country ever became free by talking. 

World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones, not too sure about WWIII... - Albert Einstein

Amen Brother

All form of societies eventually lead to crony type system.

Asset will be given to children and close family regardless of their work attitude and talent.

You don't really understand capitalism then. You describe crony capitalism a bit better though.

Capitalism grasps the tit of innovation and milks it dry.


Absolute rubbish.


  
The scum rise to the top, the sociopaths. In fact the character traits of the sociopath are now being actively sought out, via personality tests, by corporations seeking tommorows "go getters". To suggest that in a utopian pure free market that the cream will rise to the top is in direct contradistinction (?) to social and economic history.


But this:-


   - is absolutely spot on.

    Capitalism says "You are not subject to the laws of cause and effect - your are effectively outside of the realm of time and space - you are as a GOD" . Thank the ghost of Nietsche.
     An ideology is an idea system that is used to maintain exploitative domination - and capitalism thrives as much by virtue of the ideology it espouses/hegemony it maintains as any socio-economic benefits it might confer.
       It appeals to our vanity but in the end makes fools of us all.

    The closest capitalism gets to humanitarianism is via "trickle down" economics  - and even that is a theory thats fallen flat on its arse  

That's why God gave us the AK47.

You are right.

People in the 3rd world have to constantly worry about putting food on the table. Can't really blame them for being on the bottom of the food chain as the mistakes are compound over the generations by their ancestors as well as cultural issue and actions of foreign aggressors.

Everyone started on different social and economic background. Climbing the ladder requires sacrifice and giving up moral value.

Neither of them can be a solution.
Furthermore socialism is practically impossible so we dont have many options left...

you have provided alot of info for me to go through azwarel and i am thanks, here are some of my early thoughts:


If the gap is small it does matter...  If we are to have governments and boarders "planned systems"etc the economics of a society should reflect that small gap alot closer than it does.  Richard Branson has billion times more money vs the tramp.

If its anarcho capitalism or RBE the gap doesnt matter, your success in society would be a truer reflection of your ability overall vs current society.  Obviously will always be exceptions.


Its seems like a self development thing to re frame this gap?

thoughts?


Well if you dont have money in this society you are close to "worthless", you can get charity/state provisions.

Spiritually the physical world & money seems almost totally if not completely irrelevant yes.  

Believing you have free will and actually having free will are different though.  Isnt the reality something like 99.9% of our daily decisions are really heavily shaped via external influences.  Conscious thought is expensive to the body/mind i dont believe we are walking around making all the decisions we think we are?  To me this feels fine, i dont have any less motivation to succeed, i dont have anymore motivation for moral decay.  Its just accepting the universe/cosmos/external world is the true boss and much larger/more powerful than individuals.

Thoughts?

A large proportion of the DNA may be junk DNA. Perhaps the gap is smaller.

If these were only true.

1st: if the individual can not believe, that hes/her ACTIONS - not the talents/riches/physical body he born with! - matters in commanding hes own life, than you are looking for a moral decay which culminates into concentration camps, and civil war in just a few years (you could hear "i did it by the order of *insert god/king/nation/public good*" from the naciz and soviet gulag guards and executors, the religious and nationalist fanatics as a moral base for every genocide, rape and pillage campaigns).
 (related video part: http://youtu.be/-FAb3yAmBSM?t=21m15s)

In a physical way, which is reality itself, only the individual matters! Only a person can have thoughts, can do anything. Ideas, such as the state/society cannot act or think.

And no, failure in thrive to success does not mean the individual is worthless, only hes efforts are! It is a common fallacy saying that if you are not a millionaire, than your life is worthless! No, you are worthless only for yourself, if you do not enjoy your own life. A bus driver can live a happy life, a billionaire can be depressed and commit suicide.

2nd: the teachings of the recent western society is based on collectivism, egalitarian, high income tax wealth redistributive, powerful government sentiment. It does NOT brainwash people for capitalist values, in the contrary, all the marxist nonsense (proven to be physically impossible to succeed*) emanating from the intellectuals of the college/university circle, right into the fresh minds of young people!

3rd: yes, the gap is very narrow in the relation tramp vs ingenious. As well as the gap between you and a rat, ~98% of your DNA are the same. Just a 0.0001% gap and you are never born due to defects in your DNA.
It does not matter how small the gap is! It is all due the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect , one wright/wrong decision in life can alter the whole outcome of history!

4rd: I agree on your conclusion, that either egalitarian planning, or anarcho capitalism are our choices, i disagree that they are equally available choices. For RBE, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fatal_Conceit
 quote "[socialists] they disregard the fact that modern civilization naturally evolved and was not planned".
Also read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order.

*yes, physics destroys marxism. Profit - the requirement the have more useful outputs than inputs is required due to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Market, "the invisible hand" - aka decentralized and dispersed knowledge based decisions - are explained by the information theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound;
Central planning is impossible due to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory, also due to the existence of free will, supported by quantum physics : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM

And, with free will, you can not have central planning, unless you are ready to suppress EVERY human action dissenting from the plan (aka, kill them in the end, it is their "public good"..), you can not have a plan.

This is classic brainwashed sheep opinion i find.  People of this opinion far over value the potential of 1 human individual.  "success" is mostly dependent on a ton of external variables not with 1 individuals control.

What recent western capitalism indoctrinates/socializes you with:  All your errors, failures and faults lie with you.  Worthless people fail, people with money are worthy.

Reality: The gap of individual brilliance of someone like Richard Branson vs some smelly tramp on a street is actually tiny.  

Solution imo: If we going to have large planned countries has to be egalitarian (perhaps something like resource based economy being the ideal), if not anarcho capitalism seems like best option.

Thoughts?

I think I am going to vote on Satoshilism 

May as well say if we had a truly Marxist society then there would be no poverty and everyone would have abundance..  There's never been a free market in the modern age, the nearest has been frontier regions since there was no precedent wealth but the equality was short lived.

There will always be inequality with wealth. The most talented people tend to rise to the top if government stays out of the way. That is the natural order of things and will never change. A truly free market allows upward mobility without needing some new frontier or some government intervention.

The problem is we don't see that many free markets and the problems that come from the State intervention are often seen as market problems such as in the Education, banking system or Health Care system in the States where the State intervenes way too much

Modern capitalism as we know it has not been around long - unless you count Renaissance era Mercantilism as being a predecessor.

Capitalism only works as long as there is a frontier to alleviate inequality in distribution of wealth.  People have a short memory but California until the 1950s was the equivalent of North Dakota and Northern Alberta (except far warmer and a larger population capacity).  Texas was the same thing too.  If you were able to relocate to California and Texas in the past then you had a better shot at becoming middle upper or upper class than someone who remained in New York.

Someone like Conrad Hilton could not had succeeded if he was born in Oslo instead of San Antonio, since all the hotels in Oslo were owned by generational wealth and there wasn't an emerged market (frontier) to sustain an entrepreneurial person.


The problem I see with capitalism is what happens when we run out of frontiers?  It's a slippery slope from that point on into a plutocratic society (if we are not one already)