Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 41. (Read 30796 times)

Yes. People who think Muslim is a religion of peace is denying reality. They are getting sympathy now because they happen to be underdog at this given time in the history.

Not saying the west is that much different. As ReserviorHunt pointed out: Socialism and pure capitalism are two side of the same rotten coin.

It is human nature to exploit and conquer, in one form or another.

Aljazeera as an 'unbiased' source? Only in some naive, easily manipulated leftist wet dream. It's actually a form of bias and manipulation at its worst: By attempting to take advantage of the moral ambiguity of the west, it advances a racial and ethnic ignorance of the arab world as some twisted form of 'enlightenment'.

Our world is not rational, and it is certainly not right according to what makes you feel reasonable.

By villianizing the west and its core principles while deceving themselves about their own intentions, they conveniently create a situation where they are the heroes (actually rapists and thieves who manipulate people to willingly submit), while others are 'imperialists', 'racists', 'oppressors' etc.

It's pretty transparent.

Well considering these Three Bias
1. Capitalism in modern countries is an imperialist resource acquisition strategy
2. Economic development tends to be motivated by presenting favorable conditions for exploitation in the developing country primarily funded by corporations
3. Geo-strategic interests tend to involve wars in capitalistic countries and why their is no wars among capitalism as they fight for these economic resources, as proven through the USA and its interference in Latin America shown through Pinochet and similar military dictatorships and its recent escapade into the Middle East including creating a civil war by taking Gadaffi out to access water reserves and oil supplies, albeit he did fund terrorist groups but was the Stabilizing force in the country.

I come to the conclusion that a Socialist system not a Communist one has potential if done correctly and properly managed the question is can it be done reliably.

It does seem to be working far better than Latin American Capitalism did though if we are looking at a testing ground the Left Revolution or the Pink Tide has improved social and economic circumstances far more than the previous 20-30 years of capitalistic dictatorships or neo liberalism has.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011913141540508756.html

I guess to an extent strong state control transitioning to a more open system once the economic system is developed is a good route although there will be issues through the process.

The conflation of socialism with Marxist-Leninism -- very common around here -- is very misguided. Firstly, there is a strong argument to be made that Marxism has never existed in practice. Only perversions of it such as Stalinism and Maoism. More importantly, there are longstanding socialist traditions that very much oppose both government and capitalism -- namely, anarchism.

Equal chance on the most basic of things - not whatever you feel is your due. It's a slippery slope.

Nicely put. There will always be haves and have nots. No system will provide equal results but we should strive for equal chance and let everyone compete according to their talents and work ethic. 

The basic premise of this thread and it's questions are shallow and misleading.

Poverty is also a state of mind and a symptom of a larger issue. Key solution to poverty is not a political ideology, but progress in national and individual character, in addition to economic policies. Framing poverty as a root cause rather than a symptom that it is can whitewash the problem.

Problem and its root cause are always the ones you have most trouble accepting, or even contemplating that it exists. Some of the 'poor' in US, for example, get a rude awakening when they go abroad and try to lecture real poverty stricken people with their sob stories of 'discrimination', 'oppression', or better yet, 'unfathomable poverty'.

Socialism and pure capitalism are two side of the same rotten coin - but i'd say properly implemented capitalism at least gives people a chance, while socialism is even a bigger fairy tail of failure and denial while giving people the illusion of equality.

Differences in talents, circumstances of birth, or economic background, unless strictly caste based, are natural character of a society no matter when and where you are. Key problem is whether they are surmountable or actively and willfully suppressed by the state.

Relative disparity is not poverty.

Socialism is a childish fairy tail, and capitalism is a merciless and cold reality. But only one of them deals with reality of human nature, and that is certainly not socialism.

Not by choice. I am no pacifist but I abhor violence. Especially central planner mandated violence.

You got one thing right. The men have very big guns that you paid for.

Governments can do many things to end it, but they don't want to do it because by definition they serve first to elite which would never be elite if there were no poverty in the world. Neither socialism or capitalism is solution, solution is perhaps first in spiritual revolution and possibly in resource based economy.

Bull shit. It isn't yours to take. The very idea that you have some divine right to the product of my work is abhorrent. I earn my money through hard work and the use of my meager talents. No one has a right to take it simply because they believe someone else needs it more than I do. I pay my taxes simply because if I don't men with guns will come to my door and put me in a cage.

I do kind things quite often and I am a grown man. If you feel that only children demonstrate kindness you really have a cynical view of the world.     

If the labor that is paid for is ideas: after the ideas are shared with the employer, who then owns the thoughts of the laborer?

Having half your income confiscated is not a "minor inconvenience". Especially under threat of imprisonment. And you will have to come up with a very good and justifiable definition of "greater good" now. Fuck your children, they are the worst monsters of us all.

no poll?

If a man trades a days worth of labor working for another man, he is paid in some form of money. Money is capital.  That is all he gets and that is all he deserves. If he wants to save his money, he can start a business too.  Having a job does not entitle a worker to an ownership piece of the company he works for.   Nobody is being taken advantage in this arrangement.

But how do you get from here to there? That's is the question that tuned me into Bitcoin. This may be an important part of the transition.

Neighter...

The sloution to end povrety is a Ressource based economy.  We are one on a spaceship, profit and endless growth economy is not sustainable..  lookup RBE and learn about it.  Imo, its THE solution to a healtier and better life for everyone aboard spaceship earth.

First you have to define poverty. I will take this definition : deprivation of basic human needs, which commonly includes food, water, sanitation, clothing, shelter, health care and education.

In capitalism, the availability of these services is directly correlated with your money.
In socialism, these services are available to all, but other people pay for it. The pile of money has to be large enough for all society.

Either way, both are correlated with money - if there is not enough money, people get into poverty.
In the end, all persons have x money to distribute over these services. No matter the systems.
I would define wealth W, money x and a set of elements {food f, water w, sanitation s, clothing c, shelter s, health care h ,education e}

Then:
 W = fX1 + wX2 + sX3 + cX4 + hX5 + eX6

x has to be large enough for the individuals in the group, to not be poor. In practice, x is not large enough in both capitalism and socialism.

the solution is to increase x for all individuals, or to share the elements.
 
Humans are not alone in these problems. Animals daily look for food, water and shelter - but depending on the animal they solve it differently. For example, bats and ants sleep together in one huge "apartment".Beavers make their "apartment" based on what they learn from others. Others sleep together in open air;

Governments can do so many things, but they are interested in their individual careers and wellness. No matter if you look in the east or west governments. If you want specific examples, they could build large complex for homeless people to share - in the same way as ants or bats. That way, you spend few X_total to solve the shelter problem.