6 Ways to Subtly Distort the Meaning of the Socialist Drive for Equality

[Neshani]

... I would say this is wrong. Capitalism does many things and it is more than an economic system because it is also implicitly a social system. Capitalism actively keeps the means of production privatized. This alone creates a very distinct social organization. With production privatized there must constantly exist a working class.

And with most flavors of socialism you end up with the entire populace as a working class.

In a way, though, you are correct that it cannot by definition fail. But there you must accept a strange notion of success. Capitalism succeeds quite well in appealing to human greed. It succeeds in encouraging people to exploit others for profit. It succeeds in class separation.

Human greed exists in all economic organizations. Socialism/communism just makes it easier to absolutely abuse humans to satisfy that greed. If the State owns the company, the State can pass any laws, execute any noncomplying workers, or do what ever it wants. When the State is the CEO and that CEO gets greedy, there's nothing to to stop them.

In theory, industry and government are separate in a capitalist society. So no matter how greedy a CEO gets, the State should be able to prevent mass executions, slave labor practices, etc.

The only way socialism and communism can work is on an extremely small scale (village sized). Every time communism has been tried on a large scale, the price paid by citizens has been enormous. How many millions did Russia kill in it's little social experiment? How many killed in China? Why is it so hard for people to understand that this shit may look good on paper, but it doesn't work in practice.

*edit* Just to clarify, I do believe that there are services that should be socialized like our fire departments, police, education, and I believe health care should also be socialized. But I believe socializing everything is a recipe for disaster.

 

[m.w.merlino]

And with most flavors of socialism you end up with the entire populace as a working class.

How would you define working class under these types of socialism? Are they not different then the typical capitalist working class?

Human greed exists in all economic organizations. Socialism/communism just makes it easier to absolutely abuse humans to satisfy that greed. If the State owns the company, the State can pass any laws, execute any noncomplying workers, or do what ever it wants. When the State is the CEO and that CEO gets greedy, there's nothing to to stop them.

Indeed, greed exists anywhere there is the will to power and a capable ego.

The bolded part is a very important admission on your part. It is easy to say "the state" but what we are really talking about are people in a position of power. If the people in power abuse their power for whatever reason, is that the fault of the ideology or of the man? With different ideologies governing man, each individual assumes higher or lower levels of personal responsibility. It is not unlike the stages of maturity from a child to an adult.

This introduces an important question: do we blame the ideology for how a few men institute and interpret it or do we blame the men?

In theory, industry and government are separate in a capitalist society. So no matter how greedy a CEO gets, the State should be able to prevent mass executions, slave labor practices, etc.

Yes, and I appreciate that you said "in theory". With lobbying, that separation is either thin at best or non-existent as the power of corporations puts policy makers in government or marionette's existing officials completely.

Couple that with multi-national corporations that make more money than most countries and we see that a capitalist society's logical conclusion are satellite government corporations so powerful they literally operate above the law.

The only way socialism and communism can work is on an extremely small scale (village sized). Every time communism has been tried on a large scale, the price paid by citizens has been enormous. How many millions did Russia kill in it's little social experiment? How many killed in China? Why is it so hard for people to understand that this shit may look good on paper, but it doesn't work in practice.

And these models are basically blown up versions of communities. And though it is logical to equate how these ideas were applied in the past with their potential, it makes no sense to compare how they happened in history with how they can happen in the future.

Look at how these individuals worked to institute socialism/communism-- revolution and war and murder. The spirit of men who would kill for their ideals is strong enough to make them blind to their actions. If they would gladly kill those who didn't represent their outlook before they were in power, what could they justify after they gained absolute power?

The weakness here is man. In the end, it isn't the ideals turned into governments but governments turned into men. They are almost certainly doomed to retain power they same way they gained it.

*edit* Just to clarify, I do believe that there are services that should be socialized like our fire departments, police, education, and I believe health care should also be socialized. But I believe socializing everything is a recipe for disaster.

At this point in time, absolutely.

 

[swoop187]

And with most flavors of socialism you end up with the entire populace as a working class.

Human greed exists in all economic organizations. Socialism/communism just makes it easier to absolutely abuse humans to satisfy that greed. If the State owns the company, the State can pass any laws, execute any noncomplying workers, or do what ever it wants. When the State is the CEO and that CEO gets greedy, there's nothing to to stop them.

In theory, industry and government are separate in a capitalist society. So no matter how greedy a CEO gets, the State should be able to prevent mass executions, slave labor practices, etc.

The only way socialism and communism can work is on an extremely small scale (village sized). Every time communism has been tried on a large scale, the price paid by citizens has been enormous. How many millions did Russia kill in it's little social experiment? How many killed in China? Why is it so hard for people to understand that this shit may look good on paper, but it doesn't work in practice.

*edit* Just to clarify, I do believe that there are services that should be socialized like our fire departments, police, education, and I believe health care should also be socialized. But I believe socializing everything is a recipe for disaster.

You're absolutely correct.

Stalin
Hitler
Kim Jong Il
Mao

Just to name a few totalitarian dictators that subscribed to the communist philosophy.

The only way communism can survive in large nations is through totalitarianism.

There are no successful communist nations. I guess one can argue China but China's success came via capitalism and even China socially is pseudo-totalitarian.

The best modern example of true communism and its effects on a large nation would be the USSR, and we all know what happened there.


props

 

[Neshani]

If the people in power abuse their power for whatever reason, is that the fault of the ideology or of the man?

I'd say it's the fault of man as a flawed being.

With lobbying, that separation is either thin at best or non-existent as the power of corporations puts policy makers in government or marionette's existing officials completely.

Couple that with multi-national corporations that make more money than most countries and we see that a capitalist society's logical conclusion are satellite government corporations so powerful they literally operate above the law.

Agreed, but in a democratic, capitalistic society one can at least pretend that they have the ability to change things. Also, if the company is too overt in its crimes, consumers (in some cases) have the ability to vote with their dollars.

And these models are basically blown up versions of communities. And though it is logical to equate how these ideas were applied in the past with their potential, it makes no sense to compare how they happened in history with how they can happen in the future.

It makes perfect sense to compare how they happened in the past to how they can happen in the future. If I run into a brick wall and hurt myself, doesn't it make sense to compare what happened in the past to what could happen the next time I'm in front of that wall? There's always the magical possibility that I'll be able to run through the brick wall, but if the past 10 times I tried, I ended up with injuries, it would be pretty silly to go for number 11.

The weakness here is man. In the end, it isn't the ideals turned into governments but governments turned into men. They are almost certainly doomed to retain power they same way they gained it.

I agree that the weakness is man, but I don't think the acquisition of power can negate the greed and corruption that power breeds.

I whole heartedly agree that capitalism has major flaws. I just think that out of the economic and political systems that the world has seen, capitalism and democracy have the better human rights records and the lower death tolls.

The ideas of socialism and communism are great. If they could work, they truly would make Utopian societies. Humans just can't handle it though. That's what was so disappointing when reading Che's biography. They take Cuba and try to put these ideas into motion, but it turned out that Che was the only one really taking it to heart. The other political leaders wanted more than the others. The people didn't want to work as much as he did. It was pathetic that Che couldn't comprehend some of the basic facts of human nature.

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

The weakness here is man.

I'd say it's the fault of man as a flawed being.

Truth

How does that one quote go?....Something like;

"The end was created by the beginning"

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I dont have to define success nor have i becuase universally, success = financially set. Of course, EVERYONE has their own criteria for success. Maybe someone defines success as getting married and have 3 children.

So are you saying that capitalism is good? Im just trying to figure out what youre argument with me is.

OK let me rephrase and paraphrase my original post.


1) Capitalism cannot possible fail because capitalism in and of itself seeks to do nothing. Man can fail at implementing capitalism, but then the failure lies with man not capitalism.

In order for capitalism to fail, it would by definition, need to seek to do something. If for instance the definition of capitalism was "a political and economic system that seeks to provide the most resources for the most people" then that could create the possibility of failure.

Since that is not a part of the definition, you (and many others) have taken it upon yourselves to personally define the success - failure relationship.

Capitalism does not seek to provide a better standard of living, more resources, greatest health, or anything of the sort. To use those as criteria of failure would be like arguing atheism has failed because people are not more productive. Capitalism doesn't seek to provide a higher standard of living anymore than atheism seeks to increase productivity; so arguing such is no less irrelevant and erroneous.

Capitalism can be judged on its ability to keep the means of production privately owned, and therefore that is the only context in which it can "fail", and even then the failure lies with the man.

2) Even if we suppose for a second that the criteria you have suggested we define the success - failure relationship by is correct, how is capitalism failing?

Look at the data I provided. Globally we are on a trend towards, lower infant mortality, longer life and a lower homicide rate. In some earlier hunter gather societies the homicide rate is speculated to be as high as 15-20%. By your own definition, if capitalism is "failing" shouldn't all those measures be progressively getting worse?

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

OK let me rephrase and paraphrase my original post.


1) Capitalism cannot possible fail because capitalism in and of itself seeks to do nothing. Man can fail at implementing capitalism, but then the failure lies with man not capitalism.

In order for capitalism to fail, it would by definition, need to seek to do something. If for instance the definition of capitalism was "a political and economic system that seeks to provide the most resources for the most people" then that could create the possibility of failure.

Since that is not a part of the definition, you (and many others) have taken it upon yourselves to personally define the success - failure relationship.

Capitalism does not seek to provide a better standard of living, more resources, greatest health, or anything of the sort. To use those as criteria of failure would be like arguing atheism has failed because people are not more productive. Capitalism doesn't seek to provide a higher standard of living anymore than atheism seeks to increase productivity; so arguing such is no less irrelevant and erroneous.

Capitalism can be judged on its ability to keep the means of production privately owned, and therefore that is the only context in which it can "fail", and even then the failure lies with the man.

2) Even if we suppose for a second that the criteria you have suggested we define the success - failure relationship by is correct, how is capitalism failing?

Look at the data I provided. Globally we are on a trend towards, lower infant mortality, longer life and a lower homicide rate. In some earlier hunter gather societies the homicide rate is speculated to be as high as 15-20%. By your own definition, if capitalism is "failing" shouldn't all those measures be progressively getting worse?

So being poor = infant immortality rate? what does infant mortality rate have to do with anything? As a matter of fact, it has turned to be that less children dying might be a BAD thing, as we are OVERPOPULATING the world.

Again, measuring success is subjective in its own right, but universally success = financial status, period. This inhabits GREED and separation of class which leads to jealousy which can lead to a whole plethora of behavior.

The underlying message here is that capitalism has allowed humans to run wild, which has lead to a shit ton of mess. Are we in a recession/brink of possible depression right now? A yes or no will suffice.

If you think capitalism is good, then so be it. I cant change your mind but understand that you can NOT change mine, either. I have been in the lower portion of society and in POVERTY for nearly my entire childhood. Capitalism is basically the "id" of humans, recreated into an economic theory and is it out of control.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

What is this? The Gathering of Retards? :smh:

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

So being poor = infant immortality rate?

I didn't say anywhere that being poor = infant mortality rate.

what does infant mortality rate have to do with anything?

It is a standard measurement of quality of life, along with life span, and rate of violent crime.

As a matter of fact, it has turned to be that less children dying might be a BAD thing, as we are OVERPOPULATING the world.

I agree.

However if you are concerned about increasing everyone's quality of life, that will undeniably further decrease infant mortality.

So if you are concerned about overpopulation why are you fighting for something that is going to exacerbate that very problem?

Again, measuring success is subjective in its own right, but universally success = financial status, period.

By that measurement, the majority of people are more successful than their ancestors, so we are continuing on a progression towards greater success as defined by financial status.

This inhabits GREED and separation of class which leads to jealousy which can lead to a whole plethora of behavior.

I thought that we had previously agreed that jealousy is an innate human characteristic.

Even if we were to equal all humans on the basis of financial success, would we not all focus our jealous instincts on something else? Many sociologists would argue that a decrease in financial jealous would lead to an increase in sexual jealously. So we would not be eliminating the problem of jealously but simply moving it from one context to another.

The underlying message here is that capitalism has allowed humans to run wild, which has lead to a shit ton of mess.

Is that the fault of capitalism or humans? How would a socialist society prevent humans from "running wild"?

Are we in a recession/brink of possible depression right now? A yes or no will suffice.

Yes

If you think capitalism is good, then so be it. I cant change your mind but understand that you can NOT change mine, either.

I knew that going into this discussion, but I have provided myself with a good deal of entertainment and the opportunity to research and reevaluate my opinions.

 

[m.w.merlino]

What is this? The Gathering of Retards? :smh:

where's your infinite knowledge on these subjects? talk to us like you talk to kids at central highschool...