A major problem with Capitalism, that no one wants to talk about - Page 20 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14914633
Alright, so I've read some of the answers people have said in this topic.

Honestly I'm not impressed.

I will not accept the answer that "life just isn't fair". We're supposed to be the greatest country in the world, the land of opportunity, the land of justice, equality, and fairness. We should not have to live in a system that is unfair.

I think that those who work their asses off trying to be the best they can be deserve to get compensation from the government. That is why we need to implement socialism. Socialism is the only fair way to help those who are struggling. Capitalism says screw them, they are worthless, too bad, it's not fair, just deal with it. Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?

I say let's have government assistance for those who truly deserve it. Those who try very hard are ENTITLED to have compensation. It's not fair that a person who works very hard should get nothing at all.
#14914791
@Agent Steel
Why should everyone in the US (or whatever free country) have to all be enslaved to the government just because you want to be government property? Why not just move to North Korea? That way you get what you want and no one else has to be enslaved that isn't already enslaved (North Koreans). You are being a bit selfish IMHO.

Alternatively why not just get yourself arrested? US prisons are a relatively comfortable kind of socialism, better than real socialism anyway because at least they feed you. Ideal for you, no?

"At what exact point, then should one resist the communists? ... How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: what would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if during periods of mass arrests people had simply not sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. ... The Organs [police] would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers ... and notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
#14914846
Agent Steel wrote:I want to be government property huh...now just how exactly did you draw that conclusion?

You are talking about "implementing socialism". Why should the rest of us suffer socialism just because nobody wants to listen to the pop record you made? Why don't you just go to prison and beg the warden to force your fellow inmates to listen to your pop music? Or try your luck in the DPRK?
#14914922
Socialism doesn’t work because humans are not solely herd animals. Capitalism doesn’t work because humans are not solely predators. We are more like a pride of lions or a wolf pack. Some Socialism within the community and competition with other communities is our natural government.
#14914936
One Degree wrote:Socialism doesn’t work because humans are not solely herd animals. Capitalism doesn’t work because humans are not solely predators.

Socialism and Capitalism both work within a social context determined by the environment. Humanities basic dynamic is paternal, driven by a hierarchical authority. Cooperative, (socialistic) endeavor works quite well when directed by authority. The flaw in ideological socialism is it's insistence on management by non authoritarian committee. When competently directed by central authority, a socialist society can function very efficiently.

Problem arises when it encounters another society and must compete for environmental resources. This competition gives rise to capitalism, which destroys socialist adhesion and challenges internal authority. Capitalism encourages a society to adapt rapidly and develops strength. It is the ideal system to deal with confrontation and military organization. Its flaw is that, when not under threat, it encourages class development which causes social friction. Capitalism, therefore seeks to maintain conflicts to justify class inequality.

Zam
#14915345
Agent Steel wrote:Alright, so I've read some of the answers people have said in this topic.
Honestly I'm not impressed.

Then read mine.
I think that those who work their asses off trying to be the best they can be deserve to get compensation from the government.

Why not from those to whom they are providing value?
That is why we need to implement socialism.

Garbage.
Socialism is the only fair way to help those who are struggling.

Garbage.
Capitalism says screw them, they are worthless, too bad, it's not fair, just deal with it. Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?

False dichotomy fallacy.
I say let's have government assistance for those who truly deserve it.

Who says who desesrves?
Those who try very hard are ENTITLED to have compensation.

Compensation for what?
It's not fair that a person who works very hard should get nothing at all.

It doesn't matter how hard they work. Are they producing anything of value?
#14915347
Why not from those to whom they are providing value?


Because that would not be in the interest of FAIRNESS.

Compensation for what?


Compensation for PAIN.

How would you feel if you worked your ass off for no pay at all? Pretty pissed I'd assume.

Which again, is why we NEED socialism. Socialism gives people an INCENTIVE to work, because in return they are guaranteed to get paid. Capitalism on the other hand is hopeless, because you can work really hard and get nothing.
#14915360
Agent Steel wrote:Because that would not be in the interest of FAIRNESS.



Compensation for PAIN.

How would you feel if you worked your ass off for no pay at all? Pretty pissed I'd assume.

Which again, is why we NEED socialism. Socialism gives people an INCENTIVE to work, because in return they are guaranteed to get paid. Capitalism on the other hand is hopeless, because you can work really hard and get nothing.


The biggest criticism of socialism is the lack of incentive. Who works really hard under capitalism and receives nothing? Your views are devoid of reality.
#14915492
Agent Steel wrote:Because that would not be in the interest of FAIRNESS.

Yes, of course it would: those GETTING the value PAY THE PROVIDERS of the value FOR the value they are getting. What on earth could be unfair about that?
Compensation for PAIN.

So, if I hit my thumb with a hammer, someone, somewhere, owes me money??
How would you feel if you worked your ass off for no pay at all? Pretty pissed I'd assume.

Well, I have done that, more than once, and it's no fun; but I never assumed anyone owed me anything for it unless I either provided them with something they valued enough to pay for or they took something from me.
Which again, is why we NEED socialism.

No, we do not. We need socialists to SMARTEN THE F*CK UP and defend the property rights of the owners of producer goods who provide workers with opportunity they would not otherwise have, and LEARN TO TELL THE F*CKING DIFFERENCE between that and the owner of land, who only DEPRIVES the workers of opportunity they WOULD otherwise have.
Socialism gives people an INCENTIVE to work, because in return they are guaranteed to get paid.

Wrong. If they are guaranteed to get paid, that is only an incentive to PRETEND to work.

"We pretend to work; they pretend to pay us." -- Soviet era joke

GET IT??
Capitalism on the other hand is hopeless, because you can work really hard and get nothing.

Again with the false dichotomy. I'm not defending capitalism. But it does work better than socialism, because when capitalists steal land, it doesn't reduce the amount of land available for production; when socialists steal capital, it DOES reduce the amount of capital available for production.

GET IT??
#14915571
Yes, of course it would: those GETTING the value PAY THE PROVIDERS of the value FOR the value they are getting. What on earth could be unfair about that?


What's unfair about that is that the people providing the value in many instances are getting paid way more than they truly have EARNED. Providing value does not necessarily mean you DESERVE to get paid.

So, if I hit my thumb with a hammer, someone, somewhere, owes me money??


If they are employing you, YES.

Well, I have done that, more than once, and it's no fun; but I never assumed anyone owed me anything for it unless I either provided them with something they valued enough to pay for or they took something from me.


Well, that's why I'm here trying to change your mind.

Wrong. If they are guaranteed to get paid, that is only an incentive to PRETEND to work.


Who said they would be guaranteed pay if they didn't work?

I'm not defending capitalism. But it does work better than socialism, because when capitalists steal land, it doesn't reduce the amount of land available for production; when socialists steal capital, it DOES reduce the amount of capital available for production.


That's debatable really. A rich capitalist who steals land isn't necessary going to use it for production. And likewise a socialist like myself isn't going to just steal capital and not put it to good use.
#14915683
Agent Steel wrote:What's unfair about that is that the people providing the value in many instances are getting paid way more than they truly have EARNED.

When?
Providing value does not necessarily mean you DESERVE to get paid.

Yes, actually, it does.
If they are employing you, YES.

No. They are paying me to get the work done, not to suffer pain.
Well, that's why I'm here trying to change your mind.

You'll have to try a lot harder...
Who said they would be guaranteed pay if they didn't work?

How can you tell the difference between working and just going through the motions unless it is by the PRODUCT?
That's debatable really.

No, it is indisputably correct.
A rich capitalist who steals land isn't necessary going to use it for production.

Of course. But it is still AVAILABLE for production. Stealing it doesn't reduce its quantity. Stealing capital DOES reduce its quantity.
And likewise a socialist like myself isn't going to just steal capital and not put it to good use.

You're missing the point: your stealing will lead to capital that would otherwise have been available for productive use not even existing.
#14916043
When?


Would you like specific examples? There are plenty. For instance, an attractive woman who was born with good looks can provide value to men. She didn't earn her good looks, they were simply given to her at birth. There are tons of examples like this within our system. TONS.

Yes, actually, it does.


Not necessarily.

No. They are paying me to get the work done, not to suffer pain.


Then they are trying to unfairly have it both ways. If they demand people have to work fast with dangerous tools in order to get paid, then it's only fair they pay compensation for when accidents happen in the workplace.

How can you tell the difference between working and just going through the motions unless it is by the PRODUCT?


I'm gonna let you clarify what is you're asking here, because I don't get your point. It's ok, it happens sometimes...

Of course. But it is still AVAILABLE for production. Stealing it doesn't reduce its quantity. Stealing capital DOES reduce its quantity.


How? Again, I'll let you clarify.

You're missing the point: your stealing will lead to capital that would otherwise have been available for productive use not even existing.


I guess I am missing the point, because I'm not getting you.
#14917674
Agent Steel wrote:For instance, an attractive woman who was born with good looks can provide value to men.

Equivocation fallacy. When we are talking about payment or compensation, it's for value in the economic sense, not just utility.
She didn't earn her good looks, they were simply given to her at birth.

She has to maintain her looks by grooming, not getting fat, etc.
There are tons of examples like this within our system. TONS.

You haven't identified one yet.
Not necessarily.

When would it not?
Then they are trying to unfairly have it both ways.

Nonsense.
If they demand people have to work fast with dangerous tools in order to get paid, then it's only fair they pay compensation for when accidents happen in the workplace.

The compensation is for medical expenses and loss of earning power, not suffering pain.
I'm gonna let you clarify what is you're asking here, because I don't get your point. It's ok, it happens sometimes...

I don't know what could be unclear about it. If you are guaranteed to get paid, you don't have to do anything useful. If you only get paid for producing value, you do.
How? Again, I'll let you clarify.

Because people will hide or remove their capital rather than have it stolen, and they won't produce capital if they believe it is going to be stolen.
I guess I am missing the point, because I'm not getting you.

Look at Venezuela as an example of the effect of stealing capital. Why has its economy rapidly been rendered incapable of providing for its people despite the natural gift of oil?
#14923249
One Degree wrote:The biggest criticism of socialism is the lack of incentive. Who works really hard under capitalism and receives nothing? Your views are devoid of reality.

Where have we ever seen socialism so that we could know anything about incentive under socialism? All we have ever seen so far is various attempts to create a socialist society, both economically and politically. But the world has not produced one case of a finished, stable, functioning socialist economy. So your statement is false and reeks of capitalist propaganda.

In fact, the need for socialism has nothing to do with incentive or what is "better" in some abstract way. It's a case of capitalism collapsing in crisis, worse and worse, because the very strength and purpose of capitalism has been fulfilled and it is now eating itself and us, bit by bit.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

^ Like that.

And here we see the liberal moving to support pe[…]

Fuck Oregon. BC pot is better, anyways. :D

How is con s ensus not better than authoritarian?[…]