Socialism/Communism/Capitalism - Which one supports gambling through one way or other? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.
#15016916
SSDR wrote:Gambling is exploitative. All gamblers are self enslaved.

The risk tolerant and risk averse tend to be mutually incomprehensible. A paradoxical point is that more people are willing to play lotteries and gamble in casinos, which have negative expectation, than are willing to play the stock market, where the expectation is positive.
#15019581
Gambling is a feature of capitalism and is inherent to the stock market and insurance system. Socialist economies have no need for those so any gambling occurring there would be purely recreational.
https://www.johnkay.com/2017/03/24/gamb ... m-not-bug/
#15019628
Unthinking Majority wrote:Gambling is only terrible if you can't control yourself, and spend beyond your means irresponsibly.

That's like saying desserts are terrible. It's only terrible if you over-indulge.

Gambling is a symbol of capitalist culture, and I oppose capitalist culture. Gamblers exploit themselves to the owners that host gambling games.
#15019907
Unthinking Majority wrote:Having a non-capitalist economy sounds like the biggest form of gambling. Why gamble on having a completely disastrous economy?


Why is capital needed to have a successful economy?

A system that relies on debt and accumulated profit for the minority is doomed to fail. The future is communal once the proletariat regain their class consciousness as the numbers are with them.
#15019963
Unthinking Majority wrote:Having a non-capitalist economy sounds like the biggest form of gambling. Why gamble on having a completely disastrous economy?


A socialist economy is not "disastrous." You claiming that is an opinionated statement, since you are speaking outside of a socialist context. Hence, you are a capitalist.
#15020012
SSDR wrote:A socialist economy is not "disastrous." You claiming that is an opinionated statement, since you are speaking outside of a socialist context. Hence, you are a capitalist.


The only socialist economy that hasn't been a disaster is Cuba, but even that relies on a tyrannical dictatorship and was a strong thriving economy before it became socialist. Seems like a big gamble to me.

If there are real-world results and evidence (not naive wishful theory) of a system that proves itself better than capitalism, then I will stop supporting capitalism.
#15020020
B0ycey wrote:Why is capital needed to have a successful economy?


I don't know, ask China.

The future is communal once the proletariat regain their class consciousness as the numbers are with them.


Ask China and the hundreds of millions lifted out of subsistence poverty since capitalist reforms if the future is communal.
#15020036
Unthinking Majority wrote:The only socialist economy that hasn't been a disaster is Cuba, but even that relies on a tyrannical dictatorship and was a strong thriving economy before it became socialist. Seems like a big gamble to me.

If there are real-world results and evidence (not naive wishful theory) of a system that proves itself better than capitalism, then I will stop supporting capitalism.

Most socialist economies were stable, reliable, and safe. No one was forced to rely on family. Marriages did not rule women or men. When one retired, they lived for free (free utilities, rent, food, transportation, etc.). There was much less crime than there was today. Society was not as socially competitive as it is now. Life expediency levels were higher. Suicide rates were lower.

Are you from a former socialist state? If true, then where?
#15020059
Unthinking Majority wrote:I don't know, ask China.


Why ask China when I have asked you. Why is the reliance of profit a factor in a successful economy when all factors within human civilization progression does not rely on profit but education development and collaboration.

If the human concept of value and private property were lost tomorrow humans would adapt and progress without them as they did when they didn't exist and animals do today.
#15020130
B0ycey wrote:Why ask China when I have asked you.


Because I'm just some dude on the internet. China tried a communist planned economy, to lackluster results:
"Deng's first reforms began in agriculture, a sector long mismanaged by the Communist Party. By the late 1970s, food supplies and production had become so deficient that government officials were warning that China was about to repeat the "disaster of 1959", the famines which killed tens of millions during the Great Leap Forward."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform#1978%E2%80%9384

So in 1978 and through the 90's to today, China opened up it's economy to increasingly capitalist reforms and it's economy has flourished spectacularly unlike anything seen since the industrial revolution. There's a reason why it continues to embrace the tenets of capitalism, why the vast majority of its GDP comes from private enterprise, and does not return to more communism. I guess if it were up to you or other communists, you'd have denied hundreds of millions of Chinese being lifted out of terrible poverty. If you don't believe me, ask the Chinese gov why they embrace capitalism.

Why is the reliance of profit a factor in a successful economy when all factors within human civilization progression does not rely on profit but education development and collaboration.


Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty over the last few decades because of reliance of profit. This helps fund & improve education, healthcare, sanitation, technology, communications, infrastructure etc. Sounds like progress to me.

If the human concept of value and private property were lost tomorrow humans would adapt and progress without them as they did when they didn't exist and animals do today.


When such concepts didn't exist humans lived in largely terrible poverty in mainly subsistence economies. Animals live in extreme subsistence poverty where famines are common.
#15020325
Unthinking Majority wrote:So in 1978 and through the 90's to today, China opened up it's economy to increasingly capitalist reforms and it's economy has flourished spectacularly unlike anything seen since the industrial revolution. There's a reason why it continues to embrace the tenets of capitalism, why the vast majority of its GDP comes from private enterprise, and does not return to more communism. I guess if it were up to you or other communists, you'd have denied hundreds of millions of Chinese being lifted out of terrible poverty. If you don't believe me, ask the Chinese gov why they embrace capitalism.


Maoism never reached Communism and China remains Socialist today FYI. Mismanagement and poor decision making by sending the farmer to the factory rather than the field is hardly a high five moment for you because this point has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with politics. Although Mao is highly regarded in China so perhaps he wasn't all bad according to them.

Although it does need to be said that every nation today uses currency. And not all are rich or affluent, some even suffer from drought and all have poverty. Why? Because for there to be profit there must also be debt - and drought is usually down to the climate and not economics btw. Plus Capitalism is not a zero sum game. There are losers in Capitalism. The problem of course is the losers do not understand why they are losing as the ones who are winning also hold the power and dicate the rules.

Take away capital and replace it with communal and humans will adapt to the new system. Education progress and development doesn't need capital. It needs time skills and resources.

Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty over the last few decades because of reliance of profit. This helps fund & improve education, healthcare, sanitation, technology, communications, infrastructure etc. Sounds like progress to me.


Industrialisation has made China and took people out of poverty. Why is capital a requirement to build a factory to you? Does the beaver pay to build the dam?

[When such concepts didn't exist humans lived in largely terrible poverty in mainly subsistence economies. Animals live in extreme subsistence poverty where famines are common.


Well we are here so not everyone was in extreme poverty (malnourished) and the same can be applied to animals I guess. Although the term poverty is related to wealth FYI and doesn't really mean much in the state of nature.

If capital had no meaning and we lost it tomorrow humans wouldn't die off and would still progress. Why? Because capital is a human concept that we abide by and development is a function that can be applied into any economic model - even Communism.
Politics and vaccines

Very few are epistemically righteous, most people […]

The Evolution Fraud

I understand what evidence I should have and I ha[…]

And more complex regional and local identities. […]

I think any extradition would set a bad precedent[…]