Julian658 wrote:Hmm, if you remove the concept of inheritance of wealth there are many people that created enormous wealth out of nothing due to intellect and creativity. I hope you are not assuming all people that rose to the top had nothing to offer.
If you remove the concept of inheritance of wealth then you also remove inequality in birth. It is true that there are many people who created wealth out of very little, but is also true that the amount of opportunity and privilege you will be given in life is determined by wealth. And don't get me started with nepotism. You think Capitalism is progress and makes the world equal? I say progress through Dialectical Materialism is inevitable and Capitalism simply stagnates the abilities of the poor by removing opportunities for them to innovate.
I think you have become immersed in the concept of the last stage of socialism which is by definition an utopia and somehow think it is easy to get there. Don't get me wrong the theory is extremely compelling and as a young student while in college I also thought it could work. The analysis of Marx regarding the flaws of capitalism is correct, but sadly the remedies have not worked. Since the analysis is correct we tend to have new socialists in every generation despite the countless failures in the past. And no one teaches these failures: Few students know about the murders by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Some students think Venezuela is doing great and many others praise Cuba even though Internet costs so much that is unavailable to the average Cuban.
I think most people know about the murders of faux socialists actually. It is drilled into you whenever you read up on Russian politics or socialism within western literature if you study the subject. Not to mention Animal Farm. Some Marxists are ignorant and think such leaders were looking for the interests of of the proletariat when they were looking out for the interests of the state. But so what? That line of thinking doesn't need to be Socialism. Today Socialism can be achieved democratically as the hurdles the Communist party had when they commissioned Marx to write their manifesto have all been destroyed and the need for revolution for meaningful change is questionable. Once the proletariat understand their class distinction they have the numbers to end bourgeois rule in the ballot box. But it is a waiting game. They will not understand their class distinction whilst they profit from 3rd world surplus Labor and can buy cheap crap from them. If the global financial markets crashes and currency value crashes with it then the proletariat should wake up to their poverty and their explotation when they cannot afford to live the same lifestyle they once had.
This is a bit naive. yeah, some animals are social, but many others are incredibly vicious and selfish. The lion does not spare the life of the animals he hunts down and also kills the cubs of other lions if he has to. Chimps our closest relatives are incredibly violent with any chimp that is not part of the group.
Animals live without the protections of a social contract and as such live within a state of nature. It is brutal but and the same time cooperative. So cooperation is natural as it is found within the animal kingdom - and is something found far more often than self interest in nature BTW, thus proving that Socialism can work within a human society also. Although for a civilised society a social contract is also needed to applied within a Socialists society to prevent savagery.
I don't think you understand capitalism at all. You tend to see it as an oppressive system while at the same time you enjoy the benefits of capitalism. Please analyze this quote and tell me what it means to you:
Adam Smith Quotes. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".
I enjoy the benefits of Capitalism because I live in a rich capitalist nation. However most people on the planet suffer for my opportunity. You think time and labor should be more valuable in the West when compared to a third world nation? You think Capitalism is a zero sum game? You are naive. When the West profit, they do so by exploiting the third world. So there is no point quoting Smith when discussing exploitation. Self interest motivates the free market and the invisible hand drives it forward and I cant argue with that line of thinking. But capitalism is motivated by the need for profit and not necessarily self interest, which is why it is a cause of a contradiction. When someone profits they do so at someone elses cost. The baker might well bake bread for his self interest but why does that self interest need to be financial or at the expense of someone else? If they can gain self interest by communal action the baker would still bake bread. The same reasoning can be applied to the lioness when she shares her spoils to her cubs.
Envy does not count as a reason to implement Marxism. That is not a good one my friend.
How about justice? Why should the proletariat let the Paris Hiltons of this world thrive whilst they struggle to feed their families? Whilst the Wests poor have a minimum standard of living through welfare reforms they might well accept low wages today. That all changes if they cannot afford to live, regain class consciousness and see their exploitation for what it is if the bourgeois consider removing the little welfare they are giving the proletariat now for more profit by shrinking taxation in the future.
Yes, there are incredibly stingy rich people, but we also find that society tends to be generous with those that are at the bottom. The welfare state of Scandinavia financed by the wealth generated by capitalism is a good example. I realize that many want more free stuff, that is how human nature works. But, nothing is free, someone has to pay.
Sure. But who is asking for free stuff? What I ask for is equal opportunity. That land is universal. That exploition of surplus labor is eliminated. That jobs are a right and a full time pay packet pays for a minimum standard of living. Nonetheless why should anyone else profit from your labor because they inherited wealth from their ancestors? Why should opportunity be limited to the bourgeois? Why should land be private? You claim that the proletariat are work shy. You claim they are envious. Why, because they ask for opportunity? Because there are a few scabs who refuse to work? No. Most proletariat work and do so by being exploited in the rat race of life and at the cost of their standard of living so someone else can buy a sports car.
Do you realize that we are now seeing the most prosperous time in world history? In western capitalist nations the poor are obese due to excess calories. That is a first in world history. Historically the poor were always thin and cachectic. In addition most nations have payment plans to the poor as well as food stamps and public housing. Sadly, these efforts destroy the human spirit and leads to the dystopia we see in some large cities with generous cash programs for the poor.
And as I said the last time you mentioned this, give them jobs and let them earn their living or let them die as outlaws who refuse to work. It isn't the poors fault that capitalism requires a surplus Labor force to drive down wages and as such requires unemployment. Under Capitalism welfare is a requirement because otherwise it is inhumane. Under socialism and most definitely Communism, profit isn't a factor and as such shared possession uses less Labor for a functioning society to flourish and every single person can contribute as their is no reason at all to limit the labor force.
This is right out of the last stage of communism. Cuba still uses currency!! You are reading too much into the Utopia.
Sure Cuba uses currency because Cuba isn't Communist. It is Socialist. So get that out of your head that Socialism doesn't want to enter the free market because it does. It is merely an economic model of possession not a limitation of trade.
If the inventor cannot profit from his invention then very few people will invent things. This is just human nature! Humans need motivation to do well.
Why does socialism need to prevent intellectual profit? Why does the owner of the means of production and land require the elimination of self interest? Capitalism and Socialism are merely economic models where the social solutions to social problems may well have the same reasoning and conclusions.
The Soviet Union contains some of the most fertile agricultural land in the world. Prior to the communist revolution of 1917 Russia was the world’s largest exporter of grain. Collectivization of agriculture during the 1920s and 1930s was quickly followed by dramatic declines in agricultural output.
Sure, because the farmer was sent to the factory to industrialise the SU. For many of the SU faults, you cannot deny that today Russia is an superpower because of the cause of action it took a hundred years ago when the previously hundred years before their revolution it was a 3rd world shit hole - and would most definitely still be one if it wasn't for Lenin and Stalin. That isn't to say I defend their actions. Just stating we can see that communal action and targets have proven results for progress. If Stalin was more humane, history perhaps would be more complimentary of socialism than it is today actually.
You complain constantly that capitalism is tyrannical. What makes you think the state will not be tyrannical? Do you think socialist people are incorruptible? Have you heard of Daniel Ortega who is know a 100 times more corrupt than Trump.
Both Socialism and Capitalism historically are tyrannical actually. That being the case, why is one system better than the other? I look at moral dilemma to decide which is the better model. And to me if community works together then community should share the spoils with each other. We shouldn't have provisions preventing people's rights to use the lands to better themselves. We shouldn't profit on basic human rights. We should provide a minimum standard of living for anyone willing to work. Socialism does all that, and Capitalism only does so if profit is involved for the bourgeois.