On Socialism

[LOki]

[I'll bet this has been done here already, but I couldn't find exactly where. I apologize.]

<blockquote>Wikipedia:
"Socialist economics is a term which refers in its descriptive sense to the economic effects of nations with large state sectors where the government directs the kind and nature of production. In a normative sense, it applies to economic theories which advance the idea that socialism is both the most equitable and most socially serviceable form of economic arrangement for the realization of human potentialities."</blockquote>In pure theoretical socialism, even run by people with the very best intentions, any individual is an expendable means to the common good of society. The State, governing the kind, and nature of production, governs not only what and how wealth is produced, but also who produces it and who gets it--for the greater (alleged) benefit to society. In other words: under socialism, society (as government) can dispense the life of any individual in any means that promotes the society.

Under socialism, where "society" determines the dispensation of one's life, can any individual consider himself the owner of his own life? If he does not own his life, by what rationale should he consider himself responsible for his own life? If he is not responsible for his own life, why should he care for another's life in order to meet the responsibilities of his life? If he's not responsible for his own life, and has no reason to be responsible for someone else's, what is the mechanism for maintaining the individuals who populate society?

It seems patently obvious to me that every individual cannot be expendable. This is logically so because the prerequisite for society is the individuals that populate it. If so, how can pure theoretical socialism possibly work if an individual cannot put his own rational self-interest first?

I think the answer is: It can't.<blockquote><i>"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
--Milton Friedman</i></blockquote>I know a common critique of capitalism is that so often it favors the rich. These critics claim that big corporations receive outrageous benefits, subsidies, tax breaks, regulatory relief, and access to public resources that no one else can get. They often cite the monopoly powers of railroad barons, U.S. Steel, Standard Oil, etc. In neither case, rarely do these critics point their derision upon the government.

Capitalism only means that the resources and infrastructure for production is privately owned. Ownership of property, machines, cattle, etc., cannot be the villain, because under socialism, the state owns these things; under communism, the community owns these things; and under fascism, the state has ultimate control over these things, which for practical purpose means owning. So it seems that ownership isn't the villain, but private individuals are. The Socialists, communists and Fascists that so often criticize capitalism, ignore government interference in free markets as the source of outrageous benefits, subsidies, tax breaks, regulatory relief, access to public resources that no one else can get, and monopolies.<blockquote><i>"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
--P.J. O'Rourke</i></blockquote>These Socialists, Communists and Fascists so often fail to note that regulation and regulatory relief (and their appurtenant abuses) are not the hallmarks of capitalism or free markets, but are rather more indicative of their own statist systems. I don't think that it is at all surprising that statists should shift blame from their politics, I'm just surprised that so many people accept that the blame is being shifted to <i>them.</i><blockquote><i>"...we ought to be asking ourselves why corporations and interests groups are willing to give politicians millions of dollars in the first place. Obviously their motives are not altruistic. Simply put, they do it because the stakes are so high. They know government controls virtually every aspect of our economy and our lives, and that they must influence government to protect their interests.

Our federal government, which was intended to operate as a very limited constitutional republic, has instead become a virtually socialist leviathan that redistributes trillions of dollars. We can hardly be surprised when countless special interests fight for the money."
--Ron Paul</i></blockquote>A common socialist gripe is the struggle for "the almighty dollar." The claim is that there are things you cannot put a price on. Things like art, poetry, music, love, friendship, and family. That there are necessities of life that are beyond valuation; things like food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care--things that allow us to live, and live as human beings. Since you can't eat a sawbuck; you can listen you change jingling, but it sounds like Yanni; and a five-spot won't cure cancer; spending so much time and effort to get dollars must take from you time and resources better used elsewhere. Surely if the struggle for "the almighty dollar" were to be effectively removed from the list of important things to do, there will be more time for the good things in life; and certainly this would be facilitated if we were not so busy struggling for enough dollars for food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care.

Yet it is precisely "the struggle for the almighty dollar," amongst those who understand what "the dollar" means, that makes possible "more time for the good things in life." People creating wealth and trading it (through the vehicle of dollars), made possible indoor plumbing, telecommunications, vaccines, vacuum cleaners, dishwashing liquid, washing machines, etc. (and manufacturing jobs for those otherwise useful only as soldiers), all providing a greater amount of time for music, poetry friendship, etc., and peace.

Socialists and Communists seem to believe that wealth is some finite mystical power that was stolen in the first place, then hoarded by the "rich," and must now be stolen back to make it fair. They couldn't be more wrong.

Wealth is created when resources (natural, personal, and capital) are moved from lower valued uses to higher valued uses. Wealth is created by people through the exercise of their merits (e.g. strength, speed, motivation, ambition, intellect, creativity, talent, etc.). The real, actual poor, are "poor" for their lack of merit. They have a limited capacity to create wealth, but (just like everybody) possess an unlimited capacity to consume it. Those who accumulate wealth (the wealthy or "rich" if you will) are those who can create wealth in excess of what they consume.

As long as you think "dollars" are nothing but magic pieces of paper that entitle you to "the good things in life," then you'll never hold anything but resentment for those who have them, because possession of "the magic" is then arbitrary. "Why should that guy have more magic than me? Aren't I a guy too? Aren't I here, and wanting/needing magic too? Wasn't I born just like that guy? That guy must be keeping all the magic, that I am equally entitled to, for himself."<blockquote><i>"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
--Abraham Lincoln</i></blockquote>Whether or not your socialism is "perfect theoretical socialism," it makes receiving "the good things in life" as arbitrary as magic. Rather than creating wealth valuable for himself and his own ends, the socialist creates it, hands that wealth over to "society," and then, hat in hand, petitions "society" for his "fair" share of "the common good." Then, like wishing on a star, hopes "society" lets him have a heart transplant, or dental work, or tires, or shoes, or some bread. He has to desperately hope that no-one else needs "whatever," (in the unmeasurable opinion of "society") more than he does. He becomes, how does Marx call it?, "alienated" from his self value, via slavery to the state collective. His life product, in the hands of state owned production and distribution, becomes a lottery ticket for existence. It's a rigged lottery, and the riggers are the only one guaranteed to eat.<blockquote><i>"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."
--Lysander Spooner</i></blockquote>

 

[LOki]

[I'll bet this has been done here already, but I couldn't find exactly where. I apologize.]

Wikipedia:
"Socialist economics is a term which refers in its descriptive sense to the economic effects of nations with large state sectors where the government directs the kind and nature of production. In a normative sense, it applies to economic theories which advance the idea that socialism is both the most equitable and most socially serviceable form of economic arrangement for the realization of human potentialities."​

In pure theoretical socialism, even run by people with the very best intentions, any individual is an expendable means to the common good of society. The State, governing the kind, and nature of production, governs not only what and how wealth is produced, but also who produces it and who gets it--for the greater (alleged) benefit to society. In other words: under socialism, society (as government) can dispense the life of any individual in any means that promotes the society.

Under socialism, where "society" determines the dispensation of one's life, can any individual consider himself the owner of his own life? If he does not own his life, by what rationale should he consider himself responsible for his own life? If he is not responsible for his own life, why should he care for another's life in order to meet the responsibilities of his life? If he's not responsible for his own life, and has no reason to be responsible for someone else's, what is the mechanism for maintaining the individuals who populate society?

It seems patently obvious to me that every individual cannot be expendable. This is logically so because the prerequisite for society is the individuals that populate it. If so, how can pure theoretical socialism possibly work if an individual cannot put his own rational self-interest first?

I think the answer is: It can't.

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
--Milton Friedman​

I know a common critique of capitalism is that so often it favors the rich. These critics claim that big corporations receive outrageous benefits, subsidies, tax breaks, regulatory relief, and access to public resources that no one else can get. They often cite the monopoly powers of railroad barons, U.S. Steel, Standard Oil, etc. In neither case, rarely do these critics point their derision upon the government.

Capitalism only means that the resources and infrastructure for production is privately owned. Ownership of property, machines, cattle, etc., cannot be the villain, because under socialism, the state owns these things; under communism, the community owns these things; and under fascism, the state has ultimate control over these things, which for practical purpose means owning. So it seems that ownership isn't the villain, but private individuals are. The Socialists, communists and Fascists that so often criticize capitalism, ignore government interference in free markets as the source of outrageous benefits, subsidies, tax breaks, regulatory relief, access to public resources that no one else can get, and monopolies.

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
--P.J. O'Rourke​

These Socialists, Communists and Fascists so often fail to note that regulation and regulatory relief (and their appurtenant abuses) are not the hallmarks of capitalism or free markets, but are rather more indicative of their own statist systems. I don't think that it is at all surprising that statists should shift blame from their politics, I'm just surprised that so many people accept that the blame is being shifted to them.

"...we ought to be asking ourselves why corporations and interests groups are willing to give politicians millions of dollars in the first place. Obviously their motives are not altruistic. Simply put, they do it because the stakes are so high. They know government controls virtually every aspect of our economy and our lives, and that they must influence government to protect their interests.

Our federal government, which was intended to operate as a very limited constitutional republic, has instead become a virtually socialist leviathan that redistributes trillions of dollars. We can hardly be surprised when countless special interests fight for the money."
--Ron Paul​

A common socialist gripe is the struggle for "the almighty dollar." The claim is that there are things you cannot put a price on. Things like art, poetry, music, love, friendship, and family. That there are necessities of life that are beyond valuation; things like food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care--things that allow us to live, and live as human beings. Since you can't eat a sawbuck; you can listen you change jingling, but it sounds like Yanni; and a five-spot won't cure cancer; spending so much time and effort to get dollars must take from you time and resources better used elsewhere. Surely if the struggle for "the almighty dollar" were to be effectively removed from the list of important things to do, there will be more time for the good things in life; and certainly this would be facilitated if we were not so busy struggling for enough dollars for food, shelter, clothing, education and medical care.

Yet it is precisely "the struggle for the almighty dollar," amongst those who understand what "the dollar" means, that makes possible "more time for the good things in life." People creating wealth and trading it (through the vehicle of dollars), made possible indoor plumbing, telecommunications, vaccines, vacuum cleaners, dishwashing liquid, washing machines, etc. (and manufacturing jobs for those otherwise useful only as soldiers), all providing a greater amount of time for music, poetry friendship, etc., and peace.

Socialists and Communists seem to believe that wealth is some finite mystical power that was stolen in the first place, then hoarded by the "rich," and must now be stolen back to make it fair. They couldn't be more wrong.

Wealth is created when resources (natural, personal, and capital) are moved from lower valued uses to higher valued uses. Wealth is created by people through the exercise of their merits (e.g. strength, speed, motivation, ambition, intellect, creativity, talent, etc.). The real, actual poor, are "poor" for their lack of merit. They have a limited capacity to create wealth, but (just like everybody) possess an unlimited capacity to consume it. Those who accumulate wealth (the wealthy or "rich" if you will) are those who can create wealth in excess of what they consume.

As long as you think "dollars" are nothing but magic pieces of paper that entitle you to "the good things in life," then you'll never hold anything but resentment for those who have them, because possession of "the magic" is then arbitrary. "Why should that guy have more magic than me? Aren't I a guy too? Aren't I here, and wanting/needing magic too? Wasn't I born just like that guy? That guy must be keeping all the magic, that I am equally entitled to, for himself."

"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
--Abraham Lincoln​

Whether or not your socialism is "perfect theoretical socialism," it makes receiving "the good things in life" as arbitrary as magic. Rather than creating wealth valuable for himself and his own ends, the socialist creates it, hands that wealth over to "society," and then, hat in hand, petitions "society" for his "fair" share of "the common good." Then, like wishing on a star, hopes "society" lets him have a heart transplant, or dental work, or tires, or shoes, or some bread. He has to desperately hope that no-one else needs "whatever," (in the unmeasurable opinion of "society") more than he does. He becomes, how does Marx call it?, "alienated" from his self value, via slavery to the state collective. His life product, in the hands of state owned production and distribution, becomes a lottery ticket for existence. It's a rigged lottery, and the riggers are the only one guaranteed to eat.

"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."
--Lysander Spooner​

 

[Munin]

Well in some cases a form of socialism exists everywhere in the world even in the US, for example the case of the army: The army owns you! ("GI" = "Government Issue"). The same applies for capitalism, in some form it will exist everywhere in the world. While it is an Ideology, it is not that strictly when it really comes down to it in the practical application of it in a Nation.

 

[morpheus]

Thanks for the diatribe. Now here's food for thought:

Public schools, public universities, infrastructure maintained by the state (roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, ports, sewers, public transit), public libraries, police forces, fire departments, and the post office...these are all examples of socialism.

Capitalism is the control of means of production and ownership of capital by the state. Laissez-faire capitalism is the absence of state regulation (such as regulation that prohibits the use of lead in toothpaste, or the use of melamine in milk). Through trial and error, the older free-market economies (such as the US) have learned that the private sector does not self-regulate. This over time, societies achieve the proper balance between capitalism and socialism after learning the hard way that both orthodox extremes are doomed for failure.

Socialists and Communists seem to believe that wealth is some finite mystical power that was stolen in the first place, then hoarded by the "rich," and must now be stolen back to make it fair. They couldn't be more wrong.

False. Even Karl Marx believed that capitalism is most effective in creating wealth. Secondly, you fail to differentiate between communists (the extreme left) and socialists (most of those who call themselves socialist are on the moderate/center left). The center/moderate left (which has moved more towards the center in recent decades), is not interested in dismantling capitalism, but argues that laissez-faire capitalism does not fairly distribute wealth. They're not interested in mass redistribution of wealth; they're only interested in taking away $2 a month from a basketball player who earns $500 a month, so that a teacher who earns $5 a month can afford to visit her doctor. The center-left also feels that, since (let's be honest) it's the poor people who join the military to fight the war in Iraq, it's only fair that wealthier individuals carry the burden of financing it.

Wealth is created when resources (natural, personal, and capital) are moved from lower valued uses to higher valued uses. Wealth is created by people through the exercise of their merits (e.g. strength, speed, motivation, ambition, intellect, creativity, talent, etc.). The real, actual poor, are "poor" for their lack of merit. They have a limited capacity to create wealth, but (just like everybody) possess an unlimited capacity to consume it. Those who accumulate wealth (the wealthy or "rich" if you will) are those who can create wealth in excess of what they consume.

Well, that's certainly a very elitist and snobby analysis of socioeconomics. Not all rich people made their wealth, very many are born into it. I don't think Paris Hilton has any creativity, intellect, or motivation, other than the motivation to be a celebrity without demonstrating any talent. And not everyone who makes his wealth owes it purely to merits; there's also circumstantial conditions that help some, and disadvantage others. Take, for example, someone who worked hard all his life, and lost all his earnings in the current banking crisis. And what about those who start poor, and have all those qualities? You can try to spin it any way you wish, but until he becomes affluent, he's still poor, isn't he?

It never ceases to amaze and bewilder me how much the left-right debate -on economics- continues to consume so much intellectual debate in America, while the rest of the world has reconciled the two competing ideologies into complementary forces. I mean even the right-wing parties outside the United States are further to the left than the American right. Communism has collapsed in every country that experimented with this extreme orthodox version of socialism, whether by revolution (as was the case in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union), or by gradual reforms (China, Vietnam, and even Cuba to an extent). Communism is dead, yet the American right is convinced that it remains a threat to the global economic order, and that anyone to the left or Reagan is advocating centrally-planned economies and Mao outfits.

I mean, even Obama's suggestion that a state-subsidized health insurance should be available for those who don't have and can't afford private insurance and don't qualify for Medicaid, caused an uproar on the right, and drove conservatives to label him a "socialist" in its American negative connotation. The collapse of communism has also been exploited by many on the American right to advocate a further move to the right from where we already stand. Whereas any logical person would witness that the age of American prosperity and the might of the American middle class in the post-WWII era was the result of American society having reached optimal equilibrium, neo-libs argued -particularly after the fall of communism- that more capitalism is better, and that the any hint of left-wing theory in the American socioeconomic system is only hindering us from further prosperity and a more desirable wealth distribution. And so, in a short-term-memory kind of way, they've started to gradually turn the country back towards the political and economic immaturity of the late 19th and early 20th century, dooming us for a repetition of that era's mistakes, with the guiding philosophy that the state -and not the absence of- was to blame for the woes of the day.

 

[Gurdari]

Democracy first - then the rest follows. Socialism is preferred by nations everywhere to handle things they deem most important. That tells you something about capitalism vs socialism when even free-market nations use socialism for their sacred cows, so to speak.

 

[michiganFats]

Loki, when you stated that socialism directs the affairs of instead of controls them I think you made a very important distinction between theoretical socialism and socialism as it has been applied.

 

[LOki]

Thanks for the diatribe.

You're welcome.

Now here's food for thought:

Bullshit isn't food--a notion that you're unfamiliar with if your response is any indication.

Public schools, public universities, infrastructure maintained by the state (roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, ports, sewers, public transit), public libraries, police forces, fire departments, and the post office...these are all examples of socialism.

What's your point?

Capitalism is the control of means of production and ownership of capital by the state.

No. That is socialism, retard. Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation. Capitalism is characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.

Laissez-faire capitalism is the absence of state regulation (such as regulation that prohibits the use of lead in toothpaste, or the use of melamine in milk).

Patently untrue. At least in so far as the type of regulation you cite is concerned.

Free market advocates do not advocate lawlessness, laissez-faire capitalism is NOT the absence of laws in commerce. Free markets, laissez-faire capitalism, require an envronment free from coersion (governmental or private) and protection from fraud. Laissez-faire capitalism is the absence of state sanctioned and/or sponsored theft, and fraud.

You see, this regulation that you're so enamoured of, sets limits upon how much of harmful substance "X" is allowed to be present in product "Y"; for discussion's sake, let's say that limit is no more than 100 ppm. This makes 100 ppm "X" in product "Y" perfectly legal--allowing 100 ppm "X" in "Y" to be a legally acceptable practice. This means that the company that allows 100 ppm of "X" in their product "Y" enjoys the same legal standing as the company that manages (at greater expense - a market disadvantage) to not use any "X" in their product "Y." The state protects the first company from the full strength of the market advantage the second company should enjoy by the virtue of not having any "X" in their product "Y."

The type of state reguation you cite PROTECTS (perhaps not in particular, but rather in principle) the use of lead in toothpaste, or the use of melamine in milk. Go ahead and look them up. While you do that, consider how unnecessary such regulations are when poisoning people, on purpose or through neglect, is already illegal for reasons that have NOTHING to do with profit motive or economics.

Through trial and error, the older free-market economies (such as the US) have learned that the private sector does not self-regulate.

No. The private sector does not fail to self-regulate, it also has little tolerance for incompetence. The incompetent would starve without the legalized theft established by your style of market regulation.

This over time, societies achieve the proper balance between capitalism and socialism after learning the hard way that both orthodox extremes are doomed for failure.

There is no proper balance between capitalism and socialism, for the precise same reason there is no proper balance between nutrition and poison.

Socialists and Communists seem to believe that wealth is some finite mystical power that was stolen in the first place, then hoarded by the "rich," and must now be stolen back to make it fair. They couldn't be more wrong.

False.

True. The fact that they must steal the wealth of others is proof enough--otherwise, they'd MAKE THEIR OWN.

Even Karl Marx believed that capitalism is most effective in creating wealth.

That's because Karl Marx was a billion times smarter than the socialists and communists that cite his work--those idiots certainly seem to believe that wealth is some finite mystical power that was stolen in the first place, then hoarded by the "rich," and must now be stolen back to make it fair, and they couldn't be more wrong.

Marx's issue with capitalism was primarily one of just distribution of wealth. He felt that needing wealth meant deserving wealth, and that need justified the enslavement of those who can create wealth in excess of their need. Despite being a genius, and I mean that with all sincerety, Karl Marx was fucking WRONG.

Secondly, you fail to differentiate between communists (the extreme left) and socialists (most of those who call themselves socialist are on the moderate/center left).

I would also fail (by your point of view) to properly differentiate between toothpaste that contains 100% lead, and toothpaste that is 50% lead, when I'd call them both poisonous.

So what's your fucking point?

The center/moderate left (which has moved more towards the center in recent decades), is not interested in dismantling capitalism, but argues that laissez-faire capitalism does not fairly distribute wealth.

And they're WRONG. Resdistributing wealth at gunpoint inherently CANNOT fairly distribute wealth--it is unjust by it's very nature.

They're not interested in mass redistribution of wealth; they're only interested in taking away $2 a month from a basketball player who earns $500 a month, so that a teacher who earns $5 a month can afford to visit her doctor.

Oh, I see, they're interested in just a little poison.

Free markets are a better way to fairly distribute wealth. That is because if the teacher is truly provides more value than the basketball player does, the teacher will get more value in return for their efforts than the basketball player will, and if the doctor's paycheck is not subsidized by taxes, then the doctor will have to provide a service at prices agreeable to those who would use it.

The center-left also feels that, since (let's be honest) it's the poor people who join the military to fight the war in Iraq, it's only fair that wealthier individuals carry the burden of financing it.

Well, when nations hold that theft is a legitimate means by which wealth is accumulated, those nations will go to war to get wealth; and if you're an idiot, your value is placed where it's going to be most effective.

Wealth is created when resources (natural, personal, and capital) are moved from lower valued uses to higher valued uses. Wealth is created by people through the exercise of their merits (e.g. strength, speed, motivation, ambition, intellect, creativity, talent, etc.). The real, actual poor, are "poor" for their lack of merit. They have a limited capacity to create wealth, but (just like everybody) possess an unlimited capacity to consume it. Those who accumulate wealth (the wealthy or "rich" if you will) are those who can create wealth in excess of what they consume.

Well, that's certainly a very elitist and snobby analysis of socioeconomics.

No it's not. Not in the slightest bit. It rather is an objective analysis of socioeconomics. I'm sorry it bothers you that it illuminates the fallacy of the notions that every human being should be considered equally valuable for every other human being, and that some people are entiled to own other people simply because they "need" them. It's a cruel fucking world Jasper; I didn't make it, and I didn't make anyone poorly suited to it, and for the same reasons that I find it immoral to force you to take care of me or the ones I care for, I find it immoral for you to force me to take care of you and the ones you care for. If someone just cannot produce enough to support their own life, they just don't deserve to keep their life--nothing the least bit elitist about it.

On the otherhand, the notion that someone, by the simple virtue of their birth, or their particular condition, are entitled to their life, even at the smallest expense of the lives of other people, is most evidently an elitist notion. It establishes that these "needy" are the elites that the rest of us are subject to, and are obligated to serve.

Not all rich people made their wealth, very many are born into it.

So what? If the markets are free, you don't need some statist redistributionist ponzi-scheme to see that wealth naturally redistributed to those better equipped to create wealth--to those whoe better deserve it. It takes no talent to consume wealth, but it takes some merits to keep it as well as make it.

I don't think Paris Hilton has any creativity, intellect, or motivation, other than the motivation to be a celebrity without demonstrating any talent.

So?

What is your point? Are you addressing something I posted? Because my point would be that someone in her family CERTAINLY had/has a great deal of valuable talent, and if they wish to lavish their very own wealth upon their idiot daughter, then that is their right, and not yours to excersize. If you want a bajillion dollars that doesn't go to Paris Hilton, go out and earn it yourself, and then don't give her any of it.

And not everyone who makes his wealth owes it purely to merits; . . .

Oh sure, some steal it from those who have earned it . . . take a socialist for instance. But then again, the socialist does not necessarily create the wealth--the one with the merits, who excersizes those merits indeed makes the wealth. The socialist steals the wealth of others and redistibutes it, or is complicit in that theft and redistribution. So you're just fucking wrong again.

. . . there's also circumstantial conditions that help some, . . .

Are you talking about luck? Luck is a fickle mistress.

. . . and disadvantage others.

But it's the merits that determine how well an individual will fare with these "circumstantial conditions" of yours.

You're still wrong. Sorry about your luck.

Take, for example, someone who worked hard all his life, and lost all his earnings in the current banking crisis.

He'd be someone who FAILED to excersize reason. The current banking crisis is not some magical bad circumstance, it is 100% caused by people who ingored the self evident principle that "something" cannot have arrived from "nothing"; and in that ignorance, some of them took out mortgages they could not afford, others lent out money that wouldn't be paid back, and still others insured those loans as if they'd be able squeeze value out of the valueless.

And what about those who start poor, and have all those qualities? You can try to spin it any way you wish, but until he becomes affluent, he's still poor, isn't he?

Like I said, it isn't magic--one must create wealth in exccess of one's consumption of wealth. So yes retard, merit doesn't magically "poof!" wealth into one's lap.

It never ceases to amaze and bewilder me how much the left-right debate -on economics- continues to consume so much intellectual debate in America, while the rest of the world has reconciled the two competing ideologies into complementary forces.

And the rest of the world still sucks, and still relies upon the greater capacity of our greater capitalism--of our freer markets--to maintain the world economy.

I mean even the right-wing parties outside the United States are further to the left than the American right.

Well, that primarily because this isn't a left/right wing issue. The left is typically communist leaning, where the right (absent a birthright aristocracy) is corporatist leaning--BOTH advocate for regualtion of the economy in favor of their own statist political elite. You obviously missed all of this:

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
--P.J. O'Rourke​

These Socialists, Communists and Fascists so often fail to note that regulation and regulatory relief (and their appurtenant abuses) are not the hallmarks of capitalism or free markets, but are rather more indicative of their own statist systems. I don't think that it is at all surprising that statists should shift blame from their politics, I'm just surprised that so many people accept that the blame is being shifted to them.

"...we ought to be asking ourselves why corporations and interests groups are willing to give politicians millions of dollars in the first place. Obviously their motives are not altruistic. Simply put, they do it because the stakes are so high. They know government controls virtually every aspect of our economy and our lives, and that they must influence government to protect their interests.

Our federal government, which was intended to operate as a very limited constitutional republic, has instead become a virtually socialist leviathan that redistributes trillions of dollars. We can hardly be surprised when countless special interests fight for the money."
--Ron Paul​

Communism has collapsed in every country that experimented with this extreme orthodox version of socialism, whether by revolution (as was the case in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union), or by gradual reforms (China, Vietnam, and even Cuba to an extent).

Correct. They're slowly reversing the legitimization of theft, and it's really working well--we should do the same.

Communism is dead, yet the American right is convinced that it remains a threat to the global economic order, and that anyone to the left or Reagan is advocating centrally-planned economies and Mao outfits.

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
--Alexander Fraser Tytler​

As long as you and those like you think that your vote can entitle you to the life product of another human being--as along as you degenerates believe that because you voted for it, you are justified in enslaving others to provide for your existence--communism and it's violently oppressive half step, socialism, remain not so much a threat to "global order" (whatever the fuck that might mean), but a threat to liberty; a threat to humanity.

I mean, even Obama's suggestion that a state-subsidized health insurance should be available for those who don't have and can't afford private insurance and don't qualify for Medicaid, caused an uproar on the right, and drove conservatives to label him a "socialist" in its American negative connotation.

Well, it is socialist, and the state shouldn't be subidizing the medical industry, or the insurance industry, or the stupid and/or lazy worthless lumps of flesh whose only claim to humanity is that they share a common DNA sequence with the rest of us who are objectively valuable human beings earning their living, or are valuable to someone else who expresses that value through the application of the wealth they created.

The collapse of communism has also been exploited by many on the American right to advocate a further move to the right from where we already stand.

If by "advocate a further move to the right" you mean a move towards corporatism, you have a valid gripe--but your attack has been against free market capitalism; and ENTIRELY different notion.

Whereas any logical person would witness that the age of American prosperity and the might of the American middle class in the post-WWII era was the result of American society having reached optimal equilibrium, neo-libs argued -particularly after the fall of communism- that more capitalism is better, and that the any hint of left-wing theory in the American socioeconomic system is only hindering us from further prosperity and a more desirable wealth distribution.

And they are right, because the prosperity has NOTHING to do with equilibrium between statist notions and capitalism, but rather that false dichotomy of equilibrium between the statist notions of socialism and fascism.

American prosperity is all about liberty, and is poisoned by statism--whether that statism is fascist in flavor or socialist in flavor is irrelevent.

And so, in a short-term-memory kind of way, they've started to gradually turn the country back towards the political and economic immaturity of the late 19th and early 20th century, dooming us for a repetition of that era's mistakes, with the guiding philosophy that the state -and not the absence of- was to blame for the woes of the day.

Oh really? Be specific chimptard. Bring one, just one example where free-market principles fail--where successful market regulations were enacted to fix free-market problems rather than the problems caused by market regulations.

 

[editec]

Capitalism can exist in every form of government EXCEPT socialist forms of government.

Capitalism has NOTHING to do with DEMOCRACY.

Capitalism can coexist with democracy but it often chafes at the restrictions that democratic governments impose on it.

Capitalism seems most comfortable with shamocracies, or totalitarian forms of government which allow private property ownership.

You know...like CHINA is today.