Socialism: Capitalism Without Choices

[tooAlive]

It's a common argument from the left that under capitalism, workers will always be exploited and enslaved by their masters, or "CEOs."

If that were that case, isn't socialism worse?

I mean, instead of having many greedy CEOs to chose from, you're stuck with one government. What if that government turns out to be greedy, and begins exploiting it's people? You can't simply "quit" and go work for another government that treats you better.

I think we can all agree that not all CEOs are evil and greedy. For the sake of this argument, lets say that most of them are. That would still mean that there are some CEOs that are benevolent and giving.

Under capitalism, workers would have a choice whether or not they want to work for a benevolent CEO, or a greedy one. And if that were the case, wouldn't the greedy CEOs be forced to pay their workers more and treat them better to attract better workers? Obviously, they're competing with the benevolent CEOs; why would anyone want to work for them when someone else is paying them more?

Hopefully you could all understand my point.

So, given that, isn't it safe to say that socialism is a worse alternative to capitalism? Because simply but, the people would then be at the mercy of one government.

What could the people do if that government evolved into a dictatorship? Like what happened in Cuba. At least under capitalism the people have a choice, and aren't stuck working for one CEO (the state). What do you believe?

 

[Freemason9]

It's a common argument from the left that under capitalism, workers will always be exploited and enslaved by their masters, or "CEOs."

If that were that case, isn't socialism worse?

Do we have to go "all in?" Why do we have to commit to either one of those economic models?

Under capitalism, workers would have a choice whether or not they want to work for a benevolent CEO, or a greedy one. And if that were the case, wouldn't the greedy CEOs be forced to pay their workers more and treat them better to attract better workers? Obviously, they're competing with the benevolent CEOs; why would anyone want to work for them when someone else is paying them more?

Obviously, that's not how it works. In the U.S., for example, a worker cannot afford to spend much time looking for a better job without going into bankruptcy and consequently losing EVERYTHING.

So, given that, isn't it safe to say that socialism is a worse alternative to capitalism? Because simply but, the people would then be at the mercy of one government.

We are already at the mercy of one government. As an example, Obama and the GOP congress have aggreed to raise taxes on working Americans. If it would have been a Republican president and a Democratic congress, the same thing would have happened. This is a fascist right-wing government that will spend much, much more on the military than on the health care of its citizens.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Obviously, that's not how it works. In the U.S., for example, a worker cannot afford to spend much time looking for a better job without going into bankruptcy and consequently losing EVERYTHING.

good thing all the immigrants who now populate most of America did not know that!!

See why we say a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?

 

[tooAlive]

If that were that case, isn't socialism worse?
Do we have to go "all in?" Why do we have to commit to either one of those economic models?

So, what do you propose?

We're living in a mixed economy right now. A little bit of capitalism, and a little bit of socialism. You tell me if it's working or not.

Obviously, that's not how it works. In the U.S., for example, a worker cannot afford to spend much time looking for a better job without going into bankruptcy and consequently losing EVERYTHING.

What is stopping someone from looking for another job while they're still employed??

That's how I did it, and it worked out fine.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We're living in a mixed economy right now. A little bit of capitalism, and a little bit of socialism. You tell me if it's working or not.
.

the capitalist part is working of course, but the socialist part caused the current depression.

A recession or depression is the time period during which capitalism
corrects the socialist induced mistakes; in this case the housing bubble mistakes.

A liberal will quite simply lack the IQ to understand that let alone challenge it.

 

[tooAlive]

We're living in a mixed economy right now. A little bit of capitalism, and a little bit of socialism. You tell me if it's working or not.
.

the capitalist part is working of course, but the socialist part caused the current depression.

A recession or depression is the time period during which capitalism
corrects the socialist induced mistakes; in this case the housing bubble mistakes.

A liberal will quite simply lack the IQ to understand that let alone challenge it.

Exactly. Liberals for example will blame the greedy banks and insurance companies for paying out bonuses with the billions of dollars of bailout money they received.'

Conservatives blame the government that had no business giving them the money if the first place.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We're living in a mixed economy right now. A little bit of capitalism, and a little bit of socialism. You tell me if it's working or not.
.

the capitalist part is working of course, but the socialist part caused the current depression.

A recession or depression is the time period during which capitalism
corrects the socialist induced mistakes; in this case the housing bubble mistakes.

A liberal will quite simply lack the IQ to understand that let alone challenge it.

Exactly. Liberals for example will blame the greedy banks and insurance companies for paying out bonuses with the billions of dollars of bailout money they received.'

Conservatives blame the government that had no business giving them the money if the first place.

too stupid!! the typical liberal changed the subject completely because he lacked the IQ to discuss the subject!! PLease address the subject or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so!! Thanks

 

[ReallyMeow]

So basically your argument is that socialism is slavery? Bad news, you are the type of person that doesn't know what words mean.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet — which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration — and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

dear, they had some good medicine in Cuba and the USSR but generally speaking starving 100 million to death is not a good thing!! No health care needed for that 100 million!!

Can you tell us why our liberals spied for Stalin while he was slowing starving 100 million??

 

[BillSPrestonEsq]

So basically your argument is that socialism is slavery? Bad news, you are the type of person that doesn't know what words mean.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.
I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet — which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration — and post on Freerepublic.com and Fox News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

Socialism is slavery in a way, this is why it has never ever in all of history worked, it has obviously been tried by many tyrants over the course of history as we all know. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Kim Jong-il to name a few were all socialists. That's the common trait in socialists is that THEY know whats best for everyone else. It will never ever, ever, ever work and just a "little bit of socialism" will never,ever, ever work either. The sooner you and those that share your opinion understand that the sooner we can start rebuilding our country.

The USDA has created monopolies in the farming industry that produce low quality foods that are genetically modified, covered in pesticides. Thanks USDA!

The FDA has created monopolies in agriculture as well. They have also created monopolies in healthcare and medicine.

The FCC has created monopolies in the media and thats how this country remains completely brainwashed.

The DOT keeps new auto manufacturing companies from starting up and getting into the market to possibly create the most well built safest cars we have ever seen.

The DOA keeps throwing money at underperforming schools to no avail. I would like to see a voucher system that allows schools to be privately owned. If you look at the success of many charter schools you'll see what I mean.

The FED is the most tyrannical destructive beast that we have ever seen and one day people will realize this. The scope of their destruction is almost incomprehensible as they have shaped modern day society over the last 100 years.

People that champion the regulating agencies we have here in the US don't realize that without them our standards will go up regardless of how it's done. Another thing they don't realize is that it is OUR responsibilty as consumers to regulate business. Anytime we give that power away we will get taken advantage of by the same agencies that claim to protect us. No one can protect us except ourselves, that is why when for example lead paint is found in toys it is consumer watchdogs that find it, not the government. You can never just go on autopilot and assume that someone else (the government) is going to look out for your best interest, but you can be sure they will be looking out for theirs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You can never just go on autopilot and assume that someone else (the government) is going to look out for your best interest, but you can be sure they will be looking out for theirs.

yes you have that right for sure!! In fact, the more libturds convince us that they have our backs the more helpless we become and the weaker our nation becomes.

 

[Communism]

The fact is regulations are necessary and successful. I don't care what you blame for the current economic conditions. You can blame the alignment of Jupiter for all I care, but the fact of the matter is, the lowest levels of regulation coincided with the highest levels of wealth inequality within this country. Our most regulated era was the time between the Great Depression and now, and it also coincides with the least amount of economic volatility.

There are two factors to consider, when talking about economic stability within a capitalist society: where wealth resides without any regulation, and the results of it. Without any regulation whatsoever (or rather, as minimal as possible while still being capitalist, since you have to have a little regulation just to make sure some guy pays for services rendered), the middle of the economic pyramid disappears. This is because wealth has money-making abilities within itself. If you have $100k in the bank, you have more than double the money making potential than having $50k in the bank. It bring the average money making up, and therefore prices up, where the people below that level lose wealth, and the people above it still gain wealth because of the issue I described above.

The other factor is that, when a society loses its middle section of the economic pyramid, it either collapses or it because a tyranny. Not "he raised my income tax by 3%!" tyranny, but "kill all politicians who don't agree with me" tyranny. It happens literally every time to every society throughout history. And equally importantly, it doesn't matter if that inequality was fair or not. If it was because people were lazy, it doesn't matter. You still have the inevitability of collapse or tyranny.

So you can argue about the "right" amount of regulation all you want, the consistent conclusion of as-close-to-zero-as-possible regulation won't work for a society.

 

[tooAlive]

The fact is regulations are necessary and successful. I don't care what you blame for the current economic conditions. You can blame the alignment of Jupiter for all I care, but the fact of the matter is, the lowest levels of regulation coincided with the highest levels of wealth inequality within this country. Our most regulated era was the time between the Great Depression and now, and it also coincides with the least amount of economic volatility.

There are two factors to consider, when talking about economic stability within a capitalist society: where wealth resides without any regulation, and the results of it. Without any regulation whatsoever (or rather, as minimal as possible while still being capitalist, since you have to have a little regulation just to make sure some guy pays for services rendered), the middle of the economic pyramid disappears. This is because wealth has money-making abilities within itself. If you have $100k in the bank, you have more than double the money making potential than having $50k in the bank. It bring the average money making up, and therefore prices up, where the people below that level lose wealth, and the people above it still gain wealth because of the issue I described above.

The other factor is that, when a society loses its middle section of the economic pyramid, it either collapses or it because a tyranny. Not "he raised my income tax by 3%!" tyranny, but "kill all politicians who don't agree with me" tyranny. It happens literally every time to every society throughout history. And equally importantly, it doesn't matter if that inequality was fair or not. If it was because people were lazy, it doesn't matter. You still have the inevitability of collapse or tyranny.

So you can argue about the "right" amount of regulation all you want, the consistent conclusion of as-close-to-zero-as-possible regulation won't work for a society.

Judging from your username and avatar I can see that you're pretty far from reality, but I'll try my best to respond to you.

"As-close-to-zero-as-possible regulation" doesn't work; that's on the verge of anarchy which is just as bad as communism.

Also, under capitalism (or a mostly-capitalist system), the United States has become the best nation in the world. Even our poor live better than people in most other countries. Which is why people generally want to come to America, and not the other way around.

What has your brilliant communism done for the world? Don't answer that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is because wealth has money-making abilities within itself.

Buffet, Gates, Ellison, Watson, Jobs, etc etc did not come from wealth they merely had the best ideas so your theory is mistaken.
In fact in business school they teach that the more wealth and success you have the more smug and complacent you become, and so less likely to evolve within your industry.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"As-close-to-zero-as-possible regulation" doesn't work; that's on the verge of anarchy which is just as bad as communism.

capitalism requires extreme regulation in that all relationships and transactions are voluntary or based on mutual agreement. No violence is allowed, especially state violence to change voluntary relationships and transactions.

 

[tooAlive]

This is because wealth has money-making abilities within itself.

Buffet, Gates, Ellison, Watson, Jobs, etc etc did not come from wealth they merely had the best ideas so your theory is mistaken.
In fact in business school they teach that the more wealth and success you have the more smug and complacent you become, and so less likely to evolve within your industry.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

If there's a common denominator among self-proclaimed communists and socialists, it's that they have not even the slightest idea how business works or how to be successful in life. Most of them are unfulfilled, angry individuals who hate what they do and blame successful people for their shortcomings.

They're stuck with the flawed ideology that rich people are exploiters, and that there's no way to become rich unless you cheat or are born wealthy.

I truly feel sympathy for these people.

 

[Freemason9]

It's a common argument from the left that under capitalism, workers will always be exploited and enslaved by their masters, or "CEOs."

If that were that case, isn't socialism worse?

I mean, instead of having many greedy CEOs to chose from, you're stuck with one government. What if that government turns out to be greedy, and begins exploiting it's people? You can't simply "quit" and go work for another government that treats you better.

I think we can all agree that not all CEOs are evil and greedy. For the sake of this argument, lets say that most of them are. That would still mean that there are some CEOs that are benevolent and giving.

Under capitalism, workers would have a choice whether or not they want to work for a benevolent CEO, or a greedy one. And if that were the case, wouldn't the greedy CEOs be forced to pay their workers more and treat them better to attract better workers? Obviously, they're competing with the benevolent CEOs; why would anyone want to work for them when someone else is paying them more?

Hopefully you could all understand my point.

So, given that, isn't it safe to say that socialism is a worse alternative to capitalism? Because simply but, the people would then be at the mercy of one government.

What could the people do if that government evolved into a dictatorship? Like what happened in Cuba. At least under capitalism the people have a choice, and aren't stuck working for one CEO (the state). What do you believe?

You DO understand that socialism does NOT imply that everyone works for the government, right? Because under definitive socialism, everyone works for THEMSELVES; that is, all workers are owners of their working environments.

You stupid crackers have never even understood what socialism is about.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is because wealth has money-making abilities within itself.

Buffet, Gates, Ellison, Watson, Jobs, etc etc did not come from wealth they merely had the best ideas so your theory is mistaken.
In fact in business school they teach that the more wealth and success you have the more smug and complacent you become, and so less likely to evolve within your industry.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

If there's a common denominator among self-proclaimed communists and socialists, it's that they have not even the slightest idea how business works or how to be successful in life. Most of them are unfulfilled, angry individuals who hate what they do and blame successful people for their shortcomings.

They're stuck with the flawed ideology that rich people are exploiters, and that there's no way to become rich unless you cheat or are born wealthy.

I truly feel sympathy for these people.

yes they insist the rich people are exploiters even as they can see the capitalist process unfold once again in China. 20 million a year can now buy cars whereas under socialism 20 million starved to death.
Nevertheless, liberals still insist China is evil even when this miracle is unfolding before them ?

 

[Communism]

Buffet, Gates, Ellison, Watson, Jobs, etc etc did not come from wealth they merely had the best ideas so your theory is mistaken.
In fact in business school they teach that the more wealth and success you have the more smug and complacent you become, and so less likely to evolve within your industry.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

If there's a common denominator among self-proclaimed communists and socialists, it's that they have not even the slightest idea how business works or how to be successful in life. Most of them are unfulfilled, angry individuals who hate what they do and blame successful people for their shortcomings.

They're stuck with the flawed ideology that rich people are exploiters, and that there's no way to become rich unless you cheat or are born wealthy.

I truly feel sympathy for these people.

yes they insist the rich people are exploiters even as they can see the capitalist process unfold once again in China. 20 million a year can now buy cars whereas under socialism 20 million starved to death.
Nevertheless, liberals still insist China is evil even when this miracle is unfolding before them ?

People are exploiting people. I am happy and grateful for advances in technology but they are used to keep some people down. The people who make these products have no access to the fruits of their labor. They are slaves to their wage and when their wage is no longer worth the output they are sent out into the streets without any access to a product they helped create to help them survive.

 

[freedombecki]

It's a common argument from the left that under capitalism, workers will always be exploited and enslaved by their masters, or "CEOs."

If that were that case, isn't socialism worse?

I mean, instead of having many greedy CEOs to chose from, you're stuck with one government. What if that government turns out to be greedy, and begins exploiting it's people? You can't simply "quit" and go work for another government that treats you better.

I think we can all agree that not all CEOs are evil and greedy. For the sake of this argument, lets say that most of them are. That would still mean that there are some CEOs that are benevolent and giving.

Under capitalism, workers would have a choice whether or not they want to work for a benevolent CEO, or a greedy one. And if that were the case, wouldn't the greedy CEOs be forced to pay their workers more and treat them better to attract better workers? Obviously, they're competing with the benevolent CEOs; why would anyone want to work for them when someone else is paying them more?

Hopefully you could all understand my point.

So, given that, isn't it safe to say that socialism is a worse alternative to capitalism? Because simply but, the people would then be at the mercy of one government.

What could the people do if that government evolved into a dictatorship? Like what happened in Cuba. At least under capitalism the people have a choice, and aren't stuck working for one CEO (the state). What do you believe?

You DO understand that socialism does NOT imply that everyone works for the government, right? Because under definitive socialism, everyone works for THEMSELVES; that is, all workers are owners of their working environments.

You stupid crackers have never even understood what socialism is about.

You do realize that Obama's parents, grandparents, mentors, upbringing, and choice of schools favored communism and socialism, right?

With all due respect, you do realize that in Obama's first term in office, he put undue pressure on successful private enterprises and subverted a number of financial, automotive, green, and other institutions to government control, right? And that these enterprises must report directly to him or one of his unsanctioned-by-congress czars, right?

What's the saying--if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might well be a duck?

We're a little worried the alleged Socialism you are claiming goes much further than that, and we're all petitioning our Congressman and Senators to fight it tooth and nail. We are aided by people who have lived behind the Iron Curtain and know what Communism ultimately does. They paint a picture that is not too pretty of either experimental Socialism or failed Communism. Furthermore, it is a horrifying type of change Obama is bringing about, to faciliate a one-world takeoverfor the convenient assaying power to oil-filthy-rich strongmen of the Muslim Brotherhood.

America's women could be slaughtered if they did not submit to beatings, retraction of voting privileges, vaginal mutilation, devotion to Allah, martyrdom, jihad killings, marriage/rape at age 9 years, etc.

Keep being so open-minded, and your brains are gonna fall right outta your head.