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?

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.

No, you do not get to reinvent the definition of socialism.

Under socialism, you do not work for yourself. Otherwise you'd get to keep all the fruits of your labor, which you most definitely do not under socialism.

The fruits of your labor are confiscated by the state in order to be redistributed. This is how people get housing, rationed food, healthcare, ect. The textbook definition of socialism is government control over the means of production.

And when the government owns the means of production, you work for the government. I would think twice before calling someone a stupid cracker when you yourself have not the slightest understanding of what you're talking about.

 

[tooAlive]

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.

So what's to stop the government from exploiting the people?

At least under capitalism you have a choice of employers to work for. But under communism, you're stuck with the government you get.

But to tackle your original argument, simply because someone works for a wage does not imply that they are being exploited. That is simply your flawed perception of reality.

Go out and talk to workers and employees; you'll be surprised how many of them are grateful for the CEO and company for which they work, and all the benefits they are given. Then go to Cuba and ask people how they're enjoying their free healthcare and education system, and then ask them why half their family left the country.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

People are exploiting people.

too stupid!! when you give someone a better jop than anyone else in the world in a very competitive environment you are blessing him, not exploiting him!!!

I am happy and grateful for advances in technology but they are used to keep some people down.

way too stupid and liberal. A poor sick person in America, for example has access to state of the art medical care tecehnology for himself and his family that he couldn't afford in a million years or invent in a million years. Thats blessing not exploiting you idiot!!

The people who make these products have no access to the fruits of their labor.

way too stupid and liberal!!!!!However, examination of the living standards of the 37 million or so persons, the government defines as “poor,” reveals that America’s poverty “plague” may not be as “terrible” or “incredible” as anti-poverty crusader Edwards contends.

If being “poor” means (as Edwards claims it does) a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of America’s 37 million official “poor” people can be regarded as actually poor. Some material hardship does exist in the United States, but, in reality, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year — the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year — the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year — nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation’s remaining poverty could be reduced.

Another important factor boosting poverty in the U.S. is our broken immigration system which imports hundreds of thousands of additional poor people each year from abroad through both legal and illegal immigration channels. One quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first generation immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by Census is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. Immigrants tend to be poor because they have very low education levels. A quarter of legal immigrants and fifty to sixty percent of illegals are high-school dropouts. By contrast, only nine percent of non-immigrant Americans lack a high school degree.

As long as the present steady flow of poverty-prone persons from foreign countries continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more difficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must not only seek to increase work and marriage among native born Americans, it must also end illegal immigration, and dramatically increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.


NOw you can surely see why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!

 

[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.

No, you do not get to reinvent the definition of socialism.

Under socialism, you do not work for yourself. Otherwise you'd get to keep all the fruits of your labor, which you most definitely do not under socialism.

The fruits of your labor are confiscated by the state in order to be redistributed. This is how people get housing, rationed food, healthcare, ect. The textbook definition of socialism is government control over the means of production.

And when the government owns the means of production, you work for the government. I would think twice before calling someone a stupid cracker when you yourself have not the slightest understanding of what you're talking about.

You merely verified my contention; you have no clue as to what socialism actually IS. You fear the very thing you support as a Republican--statism via massive military control and a "security" apparatus.

You ARE a stupid cracker.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

what's to understand?? We've seen it slowly starve 125 million human beings to death??

If a new national socialist like Hitler came along and said if only the Nazi's had had more time it would have worked out so wonderfully. Who would buy that except a nut case or someone like you?

 

[Freemason9]

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

what's to understand?? We've seen it slowly starve 125 million human beings to death??

If a new national socialist like Hitler came along and said if only the Nazi's had had more time it would have worked out so wonderfully. Who would buy that except a nut case or someone like you?

I wish you wouldn't respond, Edward, because your responses are so trollish. You clearly are clueless.

There hasn't been a socialist economy or government in the world. There have been governments that CLAIMED to be socialist (they weren't), just as there have been governments that CLAIM to be democratic (they aren't), and economies that CLAIM to be purely capitalist (there are none).

You refer to totalitarian regimes, mostly. Although the Nazis were extreme right wing fanatics and the Chinese were extreme left wing fanatics, they were actually neither; they were nearly identical totalitarian regimes that cared little for ideology. They were about power and control of the masses.

You are an ignorant, noisy SOB, Edward. I shall now seek the "ignore" feature I've heard so much about.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There hasn't been a socialist economy or government in the world.

too stupid and 1000% liberal!! If we have tried 167 times and the record is 125 million slowly starved to death then we should stop trying. You know how they say doing the same thing over and over when it doesn't work is insane??

Are you insane or just slow, so very very slow???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Although the Nazis were extreme right wing fanatics

poor dear, Hitler was a National "Socialist" who believed in a very powerful central governemnt as all liberal socialists, including Mao, do or did . Conservatives and libertarians believe in the opposite, they sign the pledge to never raise taxes and never grow government.

Is that really over your head??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They [Hitler Mao]were about power and control of the masses.

poor dear, a liberal socialist nazi has to have absolute control of the masses in order to take their private property away. Conservatives and libertarians want the masses to keep their personal private property and accumulate more of it.

Have you got the basics now????

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow???