CDZ The Siren Song of Socialism

[Tehon]

The word "capitalism" can mean a lot of different things, but nobody here says capital is better or more important than labor. Posters on this thread either say we need both or they like labor more than capital. That would mean we may have "laborists" here and no "capitalists".

I thought you were a capitalist.......

Sounds like a nonstandard definition of capital here, as most folks would point out that the ditch can only be produced, consumed, and marketed by first joining a laborer to a shovel --and it doesn't matter who owns the shovel or who hires the laborer.

but I get the impression that you can't define capital.

Most of us like things like production, consumption, and markets --and humans create governments to maintain order so they can produce, consume, and market things.

Production, consumption and markets are a human necessity. As is government. Government takes on unique characteristics in a capitalist system. The state arises to protect property rights, for instance. That wouldn't happen in a socialist system. The state serves capital interests. We can all attest to that.

Usually we hear socialists say that the shovel is to be handed out by the "community" --AKA the state. Is that your take?

No, that is not my take. The community would be just that, a community. As stated above, the state exists to arbitrate property rights, which would not exist in a socialist society. Furthermore, I believe the shovel could be offered in a marketplace. The cost of the shovel being the amount of labor necessary for society to produce it. In other words, the person that produced the shovel would be able to extract from the market an equivalent amount of labor to which he expended in producing the shovel.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Why Socialism never has a happy ending.

 

[jwoodie]

In a socialist system the laborer wouldn't be using a shovel to dig a ditch.

LOL, you can't even keep your story straight:

In a socialist system, the shovel would not be privately owned. It would nevertheless be made available to the laborer who needs to dig the ditch.

 

[Tehon]

In a socialist system the laborer wouldn't be using a shovel to dig a ditch.

LOL, you can't even keep your story straight:

In a socialist system, the shovel would not be privately owned. It would nevertheless be made available to the laborer who needs to dig the ditch.

Often it is cheaper to pay labor to manually dig a ditch than it is to use a machine. That is unique to the capitalist system.

That problem wouldn't exist in a socialist system.

That was my point that you edited out.

 

[jwoodie]

Often it is cheaper to pay labor to manually dig a ditch than it is to use a machine. That is unique to the capitalist system.

 

[Tehon]

Often it is cheaper to pay labor to manually dig a ditch than it is to use a machine. That is unique to the capitalist system.

Obviously you have nothing to refute it with.

 

[sartre play]

Socialism in American is not free stuff. its getting what you paid for with your taxes.

 

[expat_panama]

I thought you were a capitalist.......

Sorry if I gave you that impression but imho capital is worthless w/o labor, just as labor is worthless w/o capital. If I've got to have a lable you can say I'm a human --I make tools (capital) and I use them to feed my family (labor).

But that's not important, you said you're a socialist and I'd be greatful if you could tell me more about what you mean. Seems a lot of Americans are wearing that lable & I need to know what's going on.

...I get the impression that you can't define capital...

We can define it any way we want but when it comes to money/econ folks usually mean--

Capital goods are man-made, durable items businesses use to produce goods and services. They include tools, buildings, vehicles, machinery and equipment. Capital goods are also called durable goods, real capital, and economic capital. Some experts just refer to them as "capital." This last term is confusing because it can also mean financial capital.​

To me this approach makes the idea of 'capital' something benign, far from the sinister image that socialists seem to hold. This is what baffles me, the idea that tools can be evil but using them is good. The answer that comes to me is that socialists are using a different definition of "capital" and I'd like to know what it is.

Usually we hear socialists say that the shovel is to be handed out by the "community" --AKA the state. Is that your take?

...The community would be just that, a community. As stated above, the state exists to arbitrate property rights, which would not exist in a socialist society...

Please help me understand what you're saying. The word "community" means "a group of people" and "the state" is its organization. The group can not hand over a shovel unless it organizes.

...the shovel could be offered in a marketplace. The cost of the shovel being the amount of labor necessary for society to produce it.....

This is how labor makes a shovel--

--it can only be done w/ a massive capital investment. A hundred years ago the process was much more labor intensive---

--but even then the capital investment represented years of effort.

 

[jwoodie]

Often it is cheaper to pay labor to manually dig a ditch than it is to use a machine. That is unique to the capitalist system.

Obviously you have nothing to refute it with.

Have you ever been to a construction site in the US? Do you really think Socialist countries use less manual labor? Most Socialists criticize Capitalism for replacing workers with machines. But apparently you know better...

 

[Tehon]

To me this approach makes the idea of 'capital' something benign, far from the sinister image that socialists seem to hold. This is what baffles me, the idea that tools can be evil but using them is good. The answer that comes to me is that socialists are using a different definition of "capital" and I'd like to know what it is.

I don't think the socialist is using a different definition for capital. I think he has a deeper understanding of it.

So you only see in capital a man made durable item that is used in the production of commodities. The socialist sees in capital an alien power to command. We recognize the social power inherent in it.

Please help me understand what you're saying. The word "community" means "a group of people" and "the state" is its organization. The group can not hand over a shovel unless it organizes.

The state is a political organization which maintains a monopoly on the use of force. It is not the only form of organization. Cooperatives are another form of organization.

The state is the only type of organization that enters your mind due to your familiarity with it. The capitalist system demands it. The monopoly on force is necessary to arbitrate private property rights.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I've been involved with several citizens' initiatives.

Every single time, we had a billions of dollars company send people in, illegally mind you, to get in the way. Of all the times, only twice did we outspend them. Every other time they blew us out of the water. And they pretty much purchased the local airwaves with ad campaigns. They also took over the newspapers etc.

They're very powerful initiatives, and as Tehon said, often overlooked. That's why those special interest companies do that, that's why they send in their goons with a bottomless wallet. The yknow the power of an idea whose time has come. And they'll do everything they can to stop it.

 

[Tehon]

Often it is cheaper to pay labor to manually dig a ditch than it is to use a machine. That is unique to the capitalist system.

Obviously you have nothing to refute it with.

Have you ever been to a construction site in the US? Do you really think Socialist countries use less manual labor? Most Socialists criticize Capitalism for replacing workers with machines. But apparently you know better...

I think maybe you are misinterpreting what I am saying. I'm saying the capitalist will cut corners in an effort to realize a greater profit. It is the reason we have OSHA.

 

[expat_panama]

...I don't think the socialist is using a different definition for capital. I think he has a deeper understanding of it.... ...The socialist sees in capital an alien power to command. We recognize the social power inherent in it....

This is that "sinister image" that I mentioned having heard from socialists. The irony I'm getting is that while socialists see tools as evil they turn right around and display these same capital assets on their flag--

--the hammer of the factory with the sickle of the farm.

 

[danielpalos]

Management makes all of the difference.

Hoover Dam was ahead of schedule.

 

[Tehon]

...I don't think the socialist is using a different definition for capital. I think he has a deeper understanding of it.... ...The socialist sees in capital an alien power to command. We recognize the social power inherent in it....

This is that "sinister image" that I mentioned having heard from socialists. The irony I'm getting is that while socialists see tools as evil they turn right around and display these same capital assets on their flag--

--the hammer of the factory with the sickle of the farm.

The socialist doesn't see the tools as being evil. The socialist simply understands that the tools are being used in a way that cedes social power to the possessor of the tools.

It's not that difficult.

 

[task0778]

...I don't think the socialist is using a different definition for capital. I think he has a deeper understanding of it.... ...The socialist sees in capital an alien power to command. We recognize the social power inherent in it....

This is that "sinister image" that I mentioned having heard from socialists. The irony I'm getting is that while socialists see tools as evil they turn right around and display these same capital assets on their flag--

--the hammer of the factory with the sickle of the farm.

The socialist doesn't see the tools as being evil. The socialist simply understands that the tools are being used in a way that cedes social power to the possessor of the tools.

It's not that difficult.

Do you really think the workers have any social power in a socialist state? Or any other kind of power? Obviously, the tools aren't evil, and neither are the workers. But the people who control them are, IMHO. Do you think people like Stalin, Mao, Maduro, and Castro were nice guys? Do you think their elections are fair and honest?

You know the old saying about socialism, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"? What they don't tell you is that somebody else decides what your abilities are and also what your needs are, and guess what? Your needs don't measure up to theirs, or those who are connected to them.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is about equality unlike capitalism.

 

[Tehon]

...I don't think the socialist is using a different definition for capital. I think he has a deeper understanding of it.... ...The socialist sees in capital an alien power to command. We recognize the social power inherent in it....

This is that "sinister image" that I mentioned having heard from socialists. The irony I'm getting is that while socialists see tools as evil they turn right around and display these same capital assets on their flag--

--the hammer of the factory with the sickle of the farm.

The socialist doesn't see the tools as being evil. The socialist simply understands that the tools are being used in a way that cedes social power to the possessor of the tools.

It's not that difficult.

Do you really think the workers have any social power in a socialist state? Or any other kind of power? Obviously, the tools aren't evil, and neither are the workers. But the people who control them are, IMHO. Do you think people like Stalin, Mao, Maduro, and Castro were nice guys? Do you think their elections are fair and honest?

You know the old saying about socialism, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"? What they don't tell you is that somebody else decides what your abilities are and also what your needs are, and guess what? Your needs don't measure up to theirs, or those who are connected to them.

What is a socialist state? The use of the term state implies coercion. So of course we don't think the citizenry has any real power in a state. Present one included.

The question then becomes, what gives rise to the state? What are the similarities between a socialist state and a capitalist state?

 

[danielpalos]

...I don't think the socialist is using a different definition for capital. I think he has a deeper understanding of it.... ...The socialist sees in capital an alien power to command. We recognize the social power inherent in it....

This is that "sinister image" that I mentioned having heard from socialists. The irony I'm getting is that while socialists see tools as evil they turn right around and display these same capital assets on their flag--

--the hammer of the factory with the sickle of the farm.

The socialist doesn't see the tools as being evil. The socialist simply understands that the tools are being used in a way that cedes social power to the possessor of the tools.

It's not that difficult.

Do you really think the workers have any social power in a socialist state? Or any other kind of power? Obviously, the tools aren't evil, and neither are the workers. But the people who control them are, IMHO. Do you think people like Stalin, Mao, Maduro, and Castro were nice guys? Do you think their elections are fair and honest?

You know the old saying about socialism, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"? What they don't tell you is that somebody else decides what your abilities are and also what your needs are, and guess what? Your needs don't measure up to theirs, or those who are connected to them.

What is a socialist state? The use of the term state implies coercion. So of course we don't think the citizenry has any real power in a state. Present one included.

The question then becomes, what gives rise to the state? What are the similarities between a socialist state and a capitalist state?

We elect representatives to government to solve our social problems. They can afford to hire staff to help out.

 

[task0778]

Socialism is about equality unlike capitalism.

This is a load of crap. Socialism has nothing to do with equality. Do you think everyone in Venezuela lives the same lifestyle? Or any other socialist country? You think their rights and freedoms and choices are all equal? Do they all have the same opportunities? Not hardly. Would you want your kids to have that kind of equality?

At least under capitalism you have choices; you can voluntarily trade something to somebody else for whatever you think is fair value, that's equality for you. You can decide whether or not to take a specific job, or quit whenever you want to, same as everyone else. Under socialism, NOTHING is voluntary, somebody else decides what fair value is, or what your choices are. Which are usually limited to doing what you're told or get shot or imprisoned.