Who should own and control the means of production?

[edthecynic]

I believe in an essentially free market, however I also believe that

The full quote is even better.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
President Abraham Lincoln, annual message to Congress, December 3, 1861

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Communism has been tried countless times and it has a 100% fail rate, American Liberals are the only True Believers who still think it's viable

 

[code1211]

Where have you seen a successful Socialist program? Never. Capitalism has been the most successful program ever. Problem is everyone wants to be boss and most aren't smart enough. At least with Capitalism if you are smart enough the bosses will make sure you get ahead. You don't have to be some 3rd cousin of the current dictator

Capitalism is bankrupt to the tune 14Trillion, so stop talking nonsense. It has murdered millions in its Empirical wars, polluted the Earth, and starved the people it was to serve. And while you ignore it, socialism does work, and is shown to you over & over & over again, so you must be blind if you missed it. I am sure I could point out a country today and you would ask the same question tomorrow.
This debate has to do with what capitalism is capable of doing to the serfs, which is move you back to #1. if left unabated.

The Socialist governments of the West have Capitalistic economies that are heavily taxed.

I can understand a government trying to poof an industrial economy into existance within its borders through governmental investment, but it would really be much more easily and cheaply accomplished to attract investors with private money into the country and alloow the industry to build in a normal Capitalistic way.

China is a decent example of a combination of government and private investment with very strong governmental control, but as the education, wealth and information sources flourish, the domineering government is about to find shallow waters for it's deep draft ship of state.

A single control over all of the industry means a choke point in the flow of creativity and that is why single control economies don't work well.

A million ideas to choose from as opposed to single voice to direct is the difference.

If you cannot find success in a group as small as a single company where your star has an excellent chance to be seen, what chance will your star have in a universe the size of a whole country? Socialism doesn't reward the individual. Socialism reduces the individual.

In a Capitalistic society, the members of society elevate those who are elevated. In a Socialistic society, the elite select those who are to be elevated. Get the difference? it is the difference between earning something and being given something.

It is the difference between the Beatles and the Monkees.

 

[code1211]

I am me, who is everyone but the owner of production that I must make a living wage from. He the owner is a known dangerous person who must be owned and controlled from destroying us all. He should only exist as the government where I can control him.

Well the 17th Century has sent a note. We must woder as to when the time capsule was opened.

"He" exists only in your unicorn world. Business is owned for the most part by banks and contolled for the most part by corporations. Corporations sell stock to raise funds and that stock is owned by investors who are US. "Us" demands that the corporations show profits, issue dividends and protect our investments.

In your world "He" is the man with his boot on your throat. In the real world, "He" is some guy who took a risk to follow his passion whether that is dentistry or lawn maintenance and "He" is missing meals, working 18 hour days and in general committing the kind of effort that you don't even have the power to imagine.

If "He" works hard enough and is lucky enough, "He" might build a business that has a value that he can sell off and enjoy the end of his stress shortened life in his waning years enough to perhaps see his spoiled children give him him a grand child.

The problem with envy is not with those that are envied. It is with those who envy. If you don't like to work hard, there's no shame to that. There's no great honor, either. Why attack those that do like to work hard?

It's the guys pulling the wagon that cause it to move. Do you have to attack the pullers? Why not just continue to enjoy the ride?

Simply refreshing, so I take it you are #1.

Perhaps. Most would tell me that I have #2 for brains.

NO, sadly, I am not #1. I am one of the wagon riders in that I know that rich folks got to be that way because they have caught the lightning in a bottle. I am most definitely not one of the illuminati, the glitterati or, thankfully, the castratti. I'm just a guy who likes a good time and knows that to gain the freedoms I want that I need to earn money to do it.

Having earned some money, I usually have a pretty good time.

In my personnal case, havijg earned some money was accomplished by chasing women all the way through every part of my time in college and somehow making it to enough classes to graduate. Following that, it took several years for me to discover that I was almost never the smartest guy in the room and now, when I find that I am, I try to find a smarter room.

Faced with really intelligent persons, I am almost always taken with the humility and grace of these folks. Their intellectual curiosity is absolutely hypnotic. The trick is to make them speak about themselves because they will almost always try to find out as much as possible about you and anyone or anything else that is within their notice.

It turns out that the intelligent rich are not out to dominate others, they are out to understand others to the point where they can cater to them and ply a trade. That trade may be in ideas or goods or services, but there is always a trade about to occur.

Even a guy like me who is not so industrious that it rubs off finds that just emulating the most obvious traits of the intellectual wealthy creates a very small spark in a bottle and, in the USA, that's enough to get a guy by. Elsewhere, it's enough to get a guy shot.

Don't you think it's just a bit limited to be spouting garbage about serfs in country where just under 70% of the population owns their own home?

In your world, the serfs are the majority. In my world, the serfs are the minority. You can read and write and have access to a computer. If you add to your talents the understanding that there many who are very intelligent just aching to help you, you will find that the world of Capitalism is a world of shared and growing opportunity. You can be happy if you just quit being miserable.

Ain't nothin' to it but to do it.

 

[editec]

I believe in an essentially free market, however I also believe that

The full quote is even better.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
President Abraham Lincoln, annual message to Congress, December 3, 1861

Which came first?

The fruits of labor or the fruits of capital?

Obviously labor has sustained humankind since day one.

Capital, which is merely a tool, has only existed for about 6,000 years or so.

So, which is absolutely essential for mankind and which is merely a convenient tool?

I think the answer to that question is rather obvious.

Labor creates wealth.

Capital merely represents the fruits of the wealth that were created by labor.

 

[code1211]

Capitalism is bankrupt to the tune 14Trillion, so stop talking nonsense. It has murdered millions in its Empirical wars, polluted the Earth, and starved the people it was to serve. And while you ignore it, socialism does work, and is shown to you over & over & over again, so you must be blind if you missed it. I am sure I could point out a country today and you would ask the same question tomorrow.

This debate has to do with what capitalism is capable of doing to the serfs, which is move you back to #1. if left unabated.

There are no serfs in capitalism.

Capitalism is merely the natural law of economics. It's what happens when the government doesn't oppress men and keep them from being their own masters.

And that is your excuse for Trillions of debt YOU owe because capitalism failed? And you surely will never repay the debt, so who is left to do that for you? For the good of the Corrupt corportions??

Capitalism is an economic system. Socialism and Communism are Social systems with economic considerations. The natural social system to accompany Capitalism is some form of Democracy.

Repressing the individual economically does not lend itself well to elevating the individual politically or socially.

A strong understanding of the power of the individual as is promoted in a Democratic state will ultimately undermine the willful subjegation of the individual as is required in the Socialist state.

Regardless of the imposed system, people will always know which of them is a leader and which is not, who is smarter and who is duller, more attractive or less, better to worse.

The goal, then, should be to construct a system that promotes the full growth of as many as possible and does not limit the growth of the truely gifted. A system that predetrmines winners and losers is conducive to limits while the system that allows all to find their won level is conducive to expansion.

If we chase perfection, we might find excellence. If we chase a fair and encouraging level of non judgemental but nurturing improvement in a non threatening environment, we might find a seasonless world in which we laugh, but not all of our laughter and cry but not all of our tears. (with apologies to both Vince Lombardi and to Kahlil Gibran)

The real bitch about having few top end limits is that the bottom is always threateningly available. Those who aren't afraid of the risk, will still try to fly.

 

[Agit8r]

Didn't George want fascist control into every facet of the citizen life?

No. Nineteen Eighty-Four was a condemnation of totalitarian government

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
-- George Orwell; from Why I Write

Work : Essays : Why I Write // George Orwell // www.k-1.com/Orwell

Hmm, interesting. Also you say "he was for at least a mostly planned economy, rather than a mostly "spontaneous" economy"

What do you think is better, to plan out an economy, or just let it go where it wants to? I see pure capitalism close to chaos, so just wondering.

"spontaneous" is in quotes because the term isn't entirely accurate. There are always areas where planning (such as land use zoning, etc) take place.

I think that a market is generally a good means of distributing goods and services to those who need them, BUT there are certainly areas that require supplementation. As well, there are instances where market demand can affect things like national security (as much of our oil comes from places where the wealthy sponsor terrorism).

 

[DiamondDave]

And that is your excuse for Trillions of debt YOU owe because capitalism failed? And you surely will never repay the debt, so who is left to do that for you? For the good of the Corrupt corportions??

No, idiot.. it is not because capitalism failed... the debt is because an overbloated and corrupt government has failed... failed us bad

Well imbecile, do you happen to know who owns government? Let me give you a fucking vowel, not U. Gawd where do they find these stupid fucking people?

The government is not owned... it is put into place... and the system has become bastardized with the corrupt politicians running all over the constitution and the populace...

Again... capitalism has not failed.. which was your first assertion, you dolt

 

[Two Thumbs]

One of the central questions of any political ideology is "Who should own and control the means the production?" (Means of production refers to factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.) Generally there have been three approaches to this issue.

1.The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood.

2.The second is capitalism, which disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded.

3.The third approach is socialism, which is defined as "the collective ownership and control of the means of production." That is, everyone owns and controls productive wealth, which is accomplished through the vote.

As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
====http://www.huppi.com

I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.

number 2

It's the only system that works long term, and has the ability to make corrections and changes as time goes by.

1 was replaced b/c it was little more than dictatorship

3 eventually leads back to one. and has failed in most countries that try it. You need a huge source of income to support socialism like oil and valuble minerals or high selling high dollar production. W/o that, it dies and goes up in flames.

 

[rikules]

The people who own the property used.

and if "The people who own the property used." are all chinese?

 

[hipeter924]

One of the central questions of any political ideology is "Who should own and control the means the production?" (Means of production refers to factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.) Generally there have been three approaches to this issue.

1.The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood.

2.The second is capitalism, which disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded.

3.The third approach is socialism, which is defined as "the collective ownership and control of the means of production." That is, everyone owns and controls productive wealth, which is accomplished through the vote.

As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
====http://www.huppi.com

I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.

1. No disagreement there.

2. Depends which form of capitalism, the role of the state and the organization of the economy, there are guilds, democratic worker run businesses, corporations and numerous other economic organizations even in the US economy, capitalism provides economic freedom determined by the depth of state control, and how monopolized the market is.

3. Socialism has an aristocracy or elite class in the form of a political (bureaucrats and politicians) and industrialist elite (in case of nations like Germany, Denmark, Sweden,etc) which run the nation, whether by election or by force of arms (socialism need not be democratic). If you mean to imply applied communism then the USSR and China simply had a military and political (bureaucrats and politicians) elite.

4. Noting the above, there is no system excluding one without government (which has an anarchist system) with full economic and political equality that is free of an elite class, socialism and communism appear to remove an elite class but merely create another to replace it, by removing the means of production and the power from the hands of wealthy capitalists and the middle class and giving it to a government elite (and industrial elite in the case of socialism) to do with what they will.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And who exactly are you to take someone elses property?

I am me, who is everyone but the owner of production that I must make a living wage from. He the owner is a known dangerous person who must be owned and controlled from destroying us all. He should only exist as the government where I can control him.

Oh good grief.....

 

[DiamondDave]

And who exactly are you to take someone elses property?

I am me, who is everyone but the owner of production that I must make a living wage from. He the owner is a known dangerous person who must be owned and controlled from destroying us all. He should only exist as the government where I can control him.

Oh good grief.....

Soggy... this asshole needs to seek some serious mental help

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hoover, FDR and Obama all tried central planning and they gave us our worst economies ever.

 

[PixieStix]

Who should own and control the means of production?

The producers

It really is that simple. Most people want to complicate the uncomplicated

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I am me, who is everyone but the owner of production that I must make a living wage from. He the owner is a known dangerous person who must be owned and controlled from destroying us all. He should only exist as the government where I can control him.

Oh good grief.....

Soggy... this asshole needs to seek some serious mental help

You know, when I read this kinda stuff, I really ask myself, do they really believe this? If so, what the hell happened to somebody to hold such a perverse worldview? Are they just very young and naive? Are they as you say, ill? Are they just not very bright?

It is very disappointing to see people who live in a country which is truly the great success story of all time, that has in a mere couple centuries taken itself and the world to such heights, brought prosperity to so many, and have hold this view that somehow, it must all be thrown out the window in favor of some collectivist, Utopian communal society.

I just don't get it.

 

[code1211]

Capitalism is bankrupt to the tune 14Trillion, so stop talking nonsense. It has murdered millions in its Empirical wars, polluted the Earth, and starved the people it was to serve. And while you ignore it, socialism does work, and is shown to you over & over & over again, so you must be blind if you missed it. I am sure I could point out a country today and you would ask the same question tomorrow.

This debate has to do with what capitalism is capable of doing to the serfs, which is move you back to #1. if left unabated.

There are no serfs in capitalism.

Capitalism is merely the natural law of economics. It's what happens when the government doesn't oppress men and keep them from being their own masters.

And that is your excuse for Trillions of debt YOU owe because capitalism failed? And you surely will never repay the debt, so who is left to do that for you? For the good of the Corrupt corportions??

Capitalism is not a system of government. It is an economic system. Capitalism does not run up a public debt. By definition, it cannot. It is not public. Capitalism is private enterprise. Any debt run up by Capitalism is private debt.

Your assertion is corrupt at its base. Any logic piled on top of that is suspect or just plain wrong.

 

[rikules]

Where have you seen a successful Socialist program? Never. Capitalism has been the most successful program ever. Problem is everyone wants to be boss and most aren't smart enough. At least with Capitalism if you are smart enough the bosses will make sure you get ahead. You don't have to be some 3rd cousin of the current dictator

"Where have you seen a successful Socialist program? "

depending upon your definition of "success"....

china?
aren't they in a better fiscal position than capitalistic USA?

doesn't the USA OWE china a LOT of $$$$$$$

"Capitalism has been the most successful program ever. "

yet china is well on its way to being a very wealthy superpower....

"At least with Capitalism if you are smart enough the bosses will make sure you get ahead. "

that formula works in socialist countries as well...



"You don't have to be some 3rd cousin of the current dictator"

that's true in socialist countries, too

 

[Claudette]

Where have you seen a successful Socialist program? Never. Capitalism has been the most successful program ever. Problem is everyone wants to be boss and most aren't smart enough. At least with Capitalism if you are smart enough the bosses will make sure you get ahead. You don't have to be some 3rd cousin of the current dictator

Capitalism is bankrupt to the tune 14Trillion, so stop talking nonsense. It has murdered millions in its Empirical wars, polluted the Earth, and starved the people it was to serve. And while you ignore it, socialism does work, and is shown to you over & over & over again, so you must be blind if you missed it. I am sure I could point out a country today and you would ask the same question tomorrow.

This debate has to do with what capitalism is capable of doing to the serfs, which is move you back to #1. if left unabated.

Jeeze.

Sounds like you worship at the Socialist alter big time there dude.

Have you ever thought of moving to say, Cuba or Venzuela??

I'm sure Ol'Fidel or Hugo would love to have a real believer like you around.

Just think. All you own would belong to the State and you could be just another worker.

A worker for the welfare of the State. Kinda like Ol'Boxer in 1984.

You remember Boxer? He slaved for the State his entire life. When he got old and couldn't work anymore he was sent straight to the knackers yard. Its the Socialist way.

What a future you will have to look forward to.

Well. Goodbye and good luck with your future endeavers. I know you will fit right in with the Socialist agenda in either country.

 

[code1211]

And that is your excuse for Trillions of debt YOU owe because capitalism failed? And you surely will never repay the debt, so who is left to do that for you? For the good of the Corrupt corportions??

Capitalism didn't cause the debt. The government did. And your "solution" is MORE government.

Idiot.

Government is an entity, it does nothing, imbecile. It is those that control to do something, and those are corporation dumbass, the ones who control ever fool Representative we have. Got that Davey??

So when the Big 0 put his boot on the throat of BP, he was putting his own boot on his own throat?

You just have to admire the man's flexibility.