Who should own and control the means of production?

[Bern80]

This has turned into a really silly argument over a false paradigm. Both socialism and capitalism are failed systems and they are NOT the only two choices.

How can you determine whether somehting has failed without defining what it was meant to do in the first place? The assumption seems to be that capitalism and socialism are suppossed to be different means to the same end. That simply is not the case. One is meant to gaurantee security. The other is meant to provide opportunity.

Capitalism can never exist because the moment it did capitalists would immediately seek to destroy it. Capitalism relies on free markets, a kind of level playing field, no monopolies, a kind of morality, all of which are directly at odds with excessive greed.

False assumptions again. Greed can be kept in checked by the consumer. Capitalism works when everyone takes personal responsibility. Liberals don't grasp the concept of personal responsibility thus why they think capitalism fails.

The very incentive that causes capitalism to work turns around and destroys it right away. You end up with subsidized industry, rewards for excessive risk, monopolies, deferment of costs to others, abuse of power, corruption, etc.

And what is it you think the incentive of capitalism is?

Imagine a world full of self employed laborers who owned their own means of production or at least had the opportunity to do so, imagine if incentives were skewed to reward cooperative self employment coaltions, imagine if you couldn't charter a corporation unless it was owned by it's members.....

These are called co-ops. And there is nothing in a capitlist society that prevents them from forming. There is no legal barrier to a group of people getting together and making an agreement to collevtively own and operate a business. So you have to ask yourself, if it's such a great idea, why aren't their more of them.

 

[Contumacious]

This has turned into a really silly argument over a false paradigm. Both socialism and capitalism are failed systems and they are NOT the only two choices.

Capitalism can never exist because the moment it did capitalists would immediately seek to destroy it. Capitalism relies on free markets, a kind of level playing field, no monopolies, a kind of morality, all of which are directly at odds with excessive greed.

The very incentive that causes capitalism to work turns around and destroys it right away. You end up with subsidized industry, rewards for excessive risk, monopolies, deferment of costs to others, abuse of power, corruption, etc.

Socialism suffers from a poor incentive system offering too many rewards for non productivity, while failing to adequately reward innovation and enterprise.

A marriage of these two, nor one of these or the other is the answer. The answer is something else.

Imagine a world full of self employed laborers who owned their own means of production or at least had the opportunity to do so, imagine if incentives were skewed to reward cooperative self employment coaltions, imagine if you couldn't charter a corporation unless it was owned by it's members.....

Dare to think outside the box that imprisons you. The answer is outside the box, not within it.

Capitalism is not a failed system.

Interventionist and megalomaniac politicians won't let it work. The US had a substantially capitalist system until the early 1900's. So did Hong Kong.

.

 

[loosecannon]

So you have to ask yourself, if it's such a great idea, why aren't their more of them.

Because top down authoritarian regimes, or control economies are more efficient at competing in the combat capitalism environment. Esp since they are more suitable for corruption schemes, monopoly creation, deferring costs publicly while privatizing profits etc.

Change the law, stop issuing charters to corporations that are not 100% employee owned and see what happens after 40 years.

Capitalism is based on a two class dichotomy, make everybody a "capital"ist and labor at once and see how that works.

IOW remove all the divisions that separate society into classes. No more corporations vs people, just incorporated people. No more ownership vs management, just owner managers and owner laborers.

No more us vs them, just US. No THEM.

You think your divisive system has merits? You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[loosecannon]

Capitalism is not a failed system.


.

of course it is, it fails on every level unless you define success in terms of class divisions and disparity of wealth, living standards and opportunity.

 

[loosecannon]

And what is it you think the incentive of capitalism is?

greed, obviously. Power, obviously. Opportunity at other ambitions as well. Capitalism does too good a job of rewarding people for their innovation and hard work, socialism does too poor a job of rewarding people for innovation and hard work.

Capitalism allows the successful free bounty from the treasures of society regardless of whether the successful earned it. Socialism gives that same bounty to everybody regardless of whether they earned it.

Both systems share the exact same flaws only as opposite extremes of the scale.

 

[Affrayer]

These are the definitions:

No, they are you opinions.

1) socialism: all the means of production are owned and controlled by the government, ie, Cuba

So a country that owns and controls only energy production is not socialist?

2) fascism : the means of production are privately owned but under massive government regulation , ie, the US

So a country that regulates commerce is fascist.

3) Capitalism: all the means of production are privately owned; no country practices capitalism at this time

So Sudan, that practices piracy, doesn't exist?

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of capital.

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=capitalism

Fascism is a political regime, having totalitarian aspirations, ideologically based on centralized government, government control of business, repression of criticism or opposition, a leader cult and exalting the state and/or religion above individual rights.

wiktionary.org/wiki/fascism

Socialism is a political theory advocating state ownership of industry.

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism

Clearly you do not see a difference between regulated capitalism and fascism. Which is to say, the Rule of Law is a fascist doctrine...

That's nuts.

 

[cutter]

Capitalism is not a failed system.


.

of course it is, it fails on every level unless you define success in terms of class divisions and disparity of wealth, living standards and opportunity.

"disparity of wealth"? Sounds like you think everyone is entitled to an equal share of wealth. Well you are entitled to what you are willing to work for and earn. Why should someone only willing to put forth the minimum amount of effort with no desire to show any ambition in life be entitled to an equal share of wealth as the person that goes to school, works hard to learn a profession and put in the work it takes to be successful? You are entitled to what you are willing to earn.

 

[JBeukema]

Who should own and control the means of production?

The producers

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

I got a lot of rep for this.

Because it lets you decide who the producers and the productive class are in accordance with your own beliefs.

Amazing how empty rhetoric works, aint it?

 

[JBeukema]

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.

the 'political' and the 'economic' are inseparably intertwined as a society's sociopolitical character

 

[JBeukema]

Capitalism is not a failed system.


.

of course it is, it fails on every level unless you define success in terms of class divisions and disparity of wealth, living standards and opportunity.

Capitalism didn't survive for long after the industrial revolution

 

[Contumacious]

These are the definitions:

No, they are you opinions.

How did they differ from the definitions you provided?!?!?

1) socialism: all the means of production are owned and controlled by the government, ie, Cuba

So a country that owns and controls only energy production is not socialist?

I can not think of a country where the politicians are disciplined enough to control energy production and nothing else.

But in your scenario , only the energy industry has been nationalized or socialized.

2) fascism : the means of production are privately owned but under massive government regulation , ie, the US

So a country that regulates commerce is fascist.

Depends on what you mean by regulation.

If you are referring to our commerce clause where the federal government is ONLY ONLY supposed to ensure that merchandise flows freely from one state to another and that one state do not place tariffs on merchandise from another then it is NOT fascism.

3) Capitalism: all the means of production are privately owned; no country practices capitalism at this time

So Sudan, that practices piracy, doesn't exist?

HUH?

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of capital.

Clearly you do not see a difference between regulated capitalism and fascism. Which is to say, the Rule of Law is a fascist doctrine...

If by regulated capitalism you mean the market place then Capitalism exists.

If by regulated you mean , by a state bureaucrat then Capitalism does not exist; in that scenario fascism prevails.

.

 

[daveman]

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

"But that's only because America never let it succeed! When WE'RE in charge, it'll work great!"

Yes, some of the really do feel that way.

 

[daveman]

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.

Rep deserved; can't yet.

 

[daveman]

America worked best when there was a blending of capitalism and socialism. People who were able to make lots of money invested in middle class America.

Today, you have two political parties, one that is 90% white and blindly follows a greedy leadership that sends American jobs overseas for a buck, wants to turn America into a cesspool for a buck and will pass tax breaks for people who have so many bucks, they will never be able to spend it all.

Then you have the other political party that is made up of everyone else and is so diverse, they are constantly hamstrung by incessant attacks from the other party and by their inability to present a unified front.

One side is united and unknowingly anti American.

If you are against the middle class, you are anti American. If you vote people into office that hurt the country, then you are anti American. Call yourself patriotic, but if you vote people into office and the very first thing they do is hold the middle class hostage to bring hundreds of billions to 1.7% of America, then you are most definitely "anti American".

The other side is simply too fractured.

The fact that the Republican Party is 90% white makes it the "natural leader" of the country, not because they are white, but because they are "unified" in a way the other party isn't.

But the Republican Party has simply become too stupid. Seriously, how can the base accept their leadership apologizing to BP? The fiasco that is Iraq? Another 1.1 trillion added to the deficit and the reason for that? To give money to millionaires and billionaires? And still, they defend the "indefensible". The Democrats have too much to lose standing against the Republicans.

Simply the FACT that the Republican leadership is whining about having to work close to Christmas when they wanted to deny unemployment benefits to millions of Americans JUST BEFORE CHRISTMAS simply to give money to "Scrooge" that Scrooge didn't even ask for. It's so over the top is a disgrace. Deep down, the Republican base has to feel spit on. If they don't, then they are truly stupid.

And another excellent set of points made by the class warfare proponent.

Seriously.. how does one come to embrace this view of things?

It's a combination of laziness, envy, and a sense of entitlement to that which they didn't earn.

I blame leftist-dominated academia for turning out people so utterly unable to think rationally.

 

[daveman]

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

My GOD are people really this ignorant?

Run do not walk to you closest library and READ 1984.

Just because I don't read fantasy trash like you do, does not make me ignorant, you fucking fool!!! It makes you an imbecile LMAO!!!

No, your ignorance makes you ignorant.

 

[daveman]

Capitalism is not a failed system.


.

of course it is, it fails on every level unless you define success in terms of class divisions and disparity of wealth, living standards and opportunity.

Ummmm...no. Under capitalism, there is no barrier to anyone to cross class divisions, because there are none.

Leftist societies seek to establish and rigidly maintain class divisions, and Gaea help you if you try to rise above the station in which you've been placed.

 

[shintao]

My GOD are people really this ignorant?

Run do not walk to you closest library and READ 1984.

Just because I don't read fantasy trash like you do, does not make me ignorant, you fucking fool!!! It makes you an imbecile LMAO!!!

No, your ignorance makes you ignorant.

Oh the pedophile shows up again. What's wrong, the merry go round shut down at the park?

 

[shintao]

And another excellent set of points made by the class warfare proponent.

Seriously.. how does one come to embrace this view of things?

It's a combination of laziness, envy, and a sense of entitlement to that which they didn't earn.

I blame leftist-dominated academia for turning out people so utterly unable to think rationally.

All that coming from a guy that sucks the government cock for a living. Lazy bastard! While I have envy, which causes a driving force, I have never been lazy & shiftless or felt anyone owed me anything, like you do. I have never had to want, but apparently you have to know such much about the subject. Tsk!

Seems Fox news creates that characteristic in rightwing butt buddies like you, according to latest studies. You must be one dumb SOB!

 

[daveman]

Just because I don't read fantasy trash like you do, does not make me ignorant, you fucking fool!!! It makes you an imbecile LMAO!!!

No, your ignorance makes you ignorant.

Oh the pedophile shows up again. What's wrong, the merry go round shut down at the park?

You lose. Badly. Utterly. Completely.

I'd tell you to stop when you're so far behind, but you're too stupid to recognize it.

 

[daveman]

Seriously.. how does one come to embrace this view of things?

It's a combination of laziness, envy, and a sense of entitlement to that which they didn't earn.

I blame leftist-dominated academia for turning out people so utterly unable to think rationally.

All that coming from a guy that sucks the government cock for a living. Lazy bastard! While I have envy, which causes a driving force, I have never been lazy & shiftless or felt anyone owed me anything, like you do. I have never had to want, but apparently you have to know such much about the subject. Tsk!

Seems Fox news creates that characteristic in rightwing butt buddies like you, according to latest studies. You must be one dumb SOB!

Wrong. And you are lazy and stupid and envious.

Get off your ass and get to work. No one owes you shit.