POLL: Does the left want to end capitalism?

[Mac1958]

It's a hypothetical question, because it's not going away, and if it did, it would certainly return in some form.

Hypothetically, it would mean a short period of great social turmoil as it prepared to return.
.

What is the significance of asking a hypothetical question and how is it precisely stated if you can't even go into detail about the significance that capital has on our society?

You asked the question, you tell me.
.

The question was asked of me earlier in the thread. You apparently agree with the reasoning, you should be able to explain why. Capital must have some significance that you feel that society cannot transcend.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not read that post. I just made a comment in response to another poster.
.

Right, and all I am asking is that you clarify what you believe the consequence of ending the capitalist system would be. You think it hasn't been thought through properly. There must be a reason, or it is just rhetoric.

I've already answered that.

It would hypothetically lead to a period of significant unrest and instability, as human nature prevailed and it returned.

I say "hypothetically" because it's not going to happen.
.

 

[Tehon]

I can't partake in the poll because I only speak for myself.

So you're left wing and want to end capitalism. What does the system do we replace it with look like? Do you fully understand what it would mean to end capitalism?

I'm a left wing Marxist.

You are aware of Marxist theory, yes?

I think I have an understanding about the elimination of capitalism. It doesn't scare me. What do you think I should understand?

It looks like Venezuela

It doesn't have to.

 

[Tehon]

What is the significance of asking a hypothetical question and how is it precisely stated if you can't even go into detail about the significance that capital has on our society?

You asked the question, you tell me.
.

The question was asked of me earlier in the thread. You apparently agree with the reasoning, you should be able to explain why. Capital must have some significance that you feel that society cannot transcend.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not read that post. I just made a comment in response to another poster.
.

Right, and all I am asking is that you clarify what you believe the consequence of ending the capitalist system would be. You think it hasn't been thought through properly. There must be a reason, or it is just rhetoric.

I've already answered that.

It would hypothetically lead to a period of significant unrest and instability, as human nature prevailed and it returned.

I say "hypothetically" because it's not going to happen.
.

You mean like what happened in the early twentieth century? It didn't happen?

 

[Mac1958]

You asked the question, you tell me.
.

The question was asked of me earlier in the thread. You apparently agree with the reasoning, you should be able to explain why. Capital must have some significance that you feel that society cannot transcend.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not read that post. I just made a comment in response to another poster.
.

Right, and all I am asking is that you clarify what you believe the consequence of ending the capitalist system would be. You think it hasn't been thought through properly. There must be a reason, or it is just rhetoric.

I've already answered that.

It would hypothetically lead to a period of significant unrest and instability, as human nature prevailed and it returned.

I say "hypothetically" because it's not going to happen.
.

You mean like what happened in the early twentieth century? It didn't happen?

My goodness. Perhaps you could make a point.
.

 

[Tehon]

The question was asked of me earlier in the thread. You apparently agree with the reasoning, you should be able to explain why. Capital must have some significance that you feel that society cannot transcend.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not read that post. I just made a comment in response to another poster.
.

Right, and all I am asking is that you clarify what you believe the consequence of ending the capitalist system would be. You think it hasn't been thought through properly. There must be a reason, or it is just rhetoric.

I've already answered that.

It would hypothetically lead to a period of significant unrest and instability, as human nature prevailed and it returned.

I say "hypothetically" because it's not going to happen.
.

You mean like what happened in the early twentieth century? It didn't happen?

My goodness. Perhaps you could make a point.
.

Your hypothetical already happened. Russia had a revolution that threw the rest of Europe into turmoil and set the course of US development for the remainder of the century.

There is no reason to think it won't happen again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Drop your weapon so we can discuss our new form of government"

 

[Tehon]

"Drop your weapon so we can discuss our new form of government"

Socialism is not a form of government. Educate yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

It's my opinion that the left wing is not an opponent of capitalism. What do you think?

The regressive crazy left certainly is.

I think some of them feel that way, and I think those ones don't really think through what it would mean to end capitalism. I think for the most part though people that populate the left wing are not in favor of that.

It's obvious that most of them don't think.

 

[bripat9643]

"Drop your weapon so we can discuss our new form of government"

Socialism is not a form of government. Educate yourself.

It most certainly is a form of government. Socialism is government force imposed on the economic sphere.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism unchecked becomes dog eat dog

Everything you know is a cliche, and invariably wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

Another thread premise that is ignorant idiocy.

Those on ‘the left’ are practitioners, of, and advocates for, capitalism; they own businesses, invest in the stock market, and seek out profits like anyone else in a free market society.

Being a capitalist and believing in capitalism are two separate things.

 

[bripat9643]

Another thread premise that is ignorant idiocy.

Those on ‘the left’ are practitioners, of, and advocates for, capitalism; they own businesses, invest in the stock market, and seek out profits like anyone else in a free market society.

I agree with you though. I think calling the left anti-capitalist is ridiculous.

ROFL! Hardly. Name one thing Dims have supported that fits the description of "capitalist."

 

[BlackSand]

"Drop your weapon so we can discuss our new form of government"

Socialism is not a form of government. Educate yourself.

The elements of socialism that don't involve government can be accomplished under capitalism ...

.​

 

[bripat9643]

I've heard a few different opinions of how it would work. I've honestly never read most of the stuff Marx wrote. When you end capitalism does that mean people no longer get paychecks and instead do work in exchange for resources from the government (food, housing etc)? Would they get an allowance to keep the flow of currency alive? Would they be able to choose where they work? Where they live? There seem to be some very large limitations on personal choice and growth in true communism.

The bulk of Marx's writing was a critique of the capitalist system of production. He didn't spend much time developing a socialist system. The development of a socialist system has to be extrapolated from his critique of capitalism.

Marx was opposed to government redistribution schemes. He didn't want the government controlling society. He understood the influence that capital had on our laws and customs and how our government institutions rose out of the way we produced commodities.

Of course you could have total freedom. What we are talking about here is eliminating private property to the means of production and competition. Those are two limiting factors in modern society.

What would your socialist system look like? To me it just doesn't seem like it could ever work the way it's meant to. I'm very open to having my mind changed, though.

Books have been written on it. I couldn't do it the justice it deserved. If your mind is open I could suggest some reading material.

This would give you a bit of an introduction as to why we will inevitably seek a new way of producing the necessities of life.
Capitalism’s economic singularities

“At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution.” (Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Preface)

Oh, I'm sure capitalism as we know it is doomed in the long term. How long? I have no idea. Eventually we will build general intelligence into machines, and after that it's only a matter of time until the need for human labor disappears completely.

Well here is the irony. When human labor disappears and only a few own the technology that creates our means of existence. Under the capitalist system, those who don't own the technology are going to have to ask for a living stipend from the people who own the technology. So the people are going to end up enslaved by the system that they think means freedom.

As opposed to socialism where everyone is enslaved.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm a left wing Marxist.

You are aware of Marxist theory, yes?

I think I have an understanding about the elimination of capitalism. It doesn't scare me. What do you think I should understand?

Why do you think it is that literally no country on Earth practices true Marxism?

Primarily because capitalists won't allow it to develop. Also, I'm not sure capitalism has fully exhausted itself.

I've heard a few different opinions of how it would work. I've honestly never read most of the stuff Marx wrote. When you end capitalism does that mean people no longer get paychecks and instead do work in exchange for resources from the government (food, housing etc)? Would they get an allowance to keep the flow of currency alive? Would they be able to choose where they work? Where they live? There seem to be some very large limitations on personal choice and growth in true communism.

The bulk of Marx's writing was a critique of the capitalist system of production. He didn't spend much time developing a socialist system. The development of a socialist system has to be extrapolated from his critique of capitalism.

Marx was opposed to government redistribution schemes. He didn't want the government controlling society. He understood the influence that capital had on our laws and customs and how our government institutions rose out of the way we produced commodities.

Of course you could have total freedom. What we are talking about here is eliminating private property to the means of production and competition. Those are two limiting factors in modern society.

What would your socialist system look like? To me it just doesn't seem like it could ever work the way it's meant to. I'm very open to having my mind changed, though.

Socialism never works the way it's meant to, period.

 

[Tehon]

"Drop your weapon so we can discuss our new form of government"

Socialism is not a form of government. Educate yourself.

The elements of socialism that don't involve government can be accomplished under capitalism ...

.​

Such as?

 

[danielpalos]

It's my opinion that the left wing is not an opponent of capitalism. What do you think?

For this, you sort of need to take a step back, and apply the lessons from History. I’m going to use World War II. Churchill advocated two approaches for the path to victory in the war. In Europe, the plan was to strip away the weaker partner, Italy, from the Facist forces, and leave Germany isolated, alone, and able to be overwhelmed by the combined might of the Allies. In the Pacific, Churchill advocated essentially ignoring, or at least minimizing the forces sent there to fight Japan. Hold the line and after Germany is defeated, Japan will fall easily.

In his defense, Churchill was literally staring at the forces of Nazi Germany across the Channel. The biggest enemy was the one right in front of him.

But you see the two ideals, one attack the larger enemy and the smaller ones collapse without the support of the biggest of the baddies. The other, strip away the smaller ones and you have an easier time with the big one.

Apply this to Capitalism, and use the Socialist mentality and you can see the conflicting paths forward to a Capitalism free future. In one breath they demand that we pay more attention to Main Street instead of Wall Street. In the next, they do everything possible to make it difficult for Main Street to exist through ridiculous regulations and legislation. Attacking the larger one, while simultaneously attacking the smaller ones. Trying to play the smaller ones off against the big boys, while simultaneously attacking the smaller ones.

I’m guessing the genesis of your question has to do with the Washington Post article. Perspective | Democratic socialists are conquering the left. But do they believe in democracy?

The truth is that Socialists will destroy both Capitalism, and Democracy. Capitalism flourishes and provides the best results when following the principle of Equal Access. This means that anyone can enter the playing field, and be given the same opportunities as anyone else. Socialism is seeking the impossible goal, Equal Results. In other words, everyone who races, finishes at the same time as everyone else. Equal Results are a flawed goal, one that is as I said above, impossible. Everyone has different talents. Talents that I have no power over. Not everyone is a Math Genius. No matter how much you spend trying to teach me, I will never be able to look at a Physics Formula and read it. I can understand the ideals if you explain it to me, in English. Simply enough. But I can not read the formula. I can work Algebra, and some other basic formulas, but no matter what I will never be a Math Genius.

I was never going to be the starting Center Fielder for the NY Yankees. No matter how much I tried, no matter how much work I put in, it was never going to happen. I just don’t have the underlying talent.

This is where Religion, and Socialism clash. Socialists believe that it isn’t fair that one or another has superior talents, unless it is them. A Socialist loves the idea of being in charge, and detests anyone else being in charge. Like spoiled children who take the ball and bat and go home because they aren’t winning, the Socialists want the game destroyed because they don’t win.

Democracy is tied to Capitalism. Capitalism can not exist in any other form of Government. As has been shown many times, to the harm of the people, Capitalism can not exist in a Socialist Government. It means that there is a segment of the economy, of the nation, that is not in control of the “right” people. Socialists insist that they have to be in control of all segments to guarantee the equal outcomes. So Capitalism can’t exist.

This is where Socialism always fails. When you take the control of a company away from the experts in favor of the Politically Correct, the company starts to lose. Even in restricted economies, the lack of competition inherent in any Capitalist system means stagnation and failure. If the people are given a choice, they will choose the superior product. So choice, capitalist choice, must be eliminated.

Look at the old Soviet Block and the automobiles they manufactured. The cars were terrible, old fashioned, bereft of any advancement in engineering or design. They were also the only choice the people had. Once the market opened up, those cars went the way of the Dodo quickly. Because the Capitalist offerings, the result of years of competition and advancement, were superior.

So for the Socialist Systems to work, Capitalism must be so strictly controlled that it is in fact non existent. It isn’t fair that BMW makes a superior product to the Ford Company. So BMW must be excluded. In lieu of outright exclusion, taxed or tarriffed to the point where it is no longer viable is a good first step.

The equal access is where our problems always lie. We bemoan Airbus claiming that their planes are subsidized by the foreign Governments making it impossible for Boeing to compete. Then when we do compete, we snarl and gnash our teeth when we lose.

Take the decision on the new Air Force One. Technically Airbus won the competition with the A-380. It was a four engine plane, large enough and able to be modified to all the things that the Air Force insisted the plane have. It could be made cheaply. Then we decided the winner must be a Domestic manufacturer. Well, that just handed it to Boeing. They’re the only Domestic maker of Four engine planes.

Personally I preferred the 747 because it was able to land at more airports than the A-380 which requires a larger and stronger runway as well as a larger airport.

Either way, the best choice sort of won, if you slant the competition.

Capitalism has a poverty inducing natural rate of unemployment that merely benefits the bottom line of Capitalists, who get a tax break for merely paying wages.

Preposterous. First, no one is ever locked into a job. We are not assigned jobs and futures at birth. Our ability to reach at least Middle Class is with only a few exceptions based entirely upon our willingness to work.

Let’s take a Blue Collar job, simple Skilled Labor. Truck drivers. There is a shortage of truck drivers right now, and companies are desperate for qualified drivers. Going to school to learn this trade is pathetically easy. In a few short years, you would be earning middle class wages. You wouldn’t have crushing college debt, and trucking companies are raising wages all the time to attract additional drivers.

Many blue collar jobs are similar. Some basic schooling to teach you how to do the job, and you find yourself with many employment opportunities, and as you grow in experience, your wages increase. If you manage to reach the pinnacle, the drivers entrusted with the most difficult of loads, then your wages are well into Middle Class, and even brushing up against the upper crust levels. It takes work, and patience, and a desire to succeed.

But if all you do is get a job at McDonalds, and ignore the opportunities that present themselves for additional job skills, and pay, you are left at the beginning. It isn’t the fault of Capitalism that you did not start running when the gun sounded. It is the fault of nobody but yourself.

Again, generally speaking. Some people simply do not have the ability to excel even slightly. But other than those who are born with these defects, there is no reason why anyone else can not. It is not that the race is rigged, it is that you never started running.

I’ll never be a Trump. I’ll never be a Gates. I’ll never be one of those Uber wealthy. I don’t need to be. I am paying off my house. I own some property, and I have two cars that are paid for. I don’t need a Ferrari, or even a Mercedes. But I don’t have to be angry at those who do have them.

I am not jealous of those with such toys. I am satisfied with my position in life. But I am not locked into a job. I could turn in my notice tomorrow, and get a job with pretty much the same pay and benefits by next week. I have the skills and reputation to do such a thing.

But let’s look at Socialist progress. Let’s stick with Cars from above. Socialist built cars are simply put. Terrible. With some exceptions, essentially everything that came out of the old Soviet Block fell into that category. It was not good. Far inferior to the Western Capitalist products. Why? Competition.

Let’s say you and I both build a product. I am spending my profits on advancements. Safety advancements, design, and efficiency programs to make my cars a better choice. You are insuring that your workers are paid a fair wage, what that is we have no idea, since none of them should be paid what the CEO is, but probably are.

So who is going to win this? I am. Because I am constantly striving to build a better product, and I will. You are worried about the result for the workers. I can’t employ the workers if I don’t sell the products. To do that, I have to give my customers a product they want, with the features they want.

Look at the advancements that have already happened when we turned Rockets from a Government only endeavor into a capitalist competition. We have reusable rockets that land by themselves. The same is always true when we open it up. When we interfere in the capitalist system, we end up with lower productivity, and a worse product that is more expensive.

Punishing the successful capitalist is like taking Usain Bolt, and tying his shoelaces together. It’s not fair that he is so fast, and he should be punished. Or insisting that a baseball pitcher wear a brace that makes him throw the ball slower, it not being fair that he can throw that fast.

We should provide the regulations needed to insure equal access to the market, not equal outcome. We’ll never accomplish that, and in the end, like every single Socialist government in History we’ll only insure our people are equally miserable.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; makes all of what you claim, easier for labor.

A natural rate of unemployment under our form of capitalism, explains why full employment is not, one hundred percent, but a lower percentage that merely benefits, Capitalist's bottom line, not Labor's bottom line.

And, only the rich are too big to fail, not the poor. Only the right wing, argues in vacuums of special pleading, but believe they are for the "gospel Truth".

 

[Tehon]

"Drop your weapon so we can discuss our new form of government"

Socialism is not a form of government. Educate yourself.

It most certainly is a form of government. Socialism is government force imposed on the economic sphere.

That is not my understanding of socialism. Socialism is fundamentally a way of producing commodities sans private property rights. We can improve upon nature without laying claim to the earths natural bounty.

Government exists to protect private property relations.

 

[danielpalos]

Why do you think it is that literally no country on Earth practices true Marxism?

Primarily because capitalists won't allow it to develop. Also, I'm not sure capitalism has fully exhausted itself.

I've heard a few different opinions of how it would work. I've honestly never read most of the stuff Marx wrote. When you end capitalism does that mean people no longer get paychecks and instead do work in exchange for resources from the government (food, housing etc)? Would they get an allowance to keep the flow of currency alive? Would they be able to choose where they work? Where they live? There seem to be some very large limitations on personal choice and growth in true communism.

The bulk of Marx's writing was a critique of the capitalist system of production. He didn't spend much time developing a socialist system. The development of a socialist system has to be extrapolated from his critique of capitalism.

Marx was opposed to government redistribution schemes. He didn't want the government controlling society. He understood the influence that capital had on our laws and customs and how our government institutions rose out of the way we produced commodities.

Of course you could have total freedom. What we are talking about here is eliminating private property to the means of production and competition. Those are two limiting factors in modern society.

What would your socialist system look like? To me it just doesn't seem like it could ever work the way it's meant to. I'm very open to having my mind changed, though.

Socialism never works the way it's meant to, period.

Capitalism died in 1929.

 

[danielpalos]

"Drop your weapon so we can discuss our new form of government"

Socialism is not a form of government. Educate yourself.

It most certainly is a form of government. Socialism is government force imposed on the economic sphere.

That is not my understanding of socialism. Socialism is fundamentally a way of producing commodities sans private property rights. We can improve upon nature without laying claim to the earths natural bounty.

Government exists to protect private property relations.

Sounds like communism. A commune of Heaven on Earth?