|
|
Post by Void on Nov 9, 2004 18:55:55 GMT -5
I don't see what is preventing me from learning to play an instrument right now, besides the fact that we keep forgetting to go look for another piano instructor.
I quite frankly do not believe that having a 4 hour workday and making three times the wages is viable. And even if it were, I do not know if I would want to have it happen. Lazy as I am, I don't believe you should simply GIVE something to someone. I believe in the virtue of hard work, and that one must EARN something that they want. Now, I admit that it is nice for people to be given a chance in life, but I don't believe anyone deserves anything they are not willing to work for, no matter what their position in life.
I do not believe there is such thing as a perfect society, and I believe free, democratic capitalism in and of itself OFFERS the best of what we as humans could want.
The first part of that, freedom, is most important. I want the freedom to live essentially as I choose. I want the freedom to be able to work and make a living and buy what I want, not necessarily what I need but something that I want. I want the freedom to say "you know, that cookie sounds really good right now, I'll give you this little piece of currency right here and you give that to me." I want the freedom to horde my money and be as miserly with it as I want, yet I also want the freedom to be able to give my money away in a manner that I choose. In essence, I want the freedom to earn what I own and the freedom to keep it.
The next part of that, the democratic part, is pretty self-explanatory, I want to be able to elect who I feel is best suited for the role of government. Now, before we bring up America I'm saying I don't feel America is heading in the right direction governmentally and there are changes that should be made to the poltical system, but the idea itself is good.
I already covered most of the capitalistic part. I want the power to earn money and to keep it, in essence. I don't mind earning something so long as I have the right to retain what it is I earn. That's not to say that I wouldn't be willing to share my wealth, but I want the right to pick and choose who I think deserves it, if any.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa) on Nov 9, 2004 19:15:37 GMT -5
You do bring up good points, Void, but I think your view of socialism is a little skewed, which is understandable, considering the Soviet Union. But granted, the Soviet Union is really not the grand example that anybody, except for Stalinist apologists, would like to hold up as socialism. In a socialist society, democracy would be greater, and more plentiful than in a capitalist one. Candidates would run on the basis of cleaning up the environment, opening schools, or creating jobs, and these things would actually get accomplished because the politicans wouldn't be beholden to their capitalist masters that got them into office! It wouldn't cost millions upon millions of dollars to run a campaign, politicians would be subject to immediate recall if they do something you don't like, rather than waiting complacently for 4 years, only to find out that the jackass running against the one that you so bitterly despise in office is not only very similar, but exactly the same as him on most points, and worse in others!
And of course nothing is stopping us from learning to play the guitar, save for the fact that guitar lessons are expensive as all hell, and how can you possibly make time for them if you're working 40-50 hours a week, and/or supporting a family, and/or going to school full time, which you're struggling to pay for as well. Of course you'd still have to work for the things you want in life, but since the nature of the work would change, doctors would be doctors because they wanted to help people, rather than want to get ahead in society. Sure, his/her schooling would be paid for, but there'd still be, what is it, 8 years of college to go through in order to become what (s)he really wants to be.
And it's not like people would overnight immediately start to abolish freedoms, in a real, socialist society, there's a philosophy of no victim no crime. So if you want to remain a christian, that's totally fine. Which goes for everything else too, there would be no "subversive literature" or anything of the like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Helene on Nov 9, 2004 19:19:53 GMT -5
All I asked is what Soicalism is. Maybe I should be more... elaborate.
In simple terms and examples: What is Socialism?
Mind you, I am a diehard simpleton sometimes. This is one of those times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valodya Bassarov on Nov 9, 2004 19:26:10 GMT -5
Socialism.
There are different types of socialists, Mischa and I are Trotskyists or revolutionary socialists.
I think it is easiest to break things down into three types of socialisms:
1. Reform Socialists: Capitalism can be reformed
or socialist elements can be applied to capitalist society. These are democratic socialists and what most of Europe is.
2. Revolutionary Socialists: Capitalism can not be reformed, it must be abolished and replaced with socialism. (Trotskyists)
3. Reactionary Socialists: Socialism can not be established unless there is stability and control over the masses to prevent rebelion.
(Stalinism)
I will elaborate on this in just a bit....
|
|
|
|
Post by Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa) on Nov 9, 2004 19:52:57 GMT -5
Sorry Helene, I got too caught up with Void that I missed your post...
To elaborate on what Bassarov said, socialism is when workers control their means of production. Which means there are no bosses, and things are made for people who actually need them, and not to make a profit, like in capitalism. The economy is planned, so for example, food is created based on need, not based upon what can be sold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa) on Nov 9, 2004 20:06:41 GMT -5
Oh, also!!
To build on that... To compare the two systems:
Capitalism creates as many products as it can, and then does everything in its power to create a demand for them. Just look at an advertisement, you're absolutely missing something in your life if you don't buy the right brand line of clothing. Tommy Hilfiger is so much cooler than American Eagle, as you should know because they cost a fortune. Oh, and don't forget, if you're fat, nobody will like you. (The dieting industry is an $80 billion industry by the way.)
Socialism would create things based upon need, and instead of artificially creating this demand, since there would be no profit motive, things would be distributed to who actually NEEDS them. Rather than paying farmers in Nebraska not to grow corn because they have too much (which actually happens), meanwhile people in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are dying of starvation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Void on Nov 9, 2004 21:02:09 GMT -5
I may have a somewhat biased view on Socialism because of the Soviet Union but I must say the same applies to you with regards to Capitalism because of America.
Capitalism is basically the power of the dollar. True, it can lead to such corruption, but that's the byproduct of how things go. What people seem to forget is that in Capitalism the power lies within the consumer. Saying Capitalism will surely beget such problems is like my saying that Socialism will beget dictatorialship.
You mention several things that don't require Socialism to work either. The "subversive literature" shouldn't technically exist in this society, but all government, be it Capitalist, Socialist, or otherwise, is highly corruptible, it's just a fact of life.
The main problem I am having here is Socialism is all for equality. It is difficult for people to be truly equal, and the fact that Socialism is dedicated to MAKING everyone equal strikes me as taking away someone's freedom. We'll take the nature issue and twist it around a bit, the government would, of course, care for the environment. But we all must have equal housing too. The human population is not small by any means, so how can we have COMPLETELY equal housing? After all, even if you raze every house in the world and rebuild it according to a certain standard, first off the houses would probably be fairly small to begin with due to the population and second off they still wouldn't be equal because location is as much a part of property value as the size and quality of the house itself. So what then? We can't keep deforesting because we want to protect the forests, so we have a problem here, too.
Expanding that even further, we all deserve the same thing everyone else has. Now then, you have said much of how we will do what is necessary. So does that mean that all things for entertainment are thrown out for necessity? And if not, how do you judge the value of everything? If everyone is entitled to the same thing, how are we going to work out the "stuff" factor, some people want some things others want other things, so basically we have everyone having a) more stuff than they have room for or b) no stuff at all. I'm well aware of all that "money can't buy happiness" talk, but the fact remains that the quality of life increases dramatically when one has access to things they enjoy, be it a computer for the internet, video games, cards, models, whatever.
Capitalism doesn't HAVE to be the way America is today, and I quite frankly would prefer it not be. That doesn't make it any less viable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinari Dollar on Nov 9, 2004 21:13:25 GMT -5
I will ask you a question then just for the purpose of learning more on your personal beliefs.
Where is capitalism today more ideal, and what makes for "good" capitalism.?
|
|
|
|
Post by Helene on Nov 9, 2004 21:41:35 GMT -5
I suppose Capitalism that helps everyone instead of the upperclass is better. But then that wouldnt make sense would it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valodya Bassarov on Nov 9, 2004 21:43:29 GMT -5
A capitalism that helps everyone rather than the upper class would be some form of socialism. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Void on Nov 9, 2004 21:49:46 GMT -5
I'm going to make a new political thread soon. All questions shall be answered ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen on Nov 9, 2004 21:50:37 GMT -5
erm, void...."It is difficult for people to be truly equal, and the fact that Socialism is dedicated to MAKING everyone equal strikes me as taking away someone's freedom."
.... what difference is that then what they are doing today?... Capitalism is taking away more freedom then socialism ever would. and MAKING people equal isnt such a bad thing, after all this country was supposedly founded on Freedom, Equality, and... erm, d**n >.<... forge the last... and yet, almost no where in this entire world, let along the united states is anyone equal or have true freedom...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinari Dollar on Nov 9, 2004 21:54:58 GMT -5
Well said, John
|
|
|
|
Post by Mikhael Nadyezhda (Mischa) on Nov 9, 2004 22:07:46 GMT -5
Okay, let me explain how capitalism works.
Marx has a fantastic explanation of capitalism in Capital. This is how capitalism works...
First of all, your power as a consumer is incredibly limited, but not entirely so. Boycots can be very effective, but more often than not, a boycott leads to buying the product that Hitler is making, as opposed to one that Satan was.
Factory A, the only factory in town, sells shirts. Now, factory A can set their prices to anything they want to, because they're the only ones in town, but has to be at least somewhat reasonable about it, because people can order shirts over the internet if it's too incredibly high. It costs them $15 to make one shirt (these are fancy shirts, mind you), so they decide to sell them for... $25.
Factory B comes along and says "They're selling these shirts for too much. We can make them for cheaper, and we'll sell them for less." Factory B can make the same shirt for only $5, and sells them for $20. Factory A is now making $10 profit on their shirts, while factory B is making a $15 profit, and nobody wants to buy a $25 shirt anyways, so A is going to get royally screwed unless they do something. So they come up with a plan. They create a new technology, and lay off some workers, which allows them to make a shirt for just $1, and they now sell their shirts for $15 a piece. Factory A now is making $14 profit on their shirts, and since they're $5 cheaper than B's shirts, everybody is buying brand A shirt. Now that factory B's technology is obselete, and there is no possible way for them to create a shirt for less than $5 a piece, they end up going out of business, thousands of people are now out of jobs, and there's an empty building sitting in the middle of downtown.
Now... Company C comes along. Company C has factories overseas, making shirts for pennies a piece, and sells them for just $5. Sure they're not making as much per shirt, but people see $5 shirts and are like "holy cow! company A can suck it, we're going to company C where I can buy 3 shirts for the price of one brand A shirt." Now, company A begins to panic, and turns back to company A. Their CEO's begin to discuss "Hey, I don't really like you, but this C company is really a threat to our profits... Would you like a partnership?", so now companies A and B merge, and is now company AB, which now has the resources to ship THEIR factories overseas, and create shirts for pennies, and sell them for 1, or 2, or 3 dollars a piece, heck, maybe even fifty cents, underselling company C.
Meanwhile, the employees for all 3 companies are getting their wages cut, they're getting laid off in droves, their benefits are non-existant, their 401k plans are being sapped, all to perpetuate this system. The pattern for capitalism is to spread, and merge, and spread some more, that's why we have AOL-Time-Warner-Chevron-Texaco-Amoco-Wal Mart-uber alles. And the competition is so breakneck, and the companies are so huge, that there will never be more than one or two huge companies, because if anybody gets too powerful, they'll simply buy them off, or shut them out. That's why there are only 2 brands of toilet paper, 2 brands of soda, soon to be one brand of grocery store (wal mart), 2 brands of shoes, etc. Sure the vast majority of businesses are small locally owned ones, their profits are a meer drop in a bucket compared to what wal mart makes. And for that matter, I'm sure you're aware of how wal mart can bring in a store to an area, and completely destroy the local competition by simply existing. In california for example, another grocery store chain, Safeway, got away with cutting benefits and wages to their workers because of the meer threat, the meer mentioning, that wal mart was going to move in. They never did, but that's how powerful capitalism is.
You could argue that wal mart is an anomaly. Look at Reebok and Nike for example. Both use sweatshops in the third world to make their products. Coke and Pepsi do too. So does Wal Mart, and K-mart, and Gilette, and Colgate, and General Electric, etc. The message is, if you don't send your factory overseas, your business will be utterly destroyed because you simply can't compete with huge businesses making super profits from super exploiting the 3rd world for their labor. That's why over 50% of the world's population is living on less than $2 a day. It's not because their leaders are incompetent (which most of them are [because all of the competent leaders were killed off by the CIA, but that's another aside]), it's because they need to be kept under wal mart's heel in order for them to stay afloat in this obscenely competetive global marketplace.
It's capitalism that perpetuates this! This is not the exception, it is the rule. Capitalism is raping the planet and leaving billions to starve so wal mart can make its shirts for a few pennies cheaper than K mart can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Void on Nov 9, 2004 22:08:14 GMT -5
As I've said before stop using the US as an example. I don't believe there are any good examples of Capitalism right now. As I said, I believe in a Free, Democratic, Capitalistic society.
|
|
