Rossiya
Fridge Magnet Porn
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 6,981
It's unAmerican.
Can someone tell me why Socialism is so bad?
- Thread starter BakingTheArt
- Start date
It's unAmerican.
But I like your verbose.
Anyhow, here's my view of this...
Socialism may be more efficient than capitalism. Capitalism is sociologically fragile and it's sociologically fragile because it is so economically successful. Change is the only constant in the evolution of capitalist economies which doesn't always make it pretty or admirable. Fact is, capitalism might take your job. Someone, somewhere, is always trying to think of a way to do the job better. It's true, capitalism is a Darwinian process because of its constant change and innovation.BakingTheArt said:
So if you're inspired by the Marxian theory of value, where all surplus value (profit) is said to come from labor and where labor is the factor of production that should have the most say in management decisions then it's for you. Bear in mind, this idea is removed from the idea that the innovator is important in the economy. The entrepreneur who takes responsibility for and making judgment decisions that affect the process, cost-benefit, risk, location, services, institutions they deal with along with form and use of goods and resources.
On the other hand, if you believe that the economy is in a constant flux of change and innovation, profit, in contrast to Marx and his theory, is not surplus value stolen from the workers. Quite the contrary, it is the only source of jobs for workers and of income. Remember, the entrepreneur must ask how much profit he must maintain to keep your job when someone else is knocking down the door trying to get in.
So as soon as we shift from the thinking of an unchanging, self-contained, closed economy (in a Marxist and classical sense) to a dynamic, growing, moving, changing economy, what is called profit becomes a moral imperative of the entrepreneur because it has now become the cost to survive. Micro is more important than the macro.
Then again maybe that's not for you.
History has not been kind to socialism whether it was the Eastern European version or Swedish social democracy version leading up to the late 70's and 80s that very nearly became full blown socialism (What's really interesting during that timeframe is to see how the Wallenberg family took advantage of those policies) but I would never discount it.
Ecofarm
Deity
Socialism is bad because it reduces individual economic freedom, resulting in less efficient government "solutions".
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Nonsense. Socialism is the acme of economic freedom. It gives every worker in the workplace an equal say in the running of their company.
amadeus
Serenity now
Socialism is the acne of economic freedom, Cheezy.
warpus
In pork I trust
Surely we've learned by now that extremes are ******ed, and that the best solution is usually a compromise between two extreme views (such as extreme capitalism and extreme socialism)
BasketCase
Username sez it all
The answer was right in front of you the whole time. The system you described in the OP already exists. It exists in most of the Free World--and it goes by the name "capitalism".
What are the things avowed socialists are looking for? First and foremost, to put money and production power in the hands of the common people. Well, if you give them that power, then anybody who can gather the needed resources can start a new company any time they like. Guess what, that's exactly how most companies in the Free World got started. Socialists want companies to be answerable to the People--guess what (there's those words again)--companies are already answerable to the People. In order to make a profit, they have to produce stuff the People actually want. So, if you're wondering why companies are they way they are today, go look in a mirror. And, finally, some socialists want the People to have direct top-level control over corporate decisions. That's never going to happen. Most people are idiots and have no idea how to run a company. Put the executive decisions in the hands of the voters and most companies will go under a lot faster than the Big Three auto manufacturers did.
Fact is, modern capitalism is about as close to socialism as the world is ever going to get. Feel free to cry now.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Well, at least you're half right
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
You should check the examples there to see why it isn't
PiMan
Deity
The needed resources in many industries to start a company is too great or availability too restricted to avoid either a monopoly or oligopoly.
Big industries with very few players are less accountable than any democratic government.
I don't want full control in the hands of the people, but I do want certain companies to be more influenced by the interests of the people than by profit and loss. For example, so far as I know, there is only one profitable city rail/subway network in the world (Hong Kong). Does this mean most cities shouldn't have a rail network? There is no profitable way to run most rail networks, so the capitalist would shut them down.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Then why do the top 5% control most of the wealth in the country?
Companies are most certainly not answerable to the people.
At any rate, no, we want workers' control of the means of production. We want companies to be accountable to their own workers in a meaningful way.
Wrong. We want top-level corporate jobs to dissapear.
Careful, your elitism is showing.
Should I cry in laughter at the ridiculousness of your post, or cry in despair that there are people who actually believe the ridiculous things you've said?
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Pure socialism (commonly known as Communism) while a great idea in theory, is about as good in practice as pure capitalism (another great in theory idea), because of the one factor that the majority of economists seem unable to grasp, i.e. people are people not automatons who automatically make the most logical choice available to them (yes I am looking at you two messers Friedman and Marx).
For a socialist economy to work it need the flexibility to be able to give people what the want in a timely fashin, and the incentives for other people to want to do this. Therefore a degree of capitlaism needs to be introduced and a free market established where demand defines supply and the price is going to be what the amrket can bear.
Conversley a capitalist economy needs to ensure that there is abalance built into the equation whereby a section of the population get the majority of the spoils and the rest end up in a form of wagwe slavery, thus the need for a stron welfare system to plug the gaps, national controle of essential services and of most natural resources.
What is common to both systems is the need for strong independant monitoring of the activities of all those who are in a position of power, in oredr to try to ensure that the worst corruptions are eliminated.
As to the OPs original comment, Socialism is probably bad because of all the steamy intercourse going on up in Scandanavia (the last true bastion of socialism).
For a socialist economy to work it need the flexibility to be able to give people what the want in a timely fashin, and the incentives for other people to want to do this. Therefore a degree of capitlaism needs to be introduced and a free market established where demand defines supply and the price is going to be what the amrket can bear.
Conversley a capitalist economy needs to ensure that there is abalance built into the equation whereby a section of the population get the majority of the spoils and the rest end up in a form of wagwe slavery, thus the need for a stron welfare system to plug the gaps, national controle of essential services and of most natural resources.
What is common to both systems is the need for strong independant monitoring of the activities of all those who are in a position of power, in oredr to try to ensure that the worst corruptions are eliminated.
As to the OPs original comment, Socialism is probably bad because of all the steamy intercourse going on up in Scandanavia (the last true bastion of socialism).
Hsinchu
Prince
Yeah. You're right. I set aside savings, I borrowed money, and I took the worst shift on the lowest paying job just to make sure I was making something so mine and I didn't starve. Preparing for the worst is what we must do to ensure our own survival. Living paycheck to paycheck and expecting angels is different than receiving unexpected angels and being thankful for them.
Prime example: I was on the freeway going to a job interview in downtown Los Angeles. Tires blew out on the worst stretch of freeway that is mostly underpaved. I roll my car over to the side of the road and I'm about to pull out my credit card and call for my free tow and situate myself to get a cab to my interview. Then, Metro Freeway Service pulls up behind me in 2 minutes and says he's going to change my tire for my donut for free. CHP pulls up 2 minutes later to make sure everything is okay. 5 minutes later I'm back on the road going into downtown LA. 10 minutes later, I left early just for this contingency and have time to get to a repair shop in the city so he can order my tire and have it for me in 2 hours. I go back, do my interview, get out, have lunch, go back to the repair shop, and I'm out of LA just as lunch hour traffic starts to thin out.
I paid for several things in this scenario, see if you can identify them all.
My taxes paid for several other things in this scenario which I thoroughly appreciate, see if you can identify them all.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a good mix of capitalism and social programs that endorse commerce. If social programs do not HELP people get jobs and simply help people that aren't working, what is the point? Socialism works if we care about the bottom line as it applies to people. It does not work if care about the people as the bottom line.
Akka
Moody old mage.
This, and the fact that capitalism requires the customers to have perfect knowledge of the whole market (which is simply impossible), is something that is quite obvious, but seems to escape the grasp of just so many people - hence why we constantly have the same repetition of the same false arguments over and over and over...
And what exactly prohibits socialists of this world to set up such companies to their hearts' content?
I admit I am not too familiar with US Corporate Law, but I doubt there in anything that would forbid people from establishing a company that operates exactly like you say they should. Have every worker get his share of the profit, have everything decided by council of the workers and so on...
EDIT: I'll also take the chance to say I totally agree with warpus here:
happy_Alex
Happiness set to 11
But I like your verbose.
Anyhow, here's my view of this...
Socialism may be more efficient than capitalism. Capitalism is sociologically fragile and it's sociologically fragile because it is so economically successful. Change is the only constant in the evolution of capitalist economies which doesn't always make it pretty or admirable. Fact is, capitalism might take your job. Someone, somewhere, is always trying to think of a way to do the job better. It's true, capitalism is a Darwinian process because of its constant change and innovation.
So if you're inspired by the Marxian theory of value, where all surplus value (profit) is said to come from labor and where labor is the factor of production that should have the most say in management decisions then it's for you. Bear in mind, this idea is removed from the idea that the innovator is important in the economy. The entrepreneur who takes responsibility for and making judgment decisions that affect the process, cost-benefit, risk, location, services, institutions they deal with along with form and use of goods and resources.
On the other hand, if you believe that the economy is in a constant flux of change and innovation, profit, in contrast to Marx and his theory, is not surplus value stolen from the workers. Quite the contrary, it is the only source of jobs for workers and of income. Remember, the entrepreneur must ask how much profit he must maintain to keep your job when someone else is knocking down the door trying to get in.
So as soon as we shift from the thinking of an unchanging, self-contained, closed economy (in a Marxist and classical sense) to a dynamic, growing, moving, changing economy, what is called profit becomes a moral imperative of the entrepreneur because it has now become the cost to survive. Micro is more important than the macro.
Then again maybe that's not for you.
History has not been kind to socialism whether it was the Eastern European version or Swedish social democracy version leading up to the late 70's and 80s that very nearly became full blown socialism (What's really interesting during that timeframe is to see how the Wallenberg family took advantage of those policies) but I would never discount it.
Hi Whomp, hope you're well.
I Think the whole entrepenuer stuff is seriously overplayed and often used as an excuse for the worst excesses of capitalism. It's kind of "hey anyone can do it!" mentality. Well okay, but not everyone can do it. And socialism is concerned with the good of the whole body not the part. In fact, Marx perhaps entrepreneurship dosen't figure in socialism that much because Marx damn well knows that a match-girl is not going any-where, no matter how how good her idea is. She is simply does not have access to the factors of production.
99.9999999 per cent of profit is going to be generated by those who have capital as the have the means of production.
Certainly ordinary people have success in modern society, to varying degrees, whether it be home owning or some industrial success but this may be built upon sound education, health, social stability all of which are vectors of social ownership.
Hsinchu
Prince
I'm not sure what kind of profit generation you are taking about. Revenue - Expenses = Gross Profit.
In some cases, wages are faxed into basic expenses. Bonuses and sales are typically paid out of the larger Gross Profit pool. Net profit is typically not 99.999 percent of revenue. In terms of who gets profit for holding means of production, everyone involved in transaction does, not just "the evil entrepreneur".
I profit whenever I buy something for a price I like. The price is below what I value the item at. With the exception of food and utilities, this is generally true.
I profit when I help produce as a wage-worker or commissioned worker, or salaried worker. I actually have a job that would not otherwise exist without the efforts of the controller of the means of production.
Obviously, if I am managing the means of production, I, too, profit. I spend money without guarantee that I'm going to get it back. I set up jobs, I receive no regular salary while no revenue is being generated during the setup of the organization. Then, in order to clear inventory, I have to offer a price that directly subverts my bottom line. At the end of the year/2 years/decade, I get to claim my piece of the pie. If the business goes under, for a year/2 years/decade, other people have received work and associated salaries and people have received goods at a price they were willing to pay, but I am left out in the cold. Let's hope I still control a sufficient means of production to do it again, or I have to start all over as a wage worker.
I don't like the idea that "profit" should be shared equally when there is obviously unequal risk. If you think you can run a business, don't complain about ridiculous entrepreneurs. Go out, find an investor, and be a better entrepreneur. If you can't sell your idea and your talent to an investor, I'm willing to bet you can't move product very well either. If you are too scared to invest if you DO have the potential to gather the means of production, then why should fear be entitled to the same as courage?
I value courage. I value good social skills/salesmanship. I value ingenuity. I value the benevolence to provide jobs and products. How highly these things are valued might determine what one considers to be "fair" profit, but to assign these things no value is disrespectful.
Similar threads
- Poll
