Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Modder_Mode, Jul 22, 2018.
is it cheaper to pay a laborer than buy and own a slave?
So, what follows?
Surely it depends.
true, plenty of variables involved
I read the Great Pyramid was built by 'free' people and not slave labor
Archeologists have discovered that the labourers who built the pyramids had a very meat-rich diet so its unlikely they were slaves.
Buy the labor. As a practical matter, slave cultures cannot compete when any form of quality control exists.
If you want an interesting exposition on the subject, watch Bridge on the River Kwai.
Yep. One case in point.
I agree entirely, but I'm sceptical of the socialist credentials of state-managed capitalism. That the most bitterly-fought labour dispute in post-war British history was in a nationalised industry is testament to the limitations of that model.
Nothing in particular, I think, and that's the problem. Nationalising everything, even subjecting it to a decent measure of workers' self-management, doesn't actually dissolve class conflict, it just shuffles the participants, or even simply the legal status of the participants. Nationaliastion in itself is simply a transfer of ownership within the ruling class, and may, in the right context, actively degrade the power of labour, as when wartime governments use nationalisation as a legal pretext for imposing military discipline on workers.
Right that's why in the Venezuela thread I said they aren't really socialists, they have a dictatorship and state control of all the viable businesses. However when republicans say stuff like socialized medicine fails they do mean nationalized health care. Many equate socialism and state controlled property as the same thing, though they aren't at all. Medicare is a socialized program but it distributes payments to private enterprises, the only nationalized part of it is the contractual payments and covered services. On the flip side something like electricity is a regulated utility, about the closest you'll get to a nationalized business in the US, and even that isn't socialized at all. You still have to pay the same rates based on usage, only is some states if you are very poor those states have programs to help you out.
When republicans say stuff like socialised medicine fails thats a contentious claim
The NHS manages to provide quality care for all its citizens at a much lower cost to them than the patchy coverage of the US system
Some things never change. Discussion about capitalism vs socialism we get:
Picture of the ovens at Auschwitz- check
Long argument about definitions-check
Some dead philosophers-check
Cogent summary of why the OP is poorly framed hysteria -win
It's not just contentious. It is plain false.
Those are mostly pretty pertinent to the discussion, even if there's a few dead horses. You're inevitably going to run into Stalinism and semantics sooner or later. And if anything, there hasn't been enough dead philosophers: we've had a sprinkling of Marx and Smith and a couple of passing references to Keynes, but that's pretty much it. No indication that Ricardo or Weber or Veblen or any other dead white professor with things to say about capitalism ever existed.
The only odd goose among ducks is the ovens, but that wasn't posted to make a specific and perfectly reasonable point about the culpability of German industrialists in the Holocaust, not to display The Perils of Socialism or whatever dumb thing.
> Nazis were socialist because socialism is in their name. Checkmate, liberals and leftists!
The people who bring up the Nazis in discussions about socialism are usually 15-year-old edgy teenagers who think they have figured it all out... or the people who never grew out of the edgy phase. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean, an interesting discussion can be had on the rhetorical elements of Socialism and Social Democracy the Nazis adopted in order to present the traditionally aristocratic militarist right as the ally of the average German.
Plus, any discussion of early Weimar Republic paramilitary street gangs -which includes the Nazi's "socialist" phase - is going to be fascinating. I mean when even the centrist SPD and Center Party were fielding paramilitary street gangs, you know that time period will be interesting.
Yeah, but the people who bring up "NaZiS wErE sOcIaLiSt It'S iN tHeIr NaMe" aren't exactly looking for a nuanced analysis.
If the Nazis weren't socialists even though they incorporated certain socialist policies, then why are they capitalists when they incorporated features of capitalism? They were probably neither, it dont matter if you're a socialist or a capitalist, you're dead or on the run if you dont do as told. Hitler was driven by racism, not economics.
That's like saying Russia's Liberal Democratic Party is both liberal and pro-democracy.
And Best Korea is a Democracy because it's a Democratic Peoples Republic.
Just because some people are morons doesn't mean nuanced discussion can't be had by other participants. One of my favorite CFC threads happened several years ago in what had been little more than a socialism=Nazism troll thread that we managed to derail into an interesting discussion despite the OP.
Wonder if I can find that thread despite Xenforos hellish search function.....
EDIT: Aha! Found it!
Thanks, I didn't think about it like that.
Separate names with a comma.