You guys don't really believe in Socialism do you?

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
I'm talking about workers rights, nationalization and, in more recent times, legislation to protect the environment.
None of these are in the interest of a real Capitalist, of course you don't necessarily have to be a Socialist to see all these problems, but a hardline Capitalist won't act in favour of it.

"Hardline" Capitalist? Don't you mean the people living in the 19th century?
Nationalization I don't think any capitalist would stand for, and I really don't think they're in the interest of anyone. However, workers rights and environmental are more political than economic considerations. They effect the economy, yes, but they are necessary and apparent in capitalism for political, not economical reasons.

Originally posted by Hitro
The Democratic party in the US for example is certainly Capitalist oriented, but also certainly not pure Capitalist.
However, historically, specifically in Europe, these laws were introduced by Socialist (or Social Democrats, etc.) or in fear of them (Bismarck etc.).

Right... well, democrats here make fun of socialists. Some don't, but most of us aren't interested in public education because of equality, redistribution, or any of those other fun things.
Ask them why they believe in public education: need an educated workforce for competitive economies, gives them a greater oppertunity to succeed. Not planted by the seeds of socialism, I should think.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
Consider also that food is useless as a currency in that it is NOT a durable good, neither is it practicable as a means of exchange because of its bulk volume.

Nobody would want the pearls in the first place. Look, following your idea through that eventually everyone starves (which would make it more like a self-proclaimed Communist country), at what point would people say "Hey, why the heck am I getting PEARLS"
There is only one consumer good. There is no need for currency. The only thing of value is food.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
As to the point why the 'people' (i sense you mean the exploited ones) would't just buy a ticket home you have left the very premise of the model in that you are incorporating politics into the equation, or more likely Liberation Ideology (I'll get back to that one later if the demand is there)

No, I think the point was it was a silly model. Usually an economic example is drawn by simplifying the complex. What complex situation has been reduced here, a world with one consumer good necessary to live, another, outside source supplying only a good used as currency and removing the only good of value. And land as the only means of creating the necessary good, carefully divided.
Nope, sorry, doesn't work. It stabilizes too many things, and oversimplifies trade. The actions on based on the rational indvidual, but the individual looking to make an economic model that deconstructs capitalism.

Originally posted by Toasty
I don't like that the first post wasn't considered a "troll." Were there a post that said "you don't really believe in Capitalism, do you?", it would have been almost certainly closed at the first sight.

Actually, the threads would probably look identical. Though I unfortunately agree with you, the thread wouldn't have lasted. Moderators call, not our fault.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Toasty
I don't like that the first post wasn't considered a "troll." Were there a post that said "you don't really believe in Capitalism, do you?", it would have been almost certainly closed at the first sight.

I would like to open one. Unfortunately I have had two warnings by the moderators accusing me of taking a socalled 'anti-american' stance. Why don't you give it a go?
BTW i did'nt exactly come up with the idea of Island economics myself. I borrowed the basic idea from some textbook on economics , although there it's called 'Robinson Crusoe economics'. Actually I think it's the best method of learning the principles of economics if one keeps it at a primitive level. The various problems (landownership, slavery, introduction of currency, inflation, and luxury-trade) I borrowed from ancient greek history.

 

[Toasty]

I'd sooner try to convince a mod that it deserves to be closed, due to it's trollish nature.

Ironically, there have been a few good arguments here, from what I've skimmed. Unfortunately my post seemed to have been ignored.

Blatantly offensive is something that I would use to describe this thread. Sorry if my beliefs are unconventional by American standards, however I do hold them near and dear to my heart. Someone who would have said anything except Socialism, the most un-American of anything, would probably have been severely reprimanded.

And anyways, the last thing I need are hostile mods, I have enough fun stirring up trouble without their interferance .

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
I would like to open one. Unfortunately I have had two warnings by the moderators accusing me of taking a socalled 'anti-american' stance. Why don't you give it a go?

I'd give it a try, but I actually do...
There is really no point though, since the discussion would look exactly like this one.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
I borrowed the basic idea from some textbook on economics

Is that what they use to teach economics in Cuba

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
although there it's called 'Robinson Crusoe economics'. Actually I think it's the best method of learning the principles of economics if one keeps it at a primitive level. The various problems, I borrowed from ancient greek history.

Robinson Crusoe? Primitive level? Ancient Greek history?
Not exactly the best things to draw an example about modern economics with?

Originally posted by Toasty
Blatantly offensive is something that I would use to describe this thread. Sorry if my beliefs are unconventional by American standards, however I do hold them near and dear to my heart.

Kinda of like... a religion, 'eh?

 

[Supernaut]

Originally posted by Toasty
I'd sooner try to convince a mod that it deserves to be closed, due to it's trollish nature.

Ironically, there have been a few good arguments here, from what I've skimmed. Unfortunately my post seemed to have been ignored.

Blatantly offensive is something that I would use to describe this thread. Sorry if my beliefs are unconventional by American standards, however I do hold them near and dear to my heart. Someone who would have said anything except Socialism, the most un-American of anything, would probably have been severely reprimanded.

And anyways, the last thing I need are hostile mods, I have enough fun stirring up trouble without their interferance .

I can't see why anyone would find this thread blatantly offensive, but if you do, then tell a mod. I think actually a thread saying 'You don't actually believe in capitalism do you?' would be very different to this one, since it has been admitted by everyone on this thread arguing for socialism that it has never existed in the real world, whereas capitalism is rife. So this thread title, although worded rather aggresively, is no worse than asking 'Do you really believe in alien life forms?'. Whereas you are suggesting a thread title on a par with 'Do you really believe in oxygen?'.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Supernaut


I can't see why anyone would find this thread blatantly offensive, but if you do, then tell a mod. I think actually a thread saying 'You don't actually believe in capitalism do you?' would be very different to this one, since it has been admitted by everyone on this thread arguing for socialism that it has never existed in the real world, whereas capitalism is rife. So this thread title, although worded rather aggresively, is no worse than asking 'Do you really believe in alien life forms?'. Whereas you are suggesting a thread title on a par with 'Do you really believe in oxygen?'.

Socialism not only has existed, but still exist and is widely used (particularly in western Europe).

Some people really should learn the difference between "socialism" and "communism".
But considering how many times the difference was pointed out, and that there is still ones unable to make the difference... Well anyway they don't listen, so...

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
Kinda of like... a religion, 'eh?

For some people it probably has such a stand. And if you think about what would happen to a thread called "You don't really believe in God do you?" he has a point.

Considering the things you said in reply to me I accept that you see it that way, but I guess it won't help to repeat the same things over and over again.

Just one thing, although workers rights are a political issue they are an issue of economic politics. For a factory owner for example they are nothing else but an economic consideration. A strike doesn't really help his company...

 

[Vrylakas]

Toasty wrote:

Someone who would have said anything except Socialism, the most un-American of anything...

Actually, the very first organized Socialist political party was created in the U.S. in the 1820s, in an era in American history when there was a strong reaction against elitist politics (resulting in the Jacksonian era). Their first labor union was formed within the next decade. Labor activism has a very long history in the U.S., even though the American industrial revolution didn't really kick in until after their Civil War. Robert Owens carried out his commune experiments in Illinois as I recall, and American Western history is riddled with similar socialist-style commune experiments.

The Red Scare of 1921, and the eventual American confrontation with the Soviet Union in the Cold War, were more products of a response to a militant socialism that had a "top-down" agenda of overthrowing the government rather than the 19th century grassroots-style "bottom-up" American socialism. The fear of revolution is what made socialism "un-American" in most Americans' eyes.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
Just one thing, although workers rights are a political issue they are an issue of economic politics. For a factory owner for example they are nothing else but an economic consideration. A strike doesn't really help his company...

No, but a factory owner has limitations on their ability to do anything with their economic considerations. Everyone has interests. That is why the proper legal environment, where government can enforce property rights, legal rights, ect. is needed for capitalism to move beyond Akka's version of social Darwinism to its modern form. Though the economic benefits are there in the 'big picture', the economic interests are overweighed by the political interests, that is, the right of the workers to organize collectively. Since the firm competes with others, and is likely turning a profit, a higher price for wages in the production of the product will decrease the profits and defer future competitors, perhaps driving a few out of the business, unless the demand or production possibility change.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by Greadius
No, but a factory owner has limitations on their ability to do anything with their economic considerations. Everyone has interests. That is why the proper legal environment, where government can enforce property rights, legal rights, ect. is needed for capitalism to move beyond Akka's version of social Darwinism to its modern form.

Completely correct, but as you said, everyone has interests, and those interested in moving Capitalism beyond the jungle law phase are not the Capitalists, but others, usually Socialists.
Your explanation may be true for a certain firm at a certain market situation. But even if that would be the case they would pressure for taking the laws back after having driven out these competitors. It may be a short-term strategic interest for them, but never a general one.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by Switch625


I'm sure Greadius could answer this tripe better than I can, but I'll take a shot at it.

The ballot dustup was much ado over nothing. No matter how many recounts were done, official and unofficial, every single one resulted in a victory for George W. Bush. Every single recount. Not even an unofficial recount done after the election was over with, which was done by the Democratic party and backed by members of the media establishment, could conjure up a victory for Gore in that election. Sorry.

And before you say anything about disenfranchised voters, ballot errors like that one happen all the time. They just normally don't become the subject of a media frenzy. Once again, the media created a crisis where there wasn't one.

Another point: the disputed ballot design was adopted by the Dade county election board and approved by the Dade county election supervisor. Both are Democrat controlled. So much for a Republican conspiracy...

Final point: The so-called "butterfly ballot" design is not at all hard to understand. The county I live in has used the same "butterfly" design for longer than I have been voting. I've never found it difficult to understand. There has also never been a constitutional crisis in my county over the ballot design. Like I said: a media created crisis.

Maybe some day all these misconceptions about the 2000 election will be put to rest, but I doubt it.

ooo, sorry took me a while to read this thread again to reply.

Um, I would have to differ, I read in various British newspapers that Gore had actually won when the recounts had been completed. I can only go by what I have read!!

So lets agree to disagree

 

[Greadius]

Closest thing I could find to beating a dead horse.

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
Um, I would have to differ, I read in various British newspapers that Gore had actually won when the recounts had been completed. I can only go by what I have read!!

British Press was very quick (and irresponsible) in its reporting. The final counts from the accumulation of American newspapers found that if the Bush had gotten his way, Gore would have won, and if Gore would have gotten his way, Bush would have won. Neither of them got their way, the argueing went on too long, and status quo remained.
Several counts would have had Gore ahead, but that is as pointless speculation as using the counts that would have had Bush ahead.

 

[Fagot]

Hey! Are there any Russians? I wonder if I have had a bit of help?
Sorry for my English... :-(

 

[Damien]

Bifrost is russian.

 

[Toasty]

RoddyVR, who hangs out in the NES forums, is a Russian immigrant to America.

 

[Exsanguination]

Originally posted by Narz
Seriously, I know its fun thing to argue about and discuss hypothetically but you guys don't really think socialism or communism could ever work as well as Capitalism, do you? I mean think about it, the free enterprise system rewards hard work, those who work harder and smarter reap more benefits. What better system to encourage progress is there than the free enterprise system? Seriously, I think socialists are just lazy and jealous of those who have the nerve and determination to take advantage of the system.

Note : I am not saying the American system is the best system, I'm just talking about the free enterprise system. The American system needs a lot of work. For starters, we could use a flat tax, a smaller but more efficient military, cut foreign aid (and interference) by 95% and many, many other improvements but thats for another thread.

- Narz

I didn't read past the first five posts cause thispost truly angered me. Not because I'm a diehard reformed socialist, but because of the ignorant, typicalAmerican attitude you've approached the issue with. You socialists are just "lazy and jealous"? How about we look at capitalism? What do the big cheeses and Uncle Sam do in their comfy chairs while they reel in the millions by the second? Hard work? Brains? Hell no! They rely on the workers they hire and pay so well and fire when they want to have a little fun. My father has 2 masters and a BS but is out of the job. Bill Gates dropped out of HS (did he ever get his GRE?) and is a billionaire. Find me a corporate exec who has brains and used them to get where he is. All they do is capitalize on a good stock opporutnity and get lucky. It's bulls***. How about sports/pop stars? Wow, you can sing or hey, you can hit a freakin' baseball, here's 126 million dollars in reward. What an accomplishment.

True communism would work. Communism as we have seen it would not. Then again, I am not a supporter of absolute communism, where everyone gets an equal share. It's human nature to always want more, so its only fit to give those deserving more. I personally could live with little cause thats the way I am. This is what I mean by "reformed socialism". All the existing government regimes (including the American) are horrible, the American being the most corrupt.

Anyways I'm done. I don't want to get any deeper. Capitalism sucks. Period.

 

[Narz]

Originally posted by Exsanguination
I didn't read past the first five posts cause thispost truly angered me.

I have never let a post anger my before. Seems like kind of a silly response but I suppose some people like to get themselves upset. I'm sorry you are so bitter about living in a capitalist society. But don't blame baseball players and pop stars for making more than your father. Do you pay for cable? Do you buy CD's? Do you go to movies and ballgames and spend $4 on a beer or soda? If so then you support the people about whom you are complaining. I sure ah hell don't waste my dough on any of these things (expect go to minor league games sometimes).

My father has 2 masters and a BS but is out of the job. Bill Gates dropped out of HS (did he ever get his GRE?) and is a billionaire.

Who cares if he got his GRE? He's a f***ing billionaire! He didn't need the "security" of a college education, he had a dream and went for it. Note, I am no Bill Gates fan, he blatantly ripped off a budget version of the Macintosh OS but hey, it worked, he made money. Meanwhile, your father (it seems) took the traditional route and got screwed over. That sucks for him, but no one forced him to invest tens of thousands of dollars into getting fancy titles.

Me, I am also a college dropout. The equation : you pay us $12,000 a year while missing out on the chance to work full time for four years never really made sense to me ($12K a year plus lets say $20K a year in lost pay = $128,000). After this four years you are NOT guaranteed a job. My GF spent four years in college and for what, now she's a secretary, making $10 an hour, plus she has loans to pay back.

Liberal Arts education

Find me a corporate exec who has brains and used them to get where he is. All they do is capitalize on a good stock opporutnity and get lucky

You don't really believe that do you? If you do, thats kinda sad for you, you will be blaming "bad luck" for your problems all your life.

True communism would work.

Anyways I'm done. I don't want to get any deeper. Capitalism sucks. Period.

No please, try to get deeper! I'm having fun re-educating you!

- Narz

 

[Exsanguination]

So, Narz, I assume that you don't believe knowledge is a worthy pursuit? yu are just another lost soul who has accepted mercantilism as the surest way, that money is the only thing in life. I don't believe money is worth s***. I'll be a hell of a lot happier with 2 masters and a BS than having all the money the world could offer.

 

[Narz]

So, Narz, I assume that you don't believe knowledge is a worthy pursuit? yu are just another lost soul who has accepted mercantilism as the surest way, that money is the only thing in life.

Let me first respond to the first little bit. Of course knowledge is a worthy pursuit!! One of the most worthy! But anyone who thinks that the only place one can learn is in a university from a professor needs to rethink his ideas.

Think about it, how is a professor teaching you business going to teach you how to make $100,000 a year, he only makes $30,000 a year himself!

I don't believe money is worth s***

Well, you know what they say, "A fool and his money are soon parted"

I'll be a hell of a lot happier with 2 masters and a BS than having all the money the world could offer.

Have fun with your certificates and awards, I'll be out seeking real knowledge. What you learn in a university are things that are already known (and been taught thousands of times). What I seek in new information, revalations, new ways to look at old problems. What should I pay a man hundreds of dollars per class for something I could research myself at the library for free.

I don't believe money is worth s***

Let me touch on this again. Anyone who says this is a lier! Do you work? If you don't think money is worth anything, why work for it? Did you pay money for your computer? Do you like your computer? Obviously you do or why would you use it? And your computer was bought with what, money right? Nothing wrong with money. Perhaps you have a problem with greed, but greed is a human problem older than even currency. No political system will ever change human nature.

- Narz

 

[cgannon64]

I'm going to try to get this thread back on track, because it is slowly being taken over.

Whoever said that socialism is being implented in Western Europe is...right! I posted some of this on "You don't really believe in capitalism, do you?", but I'll say it again. With the aid of a dictionary, I have discovered that good old Karl Marx said that socialism is a transitional government, a phase in which capitalism morphs into communism. And communism is a leaderless economic system in which "the state has whithered away". Communism, by definition, is NOT government, but a leader-less, governmentless economic system. Communism, said Marx, is the FINAL system---it is a world in which everyone is economically equal and no one is leader. Sounds like a Utopia?

Sadly, this won't work for a long time, because many people are sheep, and they do not wish to govern themselves ("by the people" Ha! Even the Constition lies!). Included in the people who make Communism not work is the people who wish to lead, the people won't let go of power.

I think we should go back go Greek (or was it Roman?) times in which the city-state's government was just a Congress, in which every male attended. However, I think that it shouldn't jus be males, it should be every adult. I think the Internet is making this possible, because the entire country doesn't have to get into one room.

So, my answer, is that no, I don't believe in socialism or communism, because I, sadly, don't believe in humans. We aren't going to want to be equal---only the poor and the middle class find socialism attractive, but the rich control the world.

Wow, what a depressing post!

Exanugaition---it's now about $250 million to hit a baseball, not $126 million. And now, with the new labor agreement, the MINIMUM contract in baseball is $300,000. So, if you can hit a FRICKIN baseball, you are guaranteed $300,000 a year, about $6 million a career. Do they "deserve" that money, because they have the genes to give them better reacition time and 20/10 vision????

By the way, I just lost my faith in capitalism...looks like no government will work in my mind...