Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to Off-topic Forum   

Posts 1 - 30 of 91   1  2  3  4  Next >>   
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 02:59:28


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
I have seen a few threads where people say we should balance socialism and capitalism, as they both have pros/cons. Those people are idiots. It is impossible to mix the two. Socialism is not redistribution-ism. The difference between them is who controls the means of production and capital. Thus, in socialism, workers have control of the means of production, and in capitalism, private individuals do. Now, tell me, how do you propose to mix that? Have a compromise where private individuals propose things and they get voted on by workers? I do not think anyone here believes that to be intelligent.

That leads me to my second point - the idiocy of socialism and socialists. They advocate allowing workers to control the means of production and capital. Tell me, how will anything get done? Unless 100% of the workforce agrees, there will be division and strife, which will cause productivity to tank and at best result in a sizable minority being ignored completely. It is not feasible to make economic decisions based on the will of the masses and populism. Do you want your co-worker running the factory, having a say in raises and the like? It is idiocy. A single, cool-headed voice is needed, which is what capitalism is. Communism is also an option, but I hope we all realize that it will never work, and to try it after so many failures would be the epitome of incompetence.

Therefore, I have a point on Bernie Sander's campaign. He is a self-described socialist. Now, he either 1). truly believes in the ownership of the means of production by the workers, which as we saw is infeasible, therefore becoming ineligible due to his suicidal economic policy, although since he never talks about worker ownership of capital I doubt that is the case; meaning that 2). he is either clueless as to what socialism actually is, and thus to uninformed to be the president, or he is 3). not a true socialist, but a redistributionist, and simply using socialism as a prop, which would mean he is fake and insincere.
So, Bernie is a) an idiot, 2) uninformed, or 3) insincere. Is that what you want?

I will continue tomorrow with how re-distributionism is idiocy, but it is late and I'am tired. Until then, please refrain from incorrectly using the term 'socialist' and stick to redistributionist' while referring to people like Bernie. And never try to mix socialism and capitalism.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 03:09:44


Conquerre II
Level 52
Report
Watch me.

Edited 2/9/2016 03:10:18
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 03:18:17


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
I'll have to disagree with you.

First, Bernie doesn't describe himself as a socialist, but as a democratic socialist, search in google to see the difference. He's really smart and I really do believe he knows the difference...

Second, you don't know what socialism is, you described communism. Socialism doesn't gives the workers shares of the companies and decisions over it, but rather gives the gvt the control of every mean of production. So, actually, you don't know the difference here.

Three, we've seen the worst of socialism, but never the worst of capitalism (but let's not rush it, we'll see it soon). If I had to choose between the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism, I'd take the second one.


I don't describe myself as a leftist or socialist. I actually live well and benefit from the current system, but I do not believe it is fair. A change must be made and it becomes with a change in the current system.

Capitalism has systematic flaws that can only be avoided through regulation, and that's a fact, get over it if you don't believe it.

Gvt must also spend a lot in three major sectors in order to have a fair society:
- Education, that must be of quality and FREE.
- Safety (Law enforcement, justice and defense)
- Social Security

Secondary sectors that must have some gvt involved:
- Healthcare
- Infrastructure
- Research


As long as gvt exists in these sectors, any society can work and the economy will do fine.


Oh, and I'd say that subsidies are the worst fucking thing a gvt can do. It brings the worst of the two systems (socialism and capitalism), but I won't make a whole paragraph to explain this, this answer is already too long ^^.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 03:28:55


[AOE] JaiBharat909
Level 56
Report
"In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.” - Milton Friedman

From 1978 to 2002, China's rural poverty population dropped from 250 million to 28.2 million; a decrease by 88.7%. (https://www.imf.org/external/np/apd/seminars/2003/newdelhi/angang.pdf)

From 2004 to 2012, India's poverty population dropped from 407 million to 269 million; a decrease of 138 million in 7 years. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/29/indias_silent_poverty_reduction_miracle_119407.html)


I just communicated with Karl Marx across the grave. He tells me he was wrong. It works. Let's all calm down and get back to work.

Edited 2/9/2016 03:34:22
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 04:06:58

[wolf]japan77
Level 57
Report
Pretty much every state ever is a combination of both policies, any gov't regulation is valid to be considered socialism. Pure capitalism is no gov't regulation, no gov't incentives, pretty much no gov't in the economy. Marx didn't figure out how people thought. Also, congrats Jai on sighting milton freedman.

Can you explain how supply creates demand(One of the main tenants of Monetarism, the economic idea he founded)?(I just want to understand the viewpoint)
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 04:11:27


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
Capitalism works to some point. Even Marx admitted capitalism was an amazing system. He just saw it's flaws and believed socialism and then communism to be a better system.

And as for the poverty reduction, of course capitalism first reduces poverty. It's better to be paid 50 cents an hour for a job in asia (paid by big corp.), then the regular 25 cents an hour... But the consequence of this is people in industrialized countries losing their jobs.

Too much free-market and capitalism just makes the hole system implode.

USA is a "champion" of capitalism. And yet, it has the worst poverty rates ammoung industrialized countries. Scandinavia and it's democratic socialism worked better here...

And at the end of the day, sure, capitalism makes the gdp higher, but does it mean anything? Why the heck do I need the bigger gdp per capita in the world if this income is at the top 1 percent?

UK is the better example of economic liberalism screwing up. Social cuts from the gvt hits the poor unfairly, and sure the economy is growing, but renting an apt in London is impossible right now, and there's more and more people living on starving wages as a result (still better then no wages, I guess?).
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 04:19:57


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
Can you explain how supply creates demand(One of the main tenants of Monetarism, the economic idea he founded)?(I just want to understand the viewpoint)


I believe this is a total bullshit, supply can't create demand. It's really the opposite, if there's demand there's supply.

I can't possibly understand how a supply of, Idk, red sticks will create a demand for it lol. Maybe you can't create demand by advertising, and thus telling people there's supply? But really, it's really hard to say that's a real proof of it xD.


I truly believe it's not possible for an economic law to work that way, but if someone wanna explain it better, I'd like to hear it.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 05:12:01


Thomas 633
Level 56
Report
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 05:49:45

[wolf]japan77
Level 57
Report
@TeamGuns, I agree with you, I'm just trying to understand their point of view, so I can destroy it with Keynes.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 06:45:21


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
@[wolf]japan77 Keynes is a real genius and his theory is very good. But I don't like the mean idea of deficits to fix the economy, the system doesn't works for the long run because of human actions: gvnts will never cut spending after the crisis because of politics. Plus, his system is very bad for environement as the way to boost the economy will always lead to the need of an overconsumption of ressources.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 08:17:42


{Canidae} Kretoma
Level 57
Report
Wrong questions. Both political ideas are about accumulation of wealth, which is bad. So both systems are equally disruptive. Chernobyl and Fukushima? Soviet heavy industry or Houston petroleum economy? What a mess, but depression time is over, so whining does not help...
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 08:28:23


Angry Koala
Level 57
Report
+100000 Kreto and Teamguns

Burn The Heretics!!
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 11:01:49


Thomas 633
Level 56
Report
noone clicked my links :(
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 11:48:58


Hitchslap
Level 56
Report
OP's lack of understanding of socialism is baffling, wich makes me think that he is:
1)an idiot, 2) uninformed, or 3) insincere

Edited 2/9/2016 11:49:06
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 12:01:10


Belgian Gentleman
Level 55
Report
or

4) American
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 12:43:21


Thomas 633
Level 56
Report
merica, f*** yeah...
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 13:41:16


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
"Second, you don't know what socialism is, you described communism. "

Communism: the common ownership of the means of production

Socialism: socialism is defined as public ownership of the means of production

Tell me again the major difference between the two. The two are almost identical, which is why it is highly amusing when people say Communism is bad, but socialism is good. They are the same in all but name.

"OP's lack of understanding of socialism is baffling"
Please do tell, how would you define socialism? Not as I did, certainly; those pesky little definitions always get in the way, don't they.


"Capitalism has systematic flaws that can only be avoided through regulation, and that's a fact, get over it if you don't believe it. "
Yes, of course it does. The point I am trying to make is that that regulation is NOT socialism, nor is redistributionism. It makes me angry when people say that regulation is socialism and every system needs some of both, because you can't mix them. And to say it isn't a pure capitalist system because of regulation is stupid, because private individuals still control the means of production.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 14:05:28


Angry Koala
Level 57
Report
General PE is a clear ignorant believing Socialism :
                                                      
          ,                    
         ,@,                                             
        ,@@@,                   
       ,@@@@@,            
`@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@`                                     
  `@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@`                                       
    `@@@@@@@@@@@`                                         
   ,@@@@@@`@@@@@@,                                        
   @@@@`     `@@@@                                        
  ;@`           `@;                                       
    _   _   _   _                                         
   (   (   (   |_)                                        
    ~   ~   ~  |   

"Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix"

Social democracy ever heard of this?

Do you consider France currently led by the Parti Socialiste (French Socialist Party) as non capitalist?
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 14:10:52


GeneralPE
Level 56
Report
No, they are redistributionist/regulationist, not truly socialist. They just use socialism as a name to garner support among uneducated people ignorant of its true meaning.

"Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production."

In effect, socialism with a democratic government. They still use the socialist system of ownership of the means of production.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 14:21:22


Angry Koala
Level 57
Report
They just use socialism as a name to garner support among uneducated people ignorant of its true meaning.


After reading this, you realize that you still don't get the very concept of Socialism and its different existing forms.

Read Jean Jaurès would you, then we shall discuss.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 14:22:55


Angry Koala
Level 57
Report
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 14:58:26


[AOE] JaiBharat909
Level 56
Report
Can you explain how supply creates demand(One of the main tenants of Monetarism, the economic idea he founded)?(I just want to understand the viewpoint)

I think the answer is pretty simple, though my explanation may be incorrect.

In terms of innovation, new technology (supply) creates a new demand for a product (demand). For example, on July 25th, 1978 the first test tube baby was created in England (Louise Brown). This created a new sector for medical and reproductive technology - namely in vitro fertilization. Thus scientists helped to create research that was the foundation for birth clinics that offered couples who traditionally could not have children the opportunity for in vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood. The demand was not created for the technology until the actual product was created by scientists. This idea could apply to other new technology innovations to come: phones, computers, tablets, online shopping. No one thought these technologies were possible, so there was no real demand for them (on a mass consumer scale anyhow).

Edited 2/9/2016 15:38:20
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 15:38:25


Zephyrum 
Level 60
Report
Not going to enter the big discussion and take a minor derail on a subject mentioned on the thread:

Education can never be governmental.

Any sort of governmental education automatically is worthless.

Countries in which public schools are preferred over private schools *conveniently* have a much higher suicide rate than the ones in which private schools are the option for anyone capable of paying it.

The public school system is basically a suicide inducer, because middle school and high school is an eternal game of social interactions goes parallel with the studies, forcefully lowering the grades of every single student and as such the quality of the studies. This deeply impacts some people's lives by making them feel excluded, useless, worthless or anything else, as well as make even the ones who don't go through that have a constant problem due to grades.

In governmental schools, due to the lack of any payment, less people actually care about their grades, and more actually care about that eternal battle for social recognition and attention. And the culture shocks between rich and poor only makes it worse, as the poor people want to look rich and pretend their living condition is of the 1%, while the rich kids will want to try and look autonomous and street-wise.

In other words, any form of mass education will fail if they give opportunity for social interaction. The only ways I can see education being perfect is either have every student have a classroom and teacher all for himself (impossible) or seeking to strain the social part of schools (best option seems like virtual classes, tbh).

I'll never support free education becuase education as a whole has a lot to improve and any funding should go towards these improvements. This might sounds like (you guessed it!) elitist, but honestly, it is the truth. While schools have all these issues with social interactions, the more open they are, the more damaging they are to the students.

The schools here that tend to get amazing grades (and no one dies during the courses from suicide, car accident while drunk or murdered) are the ones that require both doing a ridiculously tough entrance test AND pay. It actually feels worth it to have a classroom with 10 people, everyone can ask and they're all friends among themselves, so there's no popularity strifes or anything. Just study, study, study, and on free time, enjoying their day as they'd like, not as their classmates would like. Happy students, with great grades. Sadly, I never got to personally experience such.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 15:44:52


Carlos
Level 58
Report
General PE, there are a lot of forms of capitalism and a lot of forms of socialism. Your conception is based in the initial theories about what Marx supposed that the world would probably become. The evolution of the ideas of socialism has more then 150 years. Even the capitalism has a lot of different forms, some of this forms are mixed with some ideas of socialism.

You could imagine it as how the christianism is today: catholicism, lutheranism, orthodoxism, pentecostalism and a hundred others are all christians. Dont think that the socialism (or even the capitalism) is a unique form and there is only an A or a B.

Sometimes i see another thing, and im curious if its normal in the USA: people really reduce the most complex things to only two options? Sometimes it seems to me that you need to chose between capitalist or socialist, democrat or republican, pepsi or coke, pro or con abortion, gay rights, evolution, etc..
(im not criticising or saying you are wrong, its just curiosity)

JaiBharat, in some ways you are right: a lot of things that we buy there is really not needed, you only create the demand because there is supply. BUT, its not always that way, a lot of times it doesnt work (a lot of companies bankrupt because of that) and sometimes it create HUGE problems (this is one of the main reasons (or the main) that the Great Depression of 1929 happened.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 15:58:33


Zephyrum 
Level 60
Report
The main reason was people not knowing the time to stop. What kept companies afloat was the stock market, their actual value was much inferior to the nominal value. If they knew this, they wouldn't have made a ridiculously large stock (supply) for the little to no demand (making new, creative fridges, ovens and stuff when basically every american capable of buying them already had one).

High supply to demand ratio was the problem (the reason why everyone went bankrupt so quickly), but not the foundation of the problem. That was general stupidity. I mean, it all blew up because some random guy just decided it was a good time to sell everything he has at once. And that was it. ._.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 16:00:23


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
@[AOE] JaiBharat909, I suspected it worked like that as an advertising stuff creating demand, the more people know about something, the more they will have a mind about it and thus decide if they want something or not. It will always create demand to some extent.


As for you, GeneralPE, I still believe you're ignorant about socialism. Socialism is different from communism, which is supposed to be an "upgrade" from socialism.

Socialism is bad because of dictature it needs to have to exist. Gvnt must seize all properties and control the media to avoid unrest and the collapse of the hole "revolution".

Communism is really a theorical belief where the property is not owned anymore by a gvt, but rather by it's workers, because there is NO GVT.

Now tell me that a society with an omnipotent state is the same as one without one, and I'll tell you: BULLSHIT.


As for France, I'm kindda french, and I'll say that what you said is highly uncorrect. The socialist party in France is actually making a shift to the center because of terrorism and bad economic results on the last few years. Now a few corrections:

1) France is still, to some extent, a democratic socialist country, but I affraid we're slowly losing a few of the benefits every year.
2) The socialist party is really in turmoil because of this, a third of the congressmen and senators declared they were against this shift and many more might not like it but haven't still stated it.
3) French people aren't dumb (at least supporters of the left, I won't say the same for the ones supporting the far right). The socialist party will get crushed in the next elections, he has already lost regional and the european ones.

But still, France is an amazing place to live, and I'll do college there, I'll vote for the socialists, because the right and the far-right are total morons (even though our right is far better then your republicans) and I'll hope that the social system built on the last decades might resist.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 16:09:38


[AOE] JaiBharat909
Level 56
Report
I suspected it worked like that as an advertising stuff creating demand, the more people know about something, the more they will have a mind about it and thus decide if they want something or not. It will always create demand to some extent.

Well what I'm trying to say is that technological innovation is the source of demand and supply. But I think supply (at least in our current times) comes before demand. No one wanted a cell phone before the first cell phone because no one (except a handful of scientists, computer engineers, and Defense Department people) thought it was possible or feasible consumer item. However as soon as it became marketable the demand was created.

No one wanted Chipotle until Chipotle was created. No one wanted Pizza until Pizza was created. No one wanted a vacuum cleaner until a vacuum was created. No one wanted Uggs until uggs were created. I think you get the point.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 16:17:37


Angry Koala
Level 57
Report
Zeph, your opinion on the School system and the Social part of it is quite interesting tbh, in France like most of the Western World nations the problem you pointed out cannot be neglected. But I would say your vision of this system is truncated, since in countries like China or South Korea, despite being hundred in a class, you wont have the problem of social interactions going parallel with the studies lowering the grades of every single student and as such the quality of the studies. Why? The answer is culture.

It is not about changing the school system, but changing our culture, the education first inherited from the parents/family, the ethics, the moral, etc. This is my opinion so of course you can disagree with me.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 16:19:33


TeamGuns 
Level 58
Report
And Zephyrum, your concept of public education makes no sense.

Canada, Finland and Germany. Those three countries have good school global ratings. Most of the system is public and has a lot of gvnt inside of it.

The US has bad school global ratings. The country is rich, but the public system is fucked up, because government doens't give a shit about it's poor students.


It's stupid not to have good public schools. You just lose many potential genius because of them not going to proper schools. I won't go further on the subject to tell you how this is bad, it's too long to explain.

And as money making people want to study more, I don't think so. I was in one of the best schools in Brazil (private, and only allowed to people knowing how to speak french). We had very good teachers, facilities and very little classes (we were 20).


But I'll tell you the truth. There was people on my class that didn't give a fuck for school. They had bad grades, slept in classes, lied to their parents about their grades telling it was the school's fault, didn't gave teachers the respect they deserved and worst of it, lacked will to improve.
Seems a lot familiar to public schools huh? Well, the difference is that half of my class were good students and worked hard. I just feeled bad we couldn't just change the other half for students in public institutions, that would greatly apreciate to have a good school and future perspectives other then the shitty ones offered to poor people in Brazil.
Why Socialism and Capitalism don't mix: 2/9/2016 16:32:11


[AOE] JaiBharat909
Level 56
Report
TeamGuns I'm interested how you explain the significantly better education received by the Japanese and South Koreans even though they spend less or about equal to the amount spent by the USA. I think this confirms what Zeph and Koala were saying: culture, work ethic, and family life matters in determining how successful an education will be for any given child.

Link - http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/25/national/public-education-spending-japan-lowest-oecd-sixth-straight-year/

Japan spends the lowest in the OECD (developed countries) on Education and South Korean spending is equal to the USA, yet they get better results.
Posts 1 - 30 of 91   1  2  3  4  Next >>   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service