Why socialism and capitalism must co-exist

[AProgressiveThinker]

[GeorgeGist]

1. Too long to load.

SOCIALism doesn't require capitalism.

[AProgressiveThinker]

2. It still does

It still does in the way that we cannot pay everyone equally because there would be no motive to be a lawyer or any other very hard job that requires long, hard years of graduate school, it's what happened in the Soviet Union. But I agree that we should start creating more companies based on worker cooperatives, you don't need a boss for a company. They have many worker cooperatives in Europe such as the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_corporation

[patrice]

3. I agree that the dynamic inevitably produces violence the more it approaches extremeness.

So re-balancing value by more socialistic means does protect capitalism from itself, since extreme capitalism destroys the means of its own production and since socialism preserves collective means of production.

But I do not agree that without capitalism, socialists would lack drive or motive. Motive is fundamentally organic, so people will seek the means to satisfy their organic needs, no matter what. What socialists may not be motivated to do is to sacrifice too much for more abstracted and arbitrary forms of value, so in that sense you can say that they might lack SOME forms of motive. They may choose to sacrifice that of their own choosing for those more extrapolated arbitrary values, but, since they ARE socialists (and thus are committed to the group's obligations to individual members of the group), they are not going to commit motive/drive to "pink plastic fairy ponies" when the wherewithal of existence is not fulfilled since those needs are an obligation and the ponies are not.

[AProgressiveThinker]

4. Except not everyone is a socialist

The socialists will be committed to proving that their ideology works and thus will be motivated to be paid the same as a janitor for his much harder job, yes, but not everybody is a socialist. It would be easy to cheat and honestly, people would have to neurologically develop for this type of society or everyone would just apply for some job like a waitor or a janitor etc.

And the better point that javakris makes in the video is that if you don't give these people a social safety net, there will be a bloody revolution and if there is a vanguard party (such as the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union), they obviously will not protect the rights of the people but rather just become a one party state where dissidents are killed and the field of power is opened to genocidal maniacs like Stalin.

[patrice]

5. That's a little to label dependent for me. There are people who are "socialists" whether they

identify, correctly or not, with that political label. It's interesting that an awful lot of people who express an aversion for socialism don't authentically even know what it is.

You're also missing the point that, without profit for profit's sake alone, prices can decline to meet production & overhead and, thus, that lower wage goes further.

You are assuming that you can characterize the neurological development of millions of people accurately enough to predict that they will prefer "lower" kinds of work (a ranking that is not justified in terms of the necessity of some types of jobs, which happen to be closer to what everyone needs in order to just survive, over other types of jobs which have less Real Value ((to refer to Adam Smith, btw)), because they are related to things that have less or nothing to do with the necessities of life) and not find the development of pink plastic fairy ponies, nor finely crafted electronics, motivating enough to engage in those efforts.

The error in those assumptions has to do with thinking that human beings are, each one of us, a "tabula rasa", a blank slate. Not true, eons of evolution have produced some relatively stable physical traits and tendencies, one of which we can say, with a relatively high probability of validity, is a potential to work hard in order to meet survival needs, a fact that capitalists (remember profit for profit's sake alone) use by mixing it in capitalist systems with pink plastic fairy ponies and iphones.

Not only are we hard wired to very likely be motivated for certain kinds of hard work, there are other potential tendencies in our organic systems that range in valence from almost as strongly driven as our organic needs are to so weak and situationally specific that manifestation as a drive for behavior can be said to be so improbable as to be ir-relevant, but NOT non-existent.

I think that it is, on an average, probably incorrect to think of the relationship between basic survival drivers and other tendencies as necessarily linear. The drummer hoeing the field can still feel the drive to drum whether s/he ever encounters a drum or not. Yes there are critical periods of development in which if certain things do not happen whatever happens after that is more limited, but we can hypothesize that on an average enough development occurs that later experiences can evoke motivators that already inhere in a given organic system.

I agree with your point about the social safety net, but I want to suggest that one of the reasons that the Russians were exploited is because the powers that took control of their situation, not only did not guarantee the basic organic survival drives, but also, even once that adaptation had occurred, also failed to recognize, in their ownership of the means of ANY production the necessity of also providing, socialistically or otherwise, opportunities for the satisfaction of other no less intrinsic motives.

[Ravajava]

8. Hi

Yeah, I'm the guy that made the video, hey.

I generally don't think a pure communist system is as effective as a mixed system. Sure, it is possible that it could function given the proper checks and balances, but I think a socialist democracy, mixed with capitalism, that successfully harness's the strengths and weakness's of the two ideologies will be more successful than either extreme.

But in this video I don't really address why I do not believe that people of a purely communist country wouldn't be motivated. It's an interesting topic, and I'd certainly love to discuss it, but it's not really the topic at hand.

Anywho, before we continue on, I want to make sure I fully grasp your point. So, you are saying that because people, being people who have developed over a millenniums to act in a certain way, will have the drive to work hard without holding a physical reward in front of there face to make them do it?

[NoOneMan]

6. Im not sure either can coexist with nature

...Much less each other.

[Ravajava]

10. Hwy

I'm not sure I follow your logic...

[link:

|

[NoOneMan]

18. An underlying premise of these economic systems is production

Production requires inputs of both energy and resources that must be extracted from our natural systems, which creates wealth that perpetuates exponentially more production in the future (resulting in exponentially more exploitation of the earth).

Socialism and capitalism is a debate about how we share the spoils of the earth, presuming that we continue to spoil the earth. Well, we are pretty much at the point of no return these days, so arguing what ride you are in when you head over the cliff is a bit moot.

[Ravajava]

19. On the odd chance

Well, I personally believe that humanity is a bit more resilient then you. But who knows, if you're right, then it was a fun debate while it lasted.

[mntleo2]

7. IMO it all depends upon what we call "work"

At this time the only "work" we value is paid work, no other work is counted worthy of our support (ie tax dollars). If we began to value unpaid work it could change some things.

I disagree with this young man and with some of the other posters that Socialism encourages laziness. Almost everyone wants to contribute, who does not want to contribute IMO, has a form of mental illness. We are communal creatures and want to be valued for who we are, it is innate in our DNA as group animals. It is all about what we value, so being "lazy" is merely something we have devalued and what we call "work" is giving value to whatever we have decided is worthy. Some examples and than you can all argue among yourselves:

!. First of all it is about how we go about valuing things. Example: It is said that certain crystals and gems are far rarer than diamonds, yet it is the diamond that commands the greater value. Indeed the sapphire is far harder than a diamond and so are some crystals for industrial use and they can be just as spectacularly beautiful as far as jewelry is concerned. But this value is because we have all agreed collectively that diamonds are worth almost more than anything else (except perhaps gold,). BUT if suddenly the world were to collectively decide that diamonds are just rocks and had no value, then they would have no value. It is all about a sort of group think that gives most things "value".

2. At this time paid work is the *only* work we value. Example: Labor statistics show that because of all the unpaid work women do in care giving, they lose on the average of $275,000 over a work lifetime ~ and this is calculated at 70¢ for every man's dollar. This work is not only about children, it is also about our elders and spouses. If we were to create businesses to replace it so all woman could work for corporations, we would be looking at $Billions to replace all this free labor. Is this labor worthy of value? Indeed it is but since we do not value this work, we pretend it is "doing nothing" when in fact it is one of the bases of our communities. Instead we say that women doing this work are "not working" when in fact this work demands 24/7 presence without any sick leave, vacation pay, or consideration it contributes at all. We have even codified this work as "doing nothing" in the Personal Responsibilities and Work Opportunities Act (Welfare Reform) where we say the ONLY way Americans can contribute is about making some rich man richer by making poor women say for them, "Do you want fries with that?" instead of, "Hey Dad let's go for your daily walk," or "Sure Son I will sit down and work on your math with you," or "Dear, I will help you get into the bath as soon as I fix your wheelchair..."

3. If we valued work more, whether or not you became a doctor or a garbage person,if the value of the work they do without worry of what is "better" work and what is not or who "works harder" than someone else, could be a freeing thing for all. One could chjoose to be what they decided and put their time and energies into it with gusto, the artist, the mechanic, the child care worker, or whatever. To be honest, no more plastic surgeons would barely make a blip in our society, but take away all the garbage people? You are going to face some major health problems.

So IMO "laziness" is merely about what contributions we have devalued in order to pretend they do not exist or matter. If we truly valued the contributions most people make, we would treat the REAL lazy 1% as having ...mental issues ...and if we valued the rest for all they do, we would be willing to share more because we would value what they have contributed for the good of all.

But it is all just a state of mind as to what is and is not "work" in any case ...

My 2 cents,
Cat in Seattle

[Ravajava]

9. That guy

Hey, I'm the young man you disagree with. How's it going.

First off, the purpose of the video isn't really to discredit communism. I could probably do a 20 minute video on why I disagree with that alone. But I digress.

I completely understand your point. The group think dynamic is a very interesting thought. But overall, I disagree with your final conclusion. Here's why: Yes it is true, work in a Capitalist society isn't truly based on its overall benefit to society. As Jeff Gordon put it, "It's a great injustice that a Teacher educating the next generation makes only 50 to say 75 000 a year while I drives around in circles for five hours and make millions a year" (not the exact quote of course, but that's the just of it). Despite a few flaws like this and your example of plastic surgeons, that, for the most part, the amount of money you make in a job is a factor of how much education the job requires and how practical the job is. So, it is only right that a heart surgeon make more than the garbage man. Not to say the garbage man is not doing and important service for society, but the heart surgeon put considerably more effort in to getting that job. So, I think that is only fair that the heart surgeon have a higher quality of life then the man collecting the trash.

If this wasn't the case, and the two had the same or extremely similar qualities of life, who would put that extra time and effort into becoming a heart surgeon? Sure, a few would, as not everyone is so concerned about the all mighty dollar, but it would be a problem, just as it was in the Soviet Union.

So, I guess the tie in with this video is that I'm saying that inequality is good, just don't screw over the working class, because it isn't good for anyone when you do that, both morally and economically.

[SkyDaddy7]

13. I really enjoyed your video...

You are so young & so bright! I like the way you think & the fact you don't talk to people like you are above them like others around here do. If I were you I would continue with your thought process & develop your ideas based on what you learn as you go. Because like you, I see the importance of both systems we need an incentive mechanism to energize the Capitalist part of society which in turn pays for the Socialist side...The key in my opinion is trying to find that right mix.

[Ravajava]

25. Glad that you liked it!

(subscriptions on YT are nice)


It's funny, that's exactly why I came here, new ideas, facts, etc.

It's all about striking that happy medium.

[SkyDaddy7]

27. Exactly!!

YES, I will go sub now!

[AProgressiveThinker]

16. Exactly

And it's also because the heart surgeon had to pay more to get into college, like you said, had to work very hard in college and pay a high tuition every year. You don't have to go to college to become a garbageman and you're right, it's a very important job, but the heart surgeon but much more time and effort to become a heart surgeon.

However, I think teachers especially in many of the Southern states should get paid a higher wage. Like the heart surgeon, the teacher had to go through graduate school and a lot of hard work to become a teacher. Teachers have an extremely important job of educating kids and maybe being a factor in what job the kid gets when he's older and in a lot of the southern states, teachers are paid only like $40,000-$45,000 and that's not even their starting wage.

Not only would increasing the salary of those teachers be moral but it would also increase the incentive to become a teacher which is sharply declining in this country especially in my state, New Jersey, after Christie made the budget cuts on schools.

[mntleo2]

22. What a smart and thoughtful young man!

You answer to my comment is very cogent. Your capacity for critical thinking is very impressive and I am saying that in admiration! While inequality may be good to stimulate competition and push people to the limits in order to "outdo" the next guy, inequality is something that comes out of subjective thinking as everything is a matter of what we collectively value...

I have to ask further however. If anything to help you keep questioning:

What is "hard work"? Why is going to college "harder work" than the garbage man who labors day in and day out ruining his body, exposing himself to disease while heaving heavy containers for 10 years any "less work" than the same 10 years of schooling? We could point to skill BUT I would say there are just as few who can perform the work of a garbage man as there is the heart surgeon as far as skill. If we want to consider intelligence and "working harder", which is "better" physical or mental prowess? I can tell you, as someone who has worked McJobs for 35 years, in some so-called "mindless work" I have not only worked with doctorates, I have worked with people SMARTER than any doctor at the level of Menses in IQ who used every bit of their mental AND physical capacity in their work. The truth is, the field of garbage is vastly more needed in order to maintain our society than heart surgery and it uses all those skills.

I met Barbara Erhenrich who wrote Nickeled and Dimed Or Not where she went undercover and worked these McJobs. She told me the most surprising thing she discovered about these McJobs were not only were they physically demanding, they had a myriad of details and knowledge that went along with them that were every bit as challenging as any wonk work she did~ and she is a doctorate, lol.

Unfortunately as an American who does not have your awesome health care, most American people cannot even afford heart surgery and most will die without it. We can't even help each other with health care and forget dental care millions will do without it even though we know that without dental care that bad teeth and gums affect the heart ~ but whether or not we Americans refuse to support health care, everyone, even those with Universal Health care, will die MUCH sooner without the garbage person than they will without the heart surgeon.

Keep doing what you do, Dear, I have three sons and mess with them like this all the time ...

Love, Cat in Seattle

[Ravajava]

24. Interesting thought...

You're going to grow my ego with that sorta talk

That's a good question...

I guess it really comes down to two things, education and how much the employer values their employees. The heart surgeons extra pay is compensation in a sense for slaving away in school an extra decade. The other thing is that people are paid for skill, as you said. That's not to say that our aforementioned garbage man and McD's employee aren't skilled, nor are they lazy, but its to say that their employers view them as replaceable. A heart surgeon is a bit harder for a hospital to replace, the company wants to retain him. Furthermore, it requires more money to train a heart surgeon than a garbage man or a McD's employee. As I said, garbage men do have an important job, and I honestly don't think McD's employees are fairly paid (seriously, why don't fast food employee's have unions yet?) but I still maintain that the heart surgeon should be paid more.

On your final point, I guess people aren't really paid based off their value to society necessarily, although that plays a role. Many factors culminate to define wages and so on.

Thank's for bringing that up. I'd never really considered that question. It goes back to my belief that discussion isn't about winning, but it's about having your beliefs questioned, and learning why you believe them in a more deep and complex way. And, of course, how to defend your ideas. So keep messing with them (because this 18 year old is such a master of parenting XD)

[jjewell]

11. In my view, and in the view of many others...

Socialism without Capitalism is Communism,

And

Capitalism without Socialism is Fascism...

For our own sake, we must maintain our uneasy balance between Capitalism and Socialism...

[AProgressiveThinker]

14. Not really

Socialism is just the transition phase to the end result, "communism" But what communist countries have always end up being are one party states because of the revolution of a vanguard party and I agree, we do need some capitalism and socialism.

[stlsaxman]

12. Are you confusing socialism with communism? An unfortunately common mistake.

[SkyDaddy7]

15. No, he is saying both...

Capitalism & Socialism have some very good traits & the key is to find the right mix. He explains in more detail in a reply to someone else on this page.

[rug]

17. Hegel disagrees.

[Ravajava]

20. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel?

Never heard of him until this point. Sorry ^^;

[rug]

21. He was a proponent of dialectics.

From the thesis an antithesis arises. The result of the clash is a synthesis. Competing ideas change each other into something else but they no longer coexist.

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm

Marx used this reasoning to explain the transition from feudalism to capitalism, then to socialism and finally to communism.

On edit: Welcome to DU!

[Ravajava]

23. Intersting stuff

Thanks for the link. Certainly an interesting read. Now, I'm not sure their is a force driving humanity towards a dictatorship over the proletariat, and I think it is impossible to step outside the controlled argument. Albeit, I guess that really depends what "controlled argument" means... This is mainly because I suggest reading Why Nations Fail, there are a few chapters that are very relevant. In one chapter of the book, the authors breaks down very specific moments in history that made societies more egalitarian or totalitarian. I'm sure it would pique your interests.

On your point, that may be true, but is that an inherently bad thing? This of course coming from someone who believe that either extreme is bad. Albeit, seeing as you report to a Marxist point of view, I can understand why you would think that the transformed in-between would be bad. From my point of view though, it isn't.

Albeit, I don't feel that I know as much about Marx as I should.

And thank you

[TBF]

26. Sure, we've seen how well that works ... (and it's not because of the socialism) nt