I've posted this on other boards - so how about here: Why is Capitalism better?

[Taverner]

I don't think it is. It's what we have for now, and so one should do their best within the system they've got, not the one they want.

Honestly, for most people, Socialism is better. I am not talking Marxist Leninism, Rousseau, or any specific theorist.

Socialism is simply the economic model where the public or direct worker owns and administers the means of production and allocation of resources.

As a broad concept, why is this not better than Capitalism?

[humpty dumpty]

1. Why is Capitalism better?

why is capitalism better? Because it works?

[Taverner]

2. Socialism works. No one's ever tested distributism.

Socialism works right now in Europe, in hybrid economies

[ThomWV]

12. There is not one single example of socialism having worked anywhere for more than a few years

And nowhere in europe today is there Socialism, every single country operates under a capitalistic model.

[wuushew]

13. What about the experience in Spain?

doesn't that count more than a few years? If the fascists hadn't destroyed Spain in the civil war the data set would be much better.

[Taverner]

21. Very true!

Venezuela is a good example too, same with Bolivia (or Bolivia in the future)

[ThomWV]

63. Yeah and if shit was green it wouldn't be purple.

"If" the Fascists hadn't destroyed spain in the civil war .... blah, blah, blah. "If" shit wasn't green it would be purple. The fact is it didn't survive.

[Hannah Bell]

88. lol. because the capitalists "democratically" murdered it by force of arms.

[cameozalaznick]

16. No, most democractic (small d) seem to be operating with...

a Keynesian style of capitalism/socialism combo. It's like a spectrum and some countries may tilt more toward the socialism side and others will tilt more toward capitalism. But there are very few countries that are pure capitalism, because like communism, pure free market capitalism has never been enacted except at the point of a gun. Never. Free people don't want it. They want a little socialism. they need a little socialism. There are just some things that the free market can't do: fire and police protection, and criminal justice, for example.

[mudplanet]

92. And health care.

[Taverner]

20. They are hybrids. And that is a good thing.

Mostly following the minarchist model (the government does what is necesarry, and no one else can do)

The US is based on this as well...

[Fool Count]

52. Not one single example? I will give you one.

Socialism worked just fine in USSR for over 70 years, turning a backwards illiterate
desperately poor peasant country into the second most powerful military-industrial
empire in the world. That happened also in the face of relentlessly aggressive
hostility from the rest of the world, and despite USSR having to fight several
costly wars, most devastating of which (WWII) left the country in complete ruin
and 25 million less in population. And, please, don't give me that crap, about how
terrible a totalitarian dictatorship USSR was. I was born and spent 25 years of my life
there, and it was nothing of the sort. It was a dynamic vibrant society full of happy, free
and creative people - it would not have been able to compete with the US for so long
otherwise. All the propaganda lies drilled into the brains of the gullible western
mass media consumers is just a reflection of how afraid the capitalist masters are
of people finding out that a human society can exist, thrive and progress without
a profit motive.

[ThomWV]

62. My god what an awful misreading of history

It is almost laughable. Socialism in the old USSR was dead before Stalin took power.

[Hannah Bell]

75. says the scholar who told me corporations pay half of income taxes.

[ThomWV]

101. Have you ever bothered to look it up?

Or is this just one more little ditty you've pulled out of your ass. I have to wonder, do you just sit around all day imaging your own perfect universe, or does actual fact sink in from time to time? I ask because if its the latter it sure doesn't show.

[Hannah Bell]

106. um: not only did i look it up, i linked you to irs data. you never responded to the post.

but i notice you're johnny on the spot with the personal insults.

the first sign of one who's got jack for an argument.

[Hannah Bell]

127. like you never responded to this one. quick with the lip, not good with the

confirming details, i see.

[Hannah Bell]

74. +100.

[proteus_lives]

84. So, you've never actually read a history book either?

[Hannah Bell]

85. so you can only counter the russian-born poster's comments with snark?

- turning a backwards illiterate desperately poor peasant country into the second most powerful military-industrial empire in the world = true

- in the face of relentlessly aggressive hostility from the rest of the world = true

- despite USSR having to fight several costly wars, most devastating of which (WWII) left the country in complete ruin and 25 million less in population = true


"One in 31 U.S. Adults are Behind Bars, on Parole or Probation"

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=49696

[proteus_lives]

86. Was it a free country?

Was the empire of Red Tsars, gulags, bread lines, massacres, the KGB and one-party rule free?

"turning a backwards illiterate desperately poor peasant country into the second most powerful military-industrial empire in the world = true"

How many millions did Lenin and Stalin throw into the fires to make that happen? Will you own up to that?

"in the face of relentlessly aggressive hostility from the rest of the world = true"

Because Soviet hostility didn't exist.....:eyes:

"despite USSR having to fight several costly wars, most devastating of which (WWII) left the country in complete ruin and 25 million less in population = true"

Made more devastating because of the Communist's stupidity. Partnering with Nazi Germany, raping Poland and the Baltic nations, getting the shit kicked out of them by Finland, executing and starving their own people en masse.

Yeah, the USSR truly was the worker's paradise. :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

87. i don't believe that freedom was the issue under debate.

but let's debate it.

is the us a free country?

do you want to defend that proposition?



you might start by defining "freedom".

i'll throw this factoid out:

1 in 31 americans is in prison, on probation or parole.

1/18 of men.

1/11 of black adults.

the incarceration rate is higher than any other country (including the ussr) in recorded history.



"How many millions did Lenin and Stalin throw into the fires..."


no one knows. let's see whose estimates you're using for your "100 million" figure, then we'll talk.

but when you're doing your comparative analysis, please make sure you include the equivalent figures in the "US" column.

[proteus_lives]

90. Deflecting.

Am I ruining your college-era, fannish view of the USSR?

"the incarceration rate is higher than any other country (including the ussr) in recorded history."

How many of them will be worked to death? Herded into mass graves?


"is the us a free country?"

More free then the USSR ever was. One-party rule and all that.

This is making me laugh. People who worship dead ideologies always do.

[Hannah Bell]

91. not at all. but i note the quick resort to ad hom, always the sign of someone who can't argue his

point.

i asked you some specific questions. you didn't answer them.

you didn't provide the source for your "100 million" figure, for starters.



"How many of them will be worked to death? Herded into mass graves?"

i see. so freedom exists unless the prisoners are on a chain gang or shot. then you don't know the history of who actually built this country, do you?

because it was built by conscripted & slave labor. who were, in fact, worked to death, murdered, & buried in mass graves.

and still we have....e.g.

1/13 in georgia imprisoned, on probation & on parole.



Meanwhile, capitalism spreads its "freedom" to the world:

In September of 2005, 15 workers from six different countries, United States, China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nicaragua and Swaziland, filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, claiming that the company isn't doing anything to correct the sweatshop like conditions most of its factories are being run under. The lawsuit states, "Based on its vast economic power, Wal-Mart, based on its code of conduct, can and does control the working conditions of its supplier factories. It could use its power and position to prevent its producers from profiting from the inhumane treatment of ". The complaint focuses on the terrible stories of 16 different factory workers. One talks about how she was locked in the factory and forced to work every single day for six months. Another speaks of how she was brutally beaten because she didn't meet her outrageously high quota. One plaintiff, from Swaziland, claims that he had to labor for 16 hours straight in a factory where they locked the doors to ensure that no one left. In response to this lawsuit, Wal-Mart declared that they are doing everything they can "to verify that factories are in compliance with labor laws," but realistically violations are going to occur.

Even more disturbing than the human rights violations adults have been subject to, is the sickening way children have been treated in Wal-Mart factories for years. In Bangladesh, children between the ages of nine and twelve are paid five cents an hour and forced to work past midnight making Wal-Mart clothes. In Honduras, it was discovered that children ages thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen were working for thirteen hours a day, twenty-five cents an hour, sewing twenty-dollar jeans. These children had restricted bathroom breaks and were beaten for their mistakes. So why aren't these types of facilities being immediately shut down? Because no one knows where these factories are located. Wal-Mart feels that the locations of its factories are at their disclosure. And so, behind barbed wire and metal gates, these children slave away. In Wal-Mart's official statement concerning sweatshops, the company said, "Wal-Mart strives to do business only with factories run legally and ethically". Certainly, the way these children are being used as slaves cannot be called by any means "ethical."

http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=68


I wonder how many are worked to death?

interesting how walmart can verify the specifications of its goods down to the last inch of thread -- but oooh, it's *hard* to keep 10-year-olds out of the factories it contracts with.






Coke Hit with New Charges of Murder, Rape, Torture at their processing and bottling plants in Guatemala
Written by Maryanne Euthalia
Thursday, 04 March 2010 20:22

A lawsuit (Case No. 10102514; Palacios et al. v. The Coca-Cola Co. and Does 1 through 10 inclusive) was filed on behalf of eight plaintiffs in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against The Coca-Cola Co. and Coke processing and bottling plants in Guatemala. This case involves charges of murder, rape and torture. The plaintiffs include union leaders and family members. This case has been brought in New York State because plaintiffs and other victims of human rights abuses lack access to an independent and functioning legal system within Guatemala, a country with a corrupt judiciary which has been undermined by the intimidation and murder of witnesses, prosecutors, lawyers and judges.

"Coca-Cola's crimes against union leaders continue. This Guatemala case shows, tragically, that Coca-Cola's Workplace Rights Policy, and its other false claims to the public about respecting the rights of workers to join unions, are nothing more than a public relations campaign designed to deceive the public," said Terry Collingsworth, lead counsel in the case.

http://www.vee2.net/business/42-business-news/4105-coke.html


i wonder how many unionists in mass graves?

unfortunately, no one's counting these people for a "black book of capitalism"

[proteus_lives]

107. Don't have a response to the one-party rule?

"you didn't provide the source for your "100 million" figure"

Where did I say a 100 million anything?

"see. so freedom exists unless the prisoners are on a chain gang or shot. then you don't know the history of who actually built this country, do you?

because it was built by conscripted & slave labor. who were, in fact, worked to death, murdered, & buried in mass graves."

I acknowledge that. But do you acknowledge the blood-price of the failure of the USSR? You think the workers had any choices in Tsarist or Soviet Russia? :rofl: Nobles and owners were simply replaced by party bosses.

Yeah, you're talking about prisons and the darkside of overseas factories but I still don't see how that makes the old USSR such a wonderful place......

If the USSR was such a wonderful place why were the Russians so eager to give it up? Oh yeah, that's right. Their experiment in communism was a massive failure.

[Hannah Bell]

118. "acknowledge the blood-price" - i keep asking you for specifics, but you don't answer.

[proteus_lives]

119. Specifics? Sure.

Lenin's secret police and betrayal of his revolution.

The slaughter of the Kulaks.

The murderous and brutal economic policies of Stalin.

The Ukrainian Holodomor

The show-trials of the '30s.

The rape of the Baltic nations.

The Betrayal at Brest-Litovsk.

The attack against Finland.

NK's crusade against religion.

The Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Berlin Blockade.

The crimes against the Hungarian Revolution

The Prague Spring.

The Korean Conflict.

And many others.

[Hannah Bell]

120. finally, something concrete. now honestly, don't you think a similar list could be compiled for the

US, England, France, Germany, etc?

Seriously.

[proteus_lives]

150. But those countries are still kicking.

And we're not talking about Russia, we're talking communism and the USSR.

They didn't even last a century.

[Fool Count]

128. "One-party rule" my ass. How is your pseudo-two-party rule

better? At least the party ruling the USSR represented the interests of the workers.
Whose interests your two parties represent? Exactly. Great fucking choice. I'll take
the Soviet "one-party" state over that so-called "democracy" any day. Because with
all their much maligned quirks, the Soviet apparatchiks were infinitely closer to
ordinary citizens and more in tune and responsive to their needs than your so-called
"democratically elected" representatives. At least the Soviet bureaucrats were not
in the pocket of banks, insurance companies and the big pharma, so they could actually
do what they thought was right without fear of upsetting their masters. This "freedom"-
thumping stuff from militantly ignorant Americans really gets under my skin. If you are
so fucking "free", why can't you even get yourselves a universal healthcare system?
I hear most people want it, do they not?

[proteus_lives]

151. So you'd give up freedom for security.

The USSR didn't even last a century, there's a reason for that.

"At least the party ruling the USSR represented the interests of the workers."

No they didn't. If they did why did the party elite ride chauffeured cars to their private dachas while the workers stood in bread lines? They represented their own interests. No votes, no choices, they were no different then the Tsarist nobles and owners they replaced.

"why can't you even get yourselves a universal healthcare system?
I hear most people want it, do they not?"

We're working on it skippy.

"This "freedom"-
thumping stuff from militantly ignorant Americans really gets under my skin."

Sorry, we're not as ignorant as you think. We didn't grow-up under censorship, approved reading lists, banned materials or fear of the KGB.

[mudplanet]

93. How many will be worked to death? Actually, conditions in some US prisons

have become so bad that they, arguably, are comparable to some of the worst prisons in history.

Rape is so common in US prisons that it has become a standing "joke" in American culture.

I'm not going to defend Stalin, the motherfucker was a brutal, deranged mass murderer, as Khrushchev and others in Russia pointed out when they replaced him ("Stalinism isn't communism"). And repression in the Soviet Union was bad in many parts of the country up until the dissolution.

But the fact, and I mean "FACT" is that when Russia was run by the communists their standard of living was higher and no Russians were homeless or starved to death. Under unregulated capitalism Russia evolved (devolved) into a country in which there is a dual economy, with a small cadre of rich people in their major urban centers and the majority of the population disenfranchised from the "new economy" and struggling to survive. It most closely resembles, economically, most capitalist countries (e.g., Mexico, India, Brazil, and most countries on the continent of Africa).

Almost all of the underdeveloped world operates under the capitalist model, and in most cases it looks like these countries aren't developing toward a universally higher standard of living, but toward an extreme, feudal economically polarized culture wherein an extremely small proportion of the population has all the power and all the wealth and the vast majority of the population lives in a state of desperation and poverty. This is pretty much what Marxist theory predicts about capitalism and it seems, historically, to be pretty accurate.

Cubans may not have much, but everyone has a home, gets a GOOD education and GOOD health care and enough to eat. This despite the fact that their country has essentially been in a state of near war with the most powerful country in the world for fifty years. Who knows what Cuba might be like it the US hadn't been working so hard to destroy it for half a century.

It's one thing to point at the US and say, "See, capitalism provides the highest standard of living," (while all objective measures have been showing that for the past thirty years the mixed socialist/capitalist economies in Western Europe actually provide higher standards of living and a better quality of life) but yet another to explain why the standard of living in the vast majority of capitalist countries is so poor.

[proteus_lives]

108. I disagree.

You really think any US prison compares to a Soviet gulag?

"Under unregulated capitalism Russia evolved (devolved) into a country in which there is a dual economy, with a small cadre of rich people in their major urban centers and the majority of the population disenfranchised from the "new economy" and struggling to survive."

How is that different then Soviet Russia? Party elite rode in chauffeured cars to their private dachas while the Soviet worker stood in bread lines.

"Cubans may not have much, but everyone has a home, gets a GOOD education and GOOD health care and enough to eat."

And they can't choose their leaders, access the internet or have freedom of speech. What a trade. Why can't Cuba have all those good things AND different political parties? What is the Cuban Communist party so afraid of? Why are all communist states one-party dictatorships?

I believe that the future is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. But marxism and communism? Dead and buried and rightfully so.

[mudplanet]

113. Have you ever been in a US prison? On know well anyone who has? How about Angola? Or Jackson State?

You really think any US prison compares to a Soviet gulag? Yes, I do. In fact, in many cases it's worse.

"Under unregulated capitalism Russia evolved (devolved) into a country in which there is a dual economy, with a small cadre of rich people in their major urban centers and the majority of the population disenfranchised from the "new economy" and struggling to survive."

How is that different then Soviet Russia? Party elite rode in chauffeured cars to their private dachas while the Soviet worker stood in bread lines. Yes, the party elite had unfair privileges, but for the most part, no one stood in bread lines. The stood in lines of lots of other consumer goods, though. But they didn't stand in lines for food, or for medical care, or for housing. I'm no big fan of Soviet Communism either, but the average Soviet citizen had it much better than the average citizen that lived in a capitalist society at that time, as the "average" would be defined as a citizen of an underdeveloped country. Under capitalism the "party elite" (the rich) get instant access to world class health care while the "worker" gets denied basic health care and is forced into penury if he experiences a major illness. That's if he's lucky enough to get care - something like 40 thousand of them die every year in this country because they can't "afford" medical care.

"Cubans may not have much, but everyone has a home, gets a GOOD education and GOOD health care and enough to eat."

And they can't choose their leaders, access the internet or have freedom of speech. What a trade. Why can't Cuba have all those good things AND different political parties? What is the Cuban Communist party so afraid of? Why are all communist states one-party dictatorships? Maybe Cuban's would have all that, or most of it, if the U.S. hadn't been waging a continuous war against their country for a half century. But I repeat myself. What are Cuban's afraid of? Of being invaded and colonized and subjugated by the U.S. Ever heard of the CIA and the Bay of Pigs? There are people that have blown up hundreds of people in airplanes that were flying to or from Cuba that enjoy complete immunity in the U.S.

I believe that the future is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. But marxism and communism? Dead and buried and rightfully so. Oh, bullshit. Karl Marx defined capitalism. Before he came along, no one knew what the hell was going on. A lot of his theory may be outdated, or irrelevant, but his basic analysis of capitalism is, essentially, the gold standard. Hell, MBA schools all teach it, although many give it another name or obfuscate the origin of their ideas. The basic difference between Marxists and asswipes like Milton Friedman is that Marxists believe putting profits before people is immoral and capitalists think people are subordinate to profits.

Saying that 'Marxism is dead' is like saying history has ended, or the ideals of Christianity are dead.

[Statistical]

143. No Russians starved to death under communism. Are you fucking kidding me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921

Do the 5 million people in 1921 not count?

Double or triple that would have died had it not been for international aid. Free assistance from those "ebil" capitalistic countries.

[SimonPhoenix]

159. You just lost the argument

You're honestly going to compare US prisons to Soviet gulags?

First of all, how many people are currently in U.S. prisons for exercising their freedom of speech rights? Now think of how many people were in Soviet gulags for daring to speak "truth to power" and oppose the government. Now think of how many people have simply disappeared or were incarcerated in Cuba for daring to speak the truth as well.

[mudplanet]

161. This isn't an argument. I've been in U.S. prisons and know people

that have done time in U.S. prisons, and I'm familiar with the gulag system and have read "A Day in the Life..." and I'm asserting that, in fact, conditions in many U.S. prisons are worse than it was for many in the gulags.

There are prisons in the U.S. in which prisoners are kept in isolation 24/7 for life and denied contact with the outside world.

Hell, I watched a video of a police officer beating a handcuffed man to death in a U.S. jail last year. And that was just the one that happened to be caught on tape. Most prisons don't have cameras everywhere.

This "argument" seems to have devolved into assertions about America being more "free" than the Soviet Union and Cuba.

On 9/11 the U.S. claimed it was "at war" and has used this as a pretext to jail, torture and kill a lot of people since. The Cubans under Castro have never resorted to torture and murder, despite the fact that they have been more "at war" than the U.S. for a half century. And there was never any system of "apartheid" in the Soviet Union, while in the U.S. the trains had to stop at the Mason Dixon Line so the Black people could move to the substandard rail cars.

If The Patriot Act (heretofore to be known as the Nazification of America Act) had been in effect in the 1960's, thousands of peaceful civil rights workers would have been subjected to legal imprisonment and torture.(many of them were, anyway). Ain't freedom grand.

[SimonPhoenix]

163. Here's the point you missed

If a rapist is in jail and gets beaten to death by a prison guard or by inmates, you can't compare that to someone imprisoned in a Soviet gulag for daring to oppose the government dying of starvation.

Some people today would say the rapist got what he deserved. I doubt that anyone would agree that the Soviet prisoner deserved to even BE in prison, but maybe you would.

[SimonPhoenix]

164. "There are prisons in the U.S. in which prisoners are kept in isolation 24/7 for life "

I assume you oppose the death penalty. What else would you have us do with some of the murderers that didn't get it but are dangers to other inmates? 23 hour confinement is hardly cruel and unusual punishment. Where does it end? How much does your heart have to bleed before we call an embulance to take you to the ER? Think about the VICTIMS. I definitely won't lose any sleep at night thinking about murderers serving life sentences in isolation. Are life sentences cruel and unusual punishment in your opinion? Huh, let it out, mudplanet. Should we have mandatory parole after a given number of years, no matter how heinous the offense? Let's see a major party advocate that-watch how fast their influence dwindles to nothing.

Again, this is why your argument is specious and the comparison is inappropriate. Most of the people in permanent isolation are people who have committed incredibly heinous crimes and/or are quite dangerous to prison staff and other inmates.

[mudplanet]

178. No, I didn't miss the point. The point is

that, in this country, there's this thing called the Constitution. It's supposed to be the supreme law of the land. And it prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Lifetime solitary is cruel and unusual punishment. Torturing and murdering people is unconstitutional. Even if you believe in capital punishment, if you believe it's ok to impose it without due process, you're nothing more than a monster. The kind of monster that would be right at home as a guard in a gulag.

I could give a rat's ass what they do in other countries, as it's not my direct responsibility. What is done in my country with my tax dollars is my responsibility.

What, you think rapists are the only people that get raped in prison? Rapists DO the raping in prison. And people that think someone "deserves" to be raped, beaten, or killed are seriously, seriously morally corrupt = typical conservatives.

[SimonPhoenix]

180. Hah

Even if you believe in capital punishment, if you believe it's ok to impose it without due process, you're nothing more than a monster. The kind of monster that would be right at home as a guard in a gulag.

Never said this, big.

Even if you believe in capital punishment, if you believe it's ok to impose it without due process, you're nothing more than a monster. The kind of monster that would be right at home as a guard in a gulag.

Sorry, I forgot you were a prison expert. You know, because you have visited them and know people serving time in them. I don't think that saying that a rapist deserves to be raped in prison makes me morally corrupt. You're on the side of the criminals and that makes you morally corrupt. Nary a thought for the victims from mudplanet- he/she is too concerned with the rapists that might have anything other than a perfectly pleasant experience in prison, because heaven knows that the Constitution protects the rights of inmates to always be safe from harm. Too bad the Constitution doesn't protect the rights of victims to always be safe from the future inmates. Oh wait.

[Statistical]

144. Stalin didn't need prisons. He just KILLED people. If we exterminated the 2 million people in jail

guess what we would have lowest incarceration rate in the developed world.

That would be progress right. Exterminations without due process? Is that the new rallying cry for new progressive movement.

[Statistical]

140. At what cost. The Soviet Union exterminated 55 million of their own people to accomplish those goal

[SimonPhoenix]

158. Hey

Hi Hannah Banana,

Do you happen to know if the original USSR-born poster still resides in what is now Russia? If he presently resides in the US, why do you think he left?

Why do you think that millions left or tried to leave the USSR up to and after the fall of the Berlin Wall? Were they all right-wingers who couldn't stand the workers having control of the means of production? Perhaps they didn't like the mass shortages and subpar quality of many goods "allocated" for the common good?

Fight on, sister. Solidarity now. Our streets!

[tkmorris]

171. Hannah Banana? What are you, 12 years old?

Raise the level of your argument or be thought of as an intellectual lightweight. If you think he's wrong that's fine, but I have to tell you that right now HE sounds like he is trying to be somewhat objective and you don't. Do you really want to lose an argument that you seem to feel you are so clearly on the right side of?

[SimonPhoenix]

172. Because you feel the need to attack me as an intellectual lightweight,

I should point out to you that unless Hannah Banana is a member of the T sub group of GLBT, that Hannah is likely a FEMALE, and you should not be referring to her as a he.

[Hannah Bell]

173. the mass shortages of the new capitalist russia, you mean? you may be right.

since mortality rates soared & lifespan dropped unprecedentedly in the transition.

[SimonPhoenix]

187. If mortality rates soared and lifespan dropped unprecedently,

how exactly did that create a goods shortage?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[timo]

100. not in ukraine

not in ukraine, never like that in ukraine!!!!!

[Statistical]

139. Worked out great for the 55 million people murdered by their own government.

Were they just an "acceptable consequence" to a communist paradise?

How much thriving did they do in mass graves?

[Hannah Bell]

174. 55 million, you say? source?

[JVS]

142. Yeah. When people say Socialism doesn't work they seem to forget the pants shitting terror that...

the USSR gave to Capitalists.

[guardian]

181. "Socialism worked just fine in USSR for over 70 years"

Tell that to the people of 1933 Ukraine. I guess your definition of "happy, free, and creative" is synonymous with 'dead'

[Oregone]

64. Ive seen very successful examples of socialism

Google BC Hydro and BC Liquor. Two very profitable socialistic entities operating in a mixed market.

[Raineyb]

70. Actually they work on a mixed model. There is no place that works on a pure socialist model.

And any country with leaders with half a brain don't run a on a pure capitalist model either.

[mudplanet]

94. Exactly, Most underdeveloped and undeveloped countries

operate under almost pure capitalist models. And they remain underdeveloped and backwards.

[WVRICK13]

97. You're Right

Socialism isn't working here either. At least the US brand of socialism of taking from the poor to give to the rich. Give us true capitalism, let the rich fend for themselves.

[Ildem09]

112. Pure capitalism is rubbish. Pure Socialism hasn't been tried

The Sweet spot would seem to be Euro Style regulated capitalism or Scandinavian Democratic Capitalism.. I quite like that term Democratic Capitalism

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Actually capitalism has reached its limits and no longer works.

It is a system that requires perpetual growth and works only within an infinite resource environment. We have reached the limits of growth, we have smacked into global warming and peak oil, and capitalism is failing. The economic crisis we are very much still in has no particular solution within the framework of capitalism. Capitalist nations do not have the tools or political will to deal with the crisis at hand and so the solution is to do nothing. The results are not likely to be pleasant.

[JackRiddler]

72. Capitalism has never "worked" without powerful state intervention.

Every country that achieved an industrial takeoff did it by protecting the domestic market and helping the nascent industries. The free market is a myth adopted most vigorously once Britain had the advantage of development.

Modern corporate capitalism works by socializing and externalizing costs while privatizing profit. If the R&D and infrastructure wasn't paid by taxpayers to start industries and the bailout didn't come once they ran into crisis (because eternal growth is impossible), the in-between phase of profitability would be impossible.

Socialism doesn't have to mean one central state controlling everything. Capital should be owned and issued by non-private bodies with representation for all stakeholders in the economy. As opposed to a narrowminded, tiny technocratic and super-rich elite.

[wuushew]

7. How does capitalism overcome the limits of growth?

Historically societial collapse was the mechanism. I am not really interested in that option. Also I fail to see how the wealth accumulation fuction of capitialism doesn't reach a crisis point in a steady state environment.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

15. Capitalism is not about wealth accumulation per se, but investment.

Wealth accumulation enables investment in things that have a chance of producing more value than they cost. Some investments, like biotech R&D, requires insane quantities of capital but the investment is frequently worth it.

When there is nothing worth investing in then capitalism will be dead as a practical matter. Policies that reduce returns on investment naturally reduce investment, so this state can be induced regardless of whether or not their are things objectively worth investing in.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. investment without growth is failed investment

The problem we are watching unfold is very much tied to the limits of growth: in order to continue wealth accumulation through investment, those investments become more and more artificial, are frequently fraudulent, and are prone to sudden collapse. Unlike prior eras, there are no new regions of the planet to exploit, no escape from the saturated state we are in.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

24. Not strictly true.

Some individual investments can produce value and progress even if the aggregate economy is in decline or static.

We aren't anywhere near the end of useful investment, there are just more things pulling us backward. To put it another way, think about how bad it would be if productive investment wasn't canceling out some of the backward motion of the economy.

However bad things are now, they could be a lot worse.

[Hannah Bell]

77. investments that don't result in increased wealth, i.e. profit = failed investments.

it's funny to hear people say capitalism isn't about wealth accumulation when indeed profit is capitalism's sine qua non.

capitalism = a system of private ownership of productive resources in which private capital is invested for the purpose of obtaining profit.

the outcome of which is inevitably expanded production a/o increased concentration of capital ownership.

[guitar man]

37. Well if it's going to work

It needs to get workin, because it's turning into a miserable failure in this country right now.

Unfettered , unregulated disaster capitalism will degrade into feudalism because left unchecked, most of the priveleged class will not do the right thing. With proper oversight and regulation, capitalism can work quite well.

[Hannah Bell]

73. try defining "works" first.

[Skittles]

76. oh yeah

it's working SOOOOOO well

[devilgrrl]

154. Prove it.

:popcorn:

[Happy Hippy]

3. Ask India

Almost as soon as India abandoned its socialist foolishness their economy picked up rapid steam.

[Dramarama]

17. or china

[Birthmark]

31. You really mean...

...as soon as they opened their massive (and extremely cheap) labor pool to Western corporations, the jobs went there. Even so, per capita GDP in India is a whopping $3100! Man, that's good times...except for maybe the environmental hell.

The same applies to China.

So, yeah, if you provide a cheap labor force and don't give a shit about the environment or the people, capital will flood into your country.

But are you sure that's a good selling point for capitalism.

[Canuckistanian]

51. No

India's economy picked up when western countries found out that there was a well-educated class of young people who would work for pennies on the dollar.

And it was technology (cheap telecommunications, cheap computers and the Internet) that allowed it to expand.

Don't be fooled - socialism is alive and well in India, coexisting with the few rich entrpreneurs.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Northerner]

6. As long as there are rules I think capitalism can work well

But, what we currently have is a mixed-economic system of capitalism, socialism, & corporatism.

The government & corporations are always trying to rig the game & limit competition in their favors.

[Radical Activist]

8. It's better that state-socialsim with government run industry.

That form rarely goes well. It killed millions under Mao and Stalin.
But as others have written, a decentralized socialist economy with direct worker ownership of companies appears to combine efficiency and fairness better than any economic system yet attempted.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. The argument is....

That the potential reward for effort is greater in a Capitalist economic structure than in a Socialist one.


This motivates people to excel, and some small percentage of them succeed because of the added effort.

In an environment where you know you will be receiving pretty much the same compensation for your work no matter how hard you work there is a tendency to not put forth additional effort. This can create a "race to the bottom" where you may as well do as little as possible since your won't lose anything by doing less.



The extreme example is the story of 2 ranchers. Both raised chickens. One had 1000 chickens while the other had 500. The Government made certain that both ranchers had a reasonable standard of living. One day the rancher with 1000 chickens realized he was doing twice the work of the other rancher and he decided that was unfair. He then started butchering his chickens to help his family eat better. Eventually he had only 250 chicken, then the other rancher realized that he was the one doing twice the work and decided he was being treated unfairly. He then decided that his family should be able to eat better also and he began butchering his chickens too.

(Yes, I just made that up. Sorry it was so weak)




IMO what is needed is a system where necessities are Socialized while luxuries are Capitalized.

There was a thread up recently about 3 children dying in a fire because their utilities had been cut off. This is clearly the evil side of Capitalism. Basics such as heat should be Socialized so that this never happens.

We do still need an avenue for people who are willing to try to achieve a higher status to attempt to do so. Non essentials beyond food, water, clothing, shelter and health care should be left to the free market (with reasonable restrictions) to allow people to improve their status.


I could go on and on but there are plenty of books on the subject and I am not trying to write a book here.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

11. I think much of the argument is what constitutes "necessity".

The reality is that no one is happy with genuine necessity and so the definition keeps getting ratcheted upward.

Most Americans I know define it as somewhere between "comfortable" and "the lifestyle I am accustomed to". And therein lies the problem.

[RainDog]

14. there is more social mobility in western europe than in the U.S.

this is a talking point people in the U.S. just assume - that people can improve their lives in this big fat capitalist shake down but that's not true.

all large systems need balances, imo. social with capital, branches of govt, etc. we see the breakdown in our nation caused by having removed those balances in the form of govt restrictions on certain actions, like banks acting like investment firms.

[Hannah Bell]

89. "for people who are willing to try to achieve a higher status"

higher than what?

what is the problem with *everyone* having this "higher status"?

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

10. What are you trying to maximize and what tradeoffs will you accept?

Also, "capitalism" is a portmanteau. Two people will use it and mean wildly different things. All "capitalism" really implies is private investment. Everything else is a modifier to the concept.

The other caveat is that any maximization can only do so within the bounds of a Pareto function, which is just a technical way of saying it is impossible to have your cake and eat it too -- unpleasant tradeoffs are essentially required. Finding loopholes around the Pareto function have been the singular obsession of European economists for the last century, without any real progress to show for it.

[paulsby]

18. capitalism results in more efficiencies and better products/medicine, etc

which benefits EVERYBODY

increased efficiencies in agriculture, electronics, heck, practically everything disproportionately comes from capitalist countries? why? because there is incentive to make a better mousetrap.

socialism doesn't reward people.

there is a reason why nearly all the things that have improved our lives came from innovators in capitalist countries.


there is a reason why socialist societies had few innovations and decrepit infrastructure

[Birthmark]

26. LOL

"there is a reason why nearly all the things that have improved our lives came from innovators in capitalist countries."

Yeah, government grants, subsidies, tax breaks, guarantees, etc.

Can't beat the capitalism, eh? :)

[paulsby]

27. an evidenceless reply

why i am not surpised. please list all the wonderful technology, innovations, medicine, etc

that came out of

1) USSR
2) East Germany
3) etc.

and other socialist countries vs. capitalist powerhouses

capitalism WORKS

socialism does not

[Birthmark]

28. To an evidenceless post

But hant that mantra, baby. Maybe the great God Market will make you rich! LOL

Um, the USSR was the first to reach space, the first to put a human in orbit, the first to land on the Moon, the ONLY nation to land on Venus to this day. They had the highest number of doctors per capita in the world, and a host of other firsts. (That said, their government was abhorrent.)

Your worship of the screwdriver, er, capitalism tool is amusing. However, overlooking capitalisms many, many drawbacks isn't very interesting.

[paulsby]

32. who said

i overlooked capitalisms many drawbacks?

i didn't.

i simply said it was vastly superior to socialism

to quote an old wag, capitalism is the worst economic system there is, except for all the other ones.

one thing is certain. i have yet to hear about teeming hordes trying to get IN to socialist countries.

metric assloads try to get out. many fail and die, even.

that's about the most clear piece of evidence that capitalism is superior. people try to get IN to capitalist countries by escaping socialist countries (which hold them hostage)

any economic system that sucks so badly that it has to hold its population prisoner, pretty much sucks.

hth

[Birthmark]

38. What century are you living in?

one thing is certain. i have yet to hear about teeming hordes trying to get IN to socialist countries.

metric assloads try to get out. many fail and die, even.

From what "socialist countries" is this happening? :wtf:

As for the rest, you are judging on a single dimension over a very limited time-frame. It amounts to little more than spin, I'm afraid. Capitalism, as practiced (and as it is always practiced) is about privatizing economic gains while socializing economic losses, environmental destruction, and social ills caused by capitalism.

So, yeah, if I could get someone else (or everybody else) to clean up my messes --economic, environmental, and social-- I'd look pretty damned good, too. I can't, and so, I'm stunningly average.

Unlike capitalism, though, I'm honest about it. Maybe if I bought some good PR... :)

[paulsby]

40. you are kidding right?

how about cuba.

and just for the record, when i say socialist, i mean socialist.

sweden, france, etc. are not socialist. they are capitalist.

they have strong social democracies, with strong social safety nets, but the vast majority of the means of production, etc are in private hands.

[Birthmark]

43. Oh, so it's not about the socialism, then?

It's about the lack of democracy? If so, I agree.

I don't know how to tell you this, but we've had this crazy-ass embargo on Cuba for 50 years or so. Being that we're large and Cuba is tiny, it might just have had an effect on their economy. You can't put it all down to socialism.

Even so, in which country would you rather be poor and in need of medical care, the US or Cuba? If you say the US then you are woefully misinformed.

[paulsby]

45. no, it's about socialism

socialist countries have to hold their populace prisoner

capitalist countries don't

it IS about socialism

show me where socialism exists and the people are free to leave.

[Birthmark]

48. That's hard since you don't consider any country...

...but Cuba socialist, apparently. So, the choices are pretty limited. You seem to be talking about the communist nations of last century which came with a heavy dose of political and religious repression. Naturally, people want to escape that.

How would that prove capitalism "better", though? Was Elvis "better" than Mozart? Elvis sold a helluva lot more vinyl than Wolfgang, so I guess by your interpretation he must be "better." So if more popular means "better" than I'm forced to concede. But "better" by that definition is meaningless and in conflict with your earlier points.

I also find it humorous that Marketeers never want to address the false efficiency that I've pointed out. Will you? What about business socializing their losses? What about business socializing the economic human misery it causes by poor work conditions and/or low pay? What about the environmental damage done by business? Government is left to pick up the pieces of these disasters. When these are added in, as they should be, capitalism doesn't look very efficient anymore (nor particularly capitalistic), does it?

In point of fact, when you add the above there is no argument left that capitalism is any better than socialism...and only slightly better than cannibalism. Not that you, or any of the other Free Marketeers will address these points. ;)

[paulsby]

49. rubbish

are you using freeper-speak to characterize what is and isn't socialist?

here's a hint. if the means of production, etc. are privately owned, it's not socialist.

the "democratic" (lol) people's republic of korea would be another.

again, people have to be locked in to socialist countries.

if you are claiming that social democracies are "socialist", then that evades the entire point, since hte point was about CAPITALISM vs. SOCIALISM.

[Birthmark]

53. Again, you point to repressive regimes

...and resort to argument from popularity. I've already conceded that capitalism is more popular. You win that one hands down. With all the money that capitalism has poured into propa...er, public relations, small wonder.

But that doesn't make capitalism better. It just makes it more popular.

You have yet to address my comments about the TRUE costs of capitalism. No Free Marketeer ever does. I strongly suspect that I know the reason for that. ;)

[paulsby]

55. show me a NON oppressive socialist regime, then

one where people can, ,among other things, leave

[Birthmark]

57. There is no such thing as a "socialist regime."

Socialism is an economic tool, not a form of government.

And keep dodging my questions. It's the only smart play of the Free Marketeers. If you were to start answering the questions the illusion would be exposed. ;)

[paulsby]

66. and you are dodging

show me a country with a SOCIALIST economic system, iow where the means of production are controlled by govt, ditto the means of distribution, that is not an oppressive regime

here's a hint. when an economic system cannot WORK w/o the govt. turning tyrannical a la cuba, PDRK etc. it just may not be a good system

hth

[Birthmark]

68. That's rich

You claimed that capitalism was more efficient. When it was pointed out to you that that wasn't the case, you immediately went to the argument from popularity (which I readily conceded) and ignored ALL of my criticisms.

But I'm the one dodging, right? :silly:

I take it you have no comment on my observation that capitalism's "efficiency" is achieved by economic sleight of hand? If not, that's fine. I completely understand. There really isn't much you CAN say.

But if you want to relish the Cold War days, you just go right on ahead.

[paulsby]

81. you did NOT point it out

it is/was more inefficient as the gross inefficiencies and general suckitude under socialist regimes continues to this day...

again, show me the country with a socialist economic system that is NOT oppressive.

you can't do it, so you dodge and weave

if socialism WORKED, then govt.'s wouldn't have to be oppressive in countries with socialist economic systems

if it WORKED, people would flock TO those countries like they flock to capitalist countries FROM socialist countries.

dodge away, or respond

i suspect you will do the former or just not respond

history has been the proof in the pudding.

socialism DOES NOT WORK

hth

[Birthmark]

95. Well, I didn't point it out FOUR times...only three.

For instance, in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7858686&mesg_id=7859034

You said, "there is a reason why nearly all the things that have improved our lives came from innovators in capitalist countries."

To which I pithily replied, "Yeah, government grants, subsidies, tax breaks, guarantees, etc."

And this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7858686&mesg_id=7859534 , where I said: "Capitalism, as practiced (and as it is always practiced) is about privatizing economic gains while socializing economic losses, environmental destruction, and social ills caused by capitalism.

So, yeah, if I could get someone else (or everybody else) to clean up my messes --economic, environmental, and social-- I'd look pretty damned good, too."

And this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7858686&mesg_id=7859808
"I also find it humorous that Marketeers never want to address the false efficiency that I've pointed out. Will you? What about business socializing their losses? What about business socializing the economic human misery it causes by poor work conditions and/or low pay? What about the environmental damage done by business? Government is left to pick up the pieces of these disasters. When these are added in, as they should be, capitalism doesn't look very efficient anymore (nor particularly capitalistic), does it? "

And I'll say it again in this post: Capitalism hides its inefficiencies by farming out to government the part of the cost that capitalists don't want to incur. This includes food stamps and welfare programs, pensions, environmental damage, and a host of others.

I'll also add that capitalism steals on top of the rest of its immorality. Anyone who thinks capitalism is more moral than socialism hasn't thought at all. In fact, such people probably believe that socialism is a form of government.

[Hannah Bell]

123. heh. currently the country with the highest net immigration = afghanistan.

you might want to take a look at all the capitalist countries *losing* population, i.e. most of latin america, most of africa, most of the caribbean, most of the former soviet union.

http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=27&l=en

[Hannah Bell]

121. "nearly all the things that have improved our lives came from innovators in capitalist countries"

there's a reason you believe that, too.

[Birthmark]

19. Capitalism doesn't work

However, it is exceptionally good at hiding its failures. For instance, suppose a company goes out of business and leaves a property full of toxic chemicals. Who cleans that up? The government --you and me.

If a company underpays its employees, who makes up the difference between what the employee makes and what they need to survive? The government --you and me.

Capitalism appears to work. It's Invisible Sleight of Hand. ;)

[Kitty Herder]

47. Yep. nt

[LiberalFighter]

23. Because it encourages crime?

[Taverner]

25. Doesn't always

YEah, under the Soviet interpretation, it does.

Marx wasn't the greatest Socialist theorist.

[athenasatanjesus]

29. Capitalism is better....

so long as you have other people and their resources to exploit to maintain the growth.

[Birthmark]

30. That's an excellent point.

I wish I was going to be around long enough to see how the coming decline in world population will affect capitalism. I have some ideas, but it'd be interesting to see exactly how things play out.

Basically, capitalism is a dinosaur. Even now it is staring up, slack-jawed, at the asteroid coming to destroy it, smug in its own supposed superiority.

[Taverner]

33. Now that is an excellent point!

Capitalism is a dinosaur. Even now it is staring up, slack-jawed, at the asteroid coming to destroy it, smug in its own supposed superiority.

[patrice]

50. There's a picture somewhere of some guy confronting cops at the Republican convention I think and

he has a tattoo with two stick figures holding guns to each other's heads and the tattoo is titled Capitalism.

That's the logical extrapolation of the Capitalistic concept. Ultimately, it cannot lead anywhere but to mutually assured destruction, as we already so clearly see.

[LWolf]

34. It's not. nt

[taught_me_patience]

35. Take a look at South Korea

A capitalism success story.

[Jennicut]

36. Most wealthier countries have adopted a fusion between socialism and capitalism.

Is there any pure capitalistic or socialistic society out there right now?

[rhett o rick]

39. You cant have a society without some socialism. We currently have a combination of

socialism and capitalism as do most, if not all modern countries. The differences is where the line between the two systems is drawn. In this country, Reaganonmics has moved the line to the breaking point. Our social programs are dying because the capitalists are looting the people.

[patrice]

41. The standard argument is that Capitalism brings out the best in people through competition.

Un-restricted competition is supposed to allow folks to develop their personal potential to fulfill their material and psychological desires.

The argument against this is that un-restricted competition generates various forms of systemic oppression, so a great deal of potential is LOST to systemic inertia.

[quaker bill]

42. Because a market

is always more efficient than central planning. However, markets work far better when regulated to prevent fraud, rampant speculation, artificial manipulation, and corruption. Thus the best solution is generally a hybrid.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

44. Because it is self-adaptive. (Also why it is sometimes worse)

[Odin2005]

46. Capitalism is running into the brick wall of technological unemployment and increasing productivity.

Capitalism doesn't work when technology makes industry productive enough to eliminate a lot of scarcity in society. This leads to corporations manufacturing scarcity via advertising to keep the system going.

Capitalism evolved in the century and a half preceding the Industrial revolution, it was born out of a need to raise money and minimize exposure to risk when investing in overseas trade. That era is long past.

[Birthmark]

56. Outstanding post, Odin!

Absolutely right.

[Odin2005]

59. Thanks.

:hi:

[Fast Dude]

54. Socialism/Communism killed 100 million people last century..

...but who is counting.

You can't name one nation where Socialism has worked for long.

You damn sure can't name a socialist nation that did not have it's elites in society.

I don't understand people who aspire to live as a peasant.

[Birthmark]

58. No, the dictatorship of the proletariat did that.

The economics were irrelevant.

[Oregone]

65. No one strives to live like a peasant

That is quite wrong...here is an interesting excerpt about socialism thats a bit more accurate about what people strive for:

"for socialism is not merely a matter of the labor question... but is first and foremost a problem of atheism, a problem of the contemporary incarnation of atheism, a question of the Tower of Babel which is being built without God not in order to reach Heaven from Earth, but in order to bring Heaven down to Earth." -- Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

I always liked that excerpt...probably because of its mixing of religion and political theory...

[Taverner]

Communism maybe, but I attribute that to authoritarianism

It wasnt the econ system

[Taverner]

71. Communism maybe, but I attribute that to authoritarianism

It wasnt the econ system

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oregone]

60. The problem is that a government monopoly of an industry may eliminate competition based innovation

It may...

Sometimes it can help innovation when pockets of the government are deep and only science is at play (energy for example). Sometimes its better when innovation is not important to an industry, but only efficient management (insurance for example)

Personally Im a big fan of a mixed economy, whereas you have the government owned institutions competing against the normal model. BUT, Im not a fan of the normal model (capitalism), which robs workers of the right to profit from their labor. Id love to see the world shift to co-op business setup, where ownership by non-employees is essentially banned. A model that insists any current shareholder or ex-employee has 20 years to sell the remainder of their stock would be pretty cool (such a sell-off would essentially be like a pension). Then current workers are not only paid, but accumulate stocks proporational to their income, as well as dividends from the profits. When they retire, they get 20 years of money as they sell their ownership back to the employees. Talk about worker incentives

[applegrove]

61. We all live in mixed market economies these days. Yes even in the US. You have

medicare, medicaid, veterans affairs, the defence industry, social security...all socialist.

What works best is a mixed market economy.

[DCBob]

67. because everything else is worse.

I wish there were an alternative.

[Greyhound]

69. It's not. Just today...

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes

"Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of self interest backed by force." - George Bernard Shaw

It's simply a matter of power over people, the consent to steal the product of others to benefit the favored. - Greyhound

[LoZoccolo]

78. In a command economy people are constantly fighting about how things should be.

In the extreme this means setting up everything because none of it will run piecemeal and parts are dependant on each other. Instead of making something happen on your own, all the parties have to agree on the one way. If they can't, they start dragging other people into the fight. These other people usually aren't bothered enough to care about the details of the fight, so they get drawn in with propaganda and other manipulative tactics. The power games become more and more severe that the original goal - a more democratic society - is lost.

[JCMach1]

79. Capitalism and Communism are both in their death spirals

as they are both based on a society that organizes itself around unit labor. That paradigm is dying away and will go the way of 8 track tapes by the end of this century.

[Birthmark]

98. Unless I miss my guess...

...most of what we know will go the way of the 8-track by the end of this century. That includes, but is not limited to -nearly all nations, nearly all states, most existing cities (or at least most of the people in them), most industry, and most people period.

Glad I'm getting old.

[JCMach1]

99. You are probably right... and who says the system that rises from the rubble

will be a better one... :(

[Birthmark]

104. There will be many systems.

Once the starving and killing is done, there will be many enclaves of humanity scattered across the planet. Probably mostly smallish. They'll probably keep in touch with each other...eventually...once they think it's safe to announce themselves.

But there won't be any real world-wide civilization (which we very nearly have now) for centuries or millennia.

A crash of the magnitude I foresee just might be drastic enough to inspire us to actually learn something this time. (That's what passes for a silver lining in this scenario. Pitiful, isn't it?)

RIP Industrial Civilization
circa 1760 - circa 2080

"It had its good points"

[Taverner]

111. Well Mister Beale...

There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those *are* the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that . . . perfect world . . . in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock.

[Kablooie]

80. Capitalism is better in America because our government is in the Capital.

If our government was in the Social, Socialism would be better.

If it were in a Commune, Communism.

And of course if it was in the Dick, Dictatorship.

[upi402]

82. We now have corporatism, AKA fascism

Capitalism, balanced by unions and labor law, wasn't too bad. But that's over. We will probably have a lot of pain and suffering then maybe socialism. But I don't think we'll ever be the same. At this point, I want socialism too. And I used to own rental properties, a great job, and had some wealth too! And I want socialism.

[Taverner]

117. VGP (Very Good Point) n/t

[WVRICK13]

96. We Don't Have Capitalism In The US

if we did the TARP would not have happened. With true capitalism you make it or break it on your own merits. We have a perverted socialism where the poor subsidize the wealthy. Or more aptly, we have a modern serfdom. I saw a show that told showed custom made RVs that sold for up to $2 Million and got 4-5 miles per gallon. It is only us poor working schmucks who have to make sacrifices. If we had a Value Added Tax (VAT) like most of europe things would be different. I suggest a VAT that taxes excess. For example if you buy a $50 pair of jeans, no sales tax. If you buy a $200 pair of jeans then you pay a federal VAT of 40%. Carry this to all consumables and we would be out of debt, have better social services and free medical. If you want the over consume, pay for the privilege you can afford it.

[warm regards]

102. Because people eat well under capitalism and they starve under socialism.

These are examples where people of identical ethnic origin are living under either socialism or capitalism:

North Korea - South Korea
China - Singapore
The former East Germany - The former West Germany?

Where would you rather live?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. I Agree With Most Of Your Sentiment However I Take Strong Exception To Your Signature

However I disagree with the assertion in your signature that "Sure, there are winners and losers under Capitalism. That is why losers prefer socialism."

With a real unemployment rate of 16.8% there must be a lot of "losers" in America. That's more losers than abouth three quaters of the nations in the world.

[warm regards]

126. No, Americans are the hardest working people in the world.

That is why we are the richest nation in the world.

[Lorien]

132. Nonsense. We WERE the richest because we started out with slave labor and

abundant natural resources. Now we are the most indebted because we've sent all our labor overseas and have pissed away our surpluses on a bloated military.

[warm regards]

175. No we are rich because US workers are the most productive workers in the world.

Furthermore, the US didn't become rich until long after slavery was abolished. And if abundant natural resources were the keys to great wealth, Russia and Africa would rule the world.

[devilgrrl]

179. There's a lot to said about our work ethic but how are we to prosper when our jobs are shipped...

overseas? Who's rich here again? :popcorn:

[warm regards]

183. The problem you speak relates to the fact that we have forsaken manufacturing for finances and

service.

What is good for the consumer is not necessarily what is best for the nation.

[Taverner]

110. Cuba or Haiti? Which would YOU rather live?

Why do I have to keep< saying this, but Socialism is an ECONOMIC model, not a political one[br />
COMMUNISM is a political model. While all Communists may be Socialist, not all Socialists are communist

[warm regards]

125. Cuba and Haiti are entirely different, so your comparison is invalid.

Having said that, I would choose Haiti; because living as man who is free to dream is superior to living as a slave, as do the people of Cuba.

Just ask Stanley Arnoux, Pierre Thomas, or Jonathan Vilma. They were free to pursue their dreams and now they are Super Bowl Champions.

On the other hand, the men linked to below had to escape from their slave masters in order to pursue their dreams. You see, socialist governments are dictatorial in nature; while capitalist ones support individual freedom.

http://www.cubanball.com/defect.html

[devilgrrl]

129. So what would you consider Western Europe, Scandinavia and the UK? Are they losers?

Because when I think "Socialist" - I think Europe, etc... Not USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, like you.

You don't like that - then move to Somalia - you can do whatever you want, no questions asked - you'll love it.

:popcorn:

[Lorien]

137. *crickets*

Little Bobby Trust Fund is without words.

[devilgrrl]

152. you have to like that the mods need more time to decide - not that it isn't already obvious!

:eyes:

Hit and runs kill me.

[warm regards]

176. As for the UK, they invented capitalism back in the middle ages.

Still, the UK is similar to the US in that it has a mixed economy. They allow private ownership, but there is more control than here. I suppose the UK and Germany are the closest of the EU countries. The Scandinavian countries are also mixed economies and do a fairly good job of combining the efficiencies of capitalism with the welfare state benefits that continental Europe is known for. However, these countries are small and homogeneous; and what works for them has not worked for the more ethnically diverse countries of Europe.

Why do you mention Somalia? It is not capitalist or socialist--it is anarchy without morality. There are no property rights and there are no individual rights.

[devilgrrl]

177. Yeah, well those are countries I refer to when topic of Socialism comes up. And in many respects...

they have it a lot better than we do but since Socialism is for losers we shouldn't do any improvements to what we have now. Am I correct?

[warm regards]

182. No, these countries are not better than the US in any way.

They have far more deadbeats (losers), which are a drain on their economies.

[devilgrrl]

186. When your arguement fails - just make shit up.

:hi:

[warm regards]

188. Funny...I'm not arguing; I'm simply making verifiable statements of fact.

Have you put forth a valid argument for socialism?

:shrug:

[devilgrrl]

189. Yes, Western Europe and Scandinavia - hardly freeloading shitholes as you suggest

:popcorn:

[warm regards]

190. But, as we have already established, these countries are not socialist

or communist.

Some socialists mean well, but sadly, their ideas have caused economic problems for every country that implemented it. On the other hand, capitalism has produced the best of everything in the world.

[NoGOPZone]

156. So Rafael Trujillo was a supporter of individual freedom? nt

[devilgrrl]

169. Hey Sparky - ever going to answer that question? Come on Einstein! Let's hear it!

What's the matter? Albert Einstein too huge of a Socialist for you? He must be a loser.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lorien]

136. Wrong. SOME people eat well and many starve under EITHER pure Socialism or pure capitalism

which is why successful countries have a balance of both systems in place. How many starving people do you see in Sweden or Denmark? In your Utopia, the wealthiest 1/2% (the "winners" in your book) in America would own it all while the bottom 99.5% begged for whatever they allow to "trickle down" to them. We've been experimenting with your pure Capitalist system, and it's driving us into third world status. Soon your "winners" won't be able to borrow enough to prop up the Capitalist house of cards, nor will we have any more fleece to give them. The party is coming to an end and you damn well know it.

[HughBeaumont]

105. I just wished we actually PRACTICED it.

Unbridled Predatory Corporatism isn't "capitalism", it's kinder and gentler tyranny.

Pre-Reagan capitalism, regulated and buoyed by a progressive tax structure, mixed with strong Euro/Scandanavian-style social safety nets would be the most equitable and mechanically sound economic engine we could provide the American people with. An engine that encourages co-opts, free enterprise, living wages and reasonable fair trade would serve everyone equally.

But no, it's just far easier to give everything to the wealthy, corporations and the MIC and hope they'll be benevolent. Yeah, how's THAT pipe dream working out so far?

[Taverner]

109. Good point - real capitalists break up monopolies and trusts

[anonymous171]

114. I would only support anarcho-socialism (stateless socialism.) Anything other form is tyranny. nt

[Taverner]

116. Um, wouldn't that be corporations without oversight?

[Duer 157099]

115. Capitalism is like cancer. It's nature is to grow, even at the expense of the host

You would think that by now we'd recognize patterns in the natural world and pay attention.

[MissMarple]

124. Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Get a grip

[branders seine]

130. Capitalism is better for two significant reasons:

1. It is the best system to use for destroying democracy.
2. It is the best system to use when transitioning back to feudalism.

[Subdivisions]

134. Yep. n/t

[kestrel91316]

133. What sort of "economic system" did mankind have for the vast majority

of its history? There you will find your answer.

Hint: it doesn't involve unfettered "free markets" funded by imaginary "capital".

[Subdivisions]

135. Mankind?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7869015&mesg_id=7869015">Don't you mean humankind?

But seriously, as branders seine said in post #130, are you referring to fuedalism?

[Greyhound]

138. If I can butt in here, look much further back, the ~40,000 years of human

civilization that we dismiss as "prehistoric" due to ignorance and prejudice instilled in the 19th century.

[kestrel91316]

141. Mankind is the same as human kind. But I think you knew that.

And no, feudalism has not been around for thousands of years.

Look at indigenous societies pre-christianity. Perhaps Native American societies.......they DID have a much longer track record than feudalism OR unfettered free-market capitalism. People then recognized and worked toward the COMMON GOOD.

[Subdivisions]

145. My knowledge of historical economic systems, especially ancient

indigenous models, is novice at best. All I've got left is natural economics where goods and services were traded or bartered. But, since you stressed the words COMMON GOOD, I will assume I'm still missing the head of the nail.

[kestrel91316]

146. I think natural economics in a community where everyone is answerable to the community

pretty much hits the nail on the head.

[Subdivisions]

148. Thank you =). Sigh. Would that it were only possible to go back to such a sytem. n/t

[kestrel91316]

149. Oh, it will happen. Perhaps sooner than we think. The only question is,

how many humans will be alive to utilize it?

[Subdivisions]

157. Perhaps as a result of declining oil production, maybe. Which

will bring us down several notches within my lifetime (I'm 45). But we'll go through a transitional period where millions will withdraw to their own resources and the millions who can't will die off, but not before committing plenty of mischief in the attempt to survive. Then, perhaps by the turn of the next century, things will begin to settle back into a pre-industrial paradigm, perhaps with a couple of residual improvements on that paradigm left over from the Oil Age. I'm picturing, on this continent anyways, a post-industrial world similar to the twisted world of the old Wild Wild West teeV show, where they had gadgets and technology rather out of place in their 19th Century setting, and traveled by steam trains and horse power.

[kestrel91316]

160. Wow, a steampunk postapocalyptic dystopia...........

[Subdivisions]

166. I don't think it will be an apocalyptic decline nor does it need to be a dystopia. In

the next hundred years, it will most likely be a slow and gradual descent back to an agrarian society that, if it survives climate change, will present a better life our descendants, including my children and grandchildren. Getting there from here will be the challenge.

[kestrel91316]

167. Sadly, I think only a tiny minority of Americans is up to the challenge.

I do my part. You can do yours, too. Pick up a copy of Carla Emery's Encyclopedia of Country Living, read it, and LEARN it. Ditto for Gene Logsdon's Small-Scale Grain Raising, which is finally back in print.

[Subdivisions]

168. EXCELLENT advice for everyone! Thanks, kestrel! Alas, some will

never prepare, thinking it'll never happen in this day and age. But history teaches us that civilizations have always collapsed, especially when their cornerstone resource no longer met their requirements. And, it should come as no surprise how fast it can happen.

[Radical Activist]

170. It will be because we aren't dealing with climate change.

The world's human population and infrastructure will decline in leaps and bounds once we begin facing multiple effects simultaneously.

[proteus_lives]

147. Noble Savage myth.

"Look at indigenous societies pre-christianity. Perhaps Native American societies.......they DID have a much longer track record than feudalism OR unfettered free-market capitalism. People then recognized and worked toward the COMMON GOOD."

Aside from technology, they weren't any different from others.

[Statistical]

184. Is slave ownership and marriage by conquest part of that "common good"?

Your view of Native American society is something out of a Disney novel.

[izzybeans]

155. I think a form of democratic socialism is economically similar to

capitalism. The difference is exactly how you describe. Who owns the company? Markets would still function, but compensation and decision-making power would be dispersed throughout the company bureaucracy through committees. Germany's system is the closest thing to that. The American Prospect has an article in this or last month's release on why it has helped them weather the downturn.

Both are capable of working and failing for similar reasons. It's just that unemployment can not be used like a club under the democratic socialist model - which in a capitalist system creates a self-fulfilling downturn. "Well everyone else is laying off, so we better too." "Ah shucks, now we don't have anyone to sell to, so we better shut down production and lay more people off." In Germany, the workers are able to negotiate better terms of employment and there is a widespread belief that its in the best interests of the company to maintain high levels of employment, because of the self-fulfilling nature of downturns. You could call it a run on employment rather than a bank. If you want to see consumer markets tank, lay off some people. (if you believe the account of the American Prospect, as I tend to).

Besides, without capitalism there would be no basis to evolve beyond it to the more morally advanced socialist economy. It would work nearly the same on a macro level, its just that microeconomics would focus more on procedural and distributive justice than under capitalism.

[Blue_Tires]

162. kick for later...

[MellowDem]

165. Mixed system is best...

Some things are best under government control, others are better under private entrepreneurs, with regulation of course. Europe is a mixed system, we are a mixed system, the argument is in what balance a country should have.

[baldguy]

185. Bingo.

For most people in most situations, capitalism can provide an equitable & efficient method for distributing goods & services. Socialism can provide the required support at the low end and reigns in the excesses at the high end, where capitalism breaks down.