Paying taxes, I do not like paying taxes. But I like living with all the conveniences of running water, Eclectic 24/7, roads, Highways and many others. I can not afford to pay some one with a fire truck to put out the fire at my house if it happens, I would only call the police to cover my ass, but some consider it a valuable public service. I like living in a country that does not worry about being taken over
And we must pay for it
[/quote]
Well if all I have to do is to agree that the government should run the police, fire department and the military I agree.
I would even throw in roads and water.
As long as they keep out of all other areas, fine.
Where’s that bakery that pays so well that other shops can’t compete and are forced to raise their wages? It doesn’t exist of course, but this is not a problem since you’re talking about capitalism.
It’s been over 200 years now. How much more time do you need?
Two words: trade unions.
You need to decide what capitalism is and is not, and define it in no uncertain terms. Here, you’re trying to give capitalism credit for something which the capitalists fought tooth and nail, which was 100% the accomplishment of the trades unions, elsewhere you’re trying to dump responsibility for all capitalism’s problems on the government, on the Fed, anywhere but on capitalism itself. You attempt to give capitalism the credit for anything good which happens in a country, and absolve it of responsibility for anything bad. Do I really have to point out to you how childish and unrealistic this is? Really?
[/quote]
These bakeries are everywhere, that is why bakers in the US get paid so well compared to bakers in, say, Vietnam.
We are making slow and steady progress. So I need no time at all, it all takes care of itself. Given that the avrage worker had a life expectancy of around 40 and just one pair of boots 100 years ago I would say that we have come a long way.
Ah, trade unions. And how does that work? How to trade unions magically poof wealth into existence that did not exist before. It seems to me that before capitalism had won some major battles in the war on scarcity there would have been litte to redistribute except for sticks and rocks maybe.
Edit: I also do not credit capitalism with anything good, it does have its problems. However, it also gives us the means to deal with them, which is something that cannot be said about most other economic -isms. And it gives people a considerable amount of freedom.
And finally:
In all the parks, of all the cities, there are no statues of commitees.
There is a reason why some people probably pissed themselves because they laughed so hard when you claimed that production commitees or whatnot could do the job of one determined and clever individual.
some of the first socialist talked about this. they belived that they could start a commune in the middle of the society, and some of them did. after a short time they did not exist anymore. The problem with this form of socialisme is that it dont realize that a small commune most interact with the rest of the society to survive, and if the rest of the society is capitalist, then they most play by the rules. in other words they most produce for profit so they can trade with the big society. In socialisme you dont produce for profit, you produce only what the people need and wants. So therfor they had to become capitalist or shut down. Thats why you need a revolution of the society. ps the revolution thus not need to be violent, but the capitalistclass will often defend there power with guns.
[/quote]
Yeah but why didn’t they produce just as much as they needed, eg bake as many breads to get as much money as they needed, and be happy with it? Isn’t it the whole point of socialism, the money doesn’t go to capitalist owners, but to the workers. The workers produce enough for their needs and are just happy with it. If all the profit doesn’t go to buying lamborghinis and estates for the owner, the workers can sell at a lower price and/or produce less to get the same payment, so they should be competitive in a free market.
Nevertheless, if a socialist business can’t compete with a capitalist business, because it won’t produce as much, isn’t it part of the reason why socialism might not be so good? If we produce less, I think technology and pretty much everything else will evolve at a slower pace.
While the average labor worker would probably get more money and live a better life, pretty much everyone would be such a worker, because one of the ideas of socialism is that if you don’t produce anything, you can’t be having all the money. Do you think this is what people really want, just doing their (labor)work, getting an OK amount of money and just being happy with it? Do you think that is what satisfies and fulfills the needs of people? I tend to think this is not what the average human wants.
Paying taxes, I do not like paying taxes. But I like living with all the conveniences of running water, Eclectic 24/7, roads, Highways and many others. I can not afford to pay some one with a fire truck to put out the fire at my house if it happens, I would only call the police to cover my ass, but some consider it a valuable public service. I like living in a country that does not worry about being taken over
And we must pay for it
[/quote]
Well if all I have to do is to agree that the government should run the police, fire department and the military I agree.
I would even throw in roads and water.
As long as they keep out of all other areas, fine.
[/quote]
what about keeping the Drug Cartels south of the border? You know if we quit policing the world we could have health care and ba;lance the budget , quick. I believe you and I could reach an agreement. You liberal SOB:)
So because there are no cooperative bakeries, this proves something?
We were making slow and steady progress under slavery, too. Do you now endorse slavery? Simply letting humans live and work under any system produces slow and steady progress over the long term. I thought you were supposed to be showing how capitalism was far superior to any other economic system? Now you admit that it’s basically exactly the same as any other? That’s not much to say for a system which had the advantage of riding in on the greatest wave of productivity-enhancing technological innovation in history.
And if the condition of the average worker is your criterion, the Soviet Union achieved these advances far faster than we did. Yet you are convinced the planning cannot work, despite the fact that it outperformed the great capitalist economies.
Please. Look up the Speenhamland law. The state was practically the sole guarantor of a parishioner’s livelihood in those days. A prime example of redistribution.
As to the trade unions, if you would read a little history (if you do, prepare to be disillusioned), you’ll notice that living and working standards deteriorated notably with the arrival of industrial capitalism. Those magnanimous capitalists, however, far from improving these conditions, sought continually to reduce wages and increase working hours. The organization and agitation of the trade unions forced many concessions.
I can understand you not wanting to admit this
(and perhaps you are simply confused by your own propaganda, since the beneficence of the capitalists is always simply assumed in your model), because it’s (yet another) glaring flaw in your narrative, but it’s the honest thing to do.
It does give us the means to deal with them–the trades unions, legislation, etc.
You don’t want to say it, but since you are not known for your accuracy, it doesn’t bother me.
[quote]There is a reason why some people probably pissed themselves because they laughed so hard when you claimed that production commitees or whatnot could do the job of one determined and clever individual.
They cant.
[/quote]
Except in the numerous instances throughout history (despite their shoddy economists, history is the Austrians’ main problem) in which they not only performed the job, but performed it much better.
You may continue to revel in your theories, so long as you don’t disturb those of us who prefer to see the results of a policy in real life.
Accumulation does not cease under socialism. Industry is turned towards the satisfaction of needs, and not the production of profits.
“Socialist businesses” can compete with capitalist businesses, but are you really surprised you don’t see them in the United States? Look up the huge productivity increases in the USSR (not that I am recommending a Soviet-style economy). Look at the accomplishments (during wartime) of the Spanish anarchists is 1936. Production increased after collectivization.
But this is exactly what happens under capitalism. The average worker has little chance of significantly improving their lot in life, especially those without a college education. If they work hard and the company makes more money, they see no reward. Yet when this happens under capitalism, you defend it and call it Liberty.
It is not his land to begin with. If society wishes to improve it, they may do so, as was done for centuries before capitalism was ever thought of.
The same things that have motivated innovation throughout human history. Curiosity, a sense of accomplishment, a desire to help, etc.
Though it should be said that this in no way precludes some type of “better pay for better productivity” system.
[/quote]
Well, with that logic it’s not societies land either. According to your logic, land should not be improved upon. And since that’s the logic you’re choosing to use, it would be prudent for me to come to the conclusion that hunting/herding animals for consumption is wrong too, since it would also be wrong to use these animals to improve land and hence it is wrong to own animals at all.
Also, throughout human history, improvements came at a slow pace until the introduction of capitalism/industrialism in the past 300 years. In the past 300 years innovation has skyrocketed in comparison to the previous 10,000 years of human existence, mainly in industries not impinged by governments and in countries as such.
Can you provide an example of a socialistic country/society that has thrived and surpassed the output/wealth of a capitalistic country/society?
Perhaps I was unclear. This is one of those areas where “social resources should be used socially.” If society wishes to improve the land (which it obviously does), they should. What should not happen is for one small group of people, or one person, to use that land to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest.
So you’re saying that after introduction of machine industry, productivity rapidly increased?
I won’t argue.
The USSR was the second largest economy in the world for a time, and completed the process of industrialization faster than any country in history, with virtually no access to loans. Not that they were socialist, which brings me to my next point:
this is sort of a hard question, because there has not been a socialist country that has been, er, “optimum.” What we should look for, as we do when talking about capitalist countries, is the success of specific institutions or policies. The example of the USSR illustrates the huge productive potential of planned industry. It’s periodic lack of consumer goods is a case against completely centralized planning and for the retention of markets for some goods.
Here’s a question for you: can you name a single capitalist country that has maintained any sort of stability of standard of living for its citizens without embracing “socialistic” policies like public education, social safety nets, etc?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Here’s a question for you: can you name a single capitalist country that has maintained any sort of stability of standard of living for its citizens without embracing “socialistic” policies like public education, social safety nets, etc?
[/quote]
This is a flawed question because it starts with the assumption that social programs are necessary. Instead you need to ask yourself why these social programs are embraced at all:
Mostly because politicians do not know how to produce goods in the free market so they, like you, mistakenly assume if government does not give it to EVERYBODY then society is worse off.
Besides, I can name a few countries that do just fine without heavy socialization.
“Socialist businesses” can compete with capitalist businesses, but are you really surprised you don’t see them in the United States? Look up the huge productivity increases in the USSR (not that I am recommending a Soviet-style economy). Look at the accomplishments (during wartime) of the Spanish anarchists is 1936. Production increased after collectivization.
[/quote]
Why not? Why aren’t they in the United States? I’ve never been there, I’d be glad if you would explain. Perhaps people wouldn’t be so against socialism if there would be a good leading example as a business of how well exactly it works and how the workers have better conditions. Why haven’t the socialists done their own companies and created a socialist internal structure in the company, who could stop them? And if the workers get all the profit and are motivated to produce a lot, they should be leading the free market soon enough.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But this is exactly what happens under capitalism. The average worker has little chance of significantly improving their lot in life, especially those without a college education. If they work hard and the company makes more money, they see no reward. Yet when this happens under capitalism, you defend it and call it Liberty.
[/quote]
Yes you are probably right, under capitalism the workers do the work yet don’t get the profit they produce and most have little chance of making it anywhere. But if the workers aren’t happy with it, why don’t they create their own companies without capitalist owners and share all the profit? What is stopping them? After all, they agreed to work for the capitalist owners.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:This is a flawed question because it starts with the assumption that social programs are necessary. Instead you need to ask yourself why these social programs are embraced at all:
Mostly because politicians do not know how to produce goods in the free market so they, like you, mistakenly assume if government does not give it to EVERYBODY then society is worse off.
Besides, I can name a few countries that do just fine without heavy socialization.[/quote]
Until you crack some kind of history book, your arguments will continue to be pathetically easy to refute. Countries that embrace free-market capitalism see poverty rapidly increase, and social programs become necessary to mollify the population.
So, yes, they are necessary, if you like capitalism. This is why socialists want the Libertarians to come to power. Their preferred policies guarantee the swift collapse of capitalism.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:This is a flawed question because it starts with the assumption that social programs are necessary. Instead you need to ask yourself why these social programs are embraced at all:
Mostly because politicians do not know how to produce goods in the free market so they, like you, mistakenly assume if government does not give it to EVERYBODY then society is worse off.
Besides, I can name a few countries that do just fine without heavy socialization.[/quote]
Until you crack some kind of history book, your arguments will continue to be pathetically easy to refute. Countries that embrace free-market capitalism see poverty rapidly increase, and social programs become necessary to mollify the population.
So, yes, they are necessary, if you like capitalism. This is why socialists want the Libertarians to come to power. Their preferred policies guarantee the swift collapse of capitalism.
[/quote]
The US population has been so heavily propagandized against socialism for the last 60 years that the term is simply derogatory now. It’s a label that people throw on something they don’t like to try to make it scary.
This is exactly the tack that the Utopian Socialists tried in the 19th century. Look up Robert Owen or Charles Fourier if you’re interested. In short, it doesn’t work.
Well, the Mondragon corporation in Spain does essentially this. They are the only large-scale operation that I know of, though.
Basically though, the reason is that opening up cooperative bakeries and coffee shops, even if they are wildly successful, does nothing to solve the problems of capitalism. The “commanding heights” of the economy must be socialized.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But this is exactly what happens under capitalism. The average worker has little chance of significantly improving their lot in life, especially those without a college education. If they work hard and the company makes more money, they see no reward. Yet when this happens under capitalism, you defend it and call it Liberty.
[/quote]
Well, in the US, several groups of workers did just this in the 1800s. They set up cooperative manufactories in several trades. They worked well, but in the event that they grew big enough to threaten established capitalist operations, they were simply undersold until they were forced out of business, at which point the capitalists raised their prices again.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Their preferred policies guarantee the swift collapse of capitalism.
[/quote]
In order for an idea to completely collapse it has to be completely ignored.
And since you keep showing yourself to be ignorant of what libertarianism is I will state it again. Libertarian “economic policy” would never exist in the first place. Figure it out.
History has no bearing on this discussion, btw. This is logic.
Well that hinges on a unique definition of collapse, but fine, I’ll reword my statement:
I want Libertarians (big “L”) to come to power because their preferred economic arrangements guarantee the swift collapse of the economy, which crisis can potentially be used to begin to the transition to socialism.
Yeah yeah, there’s no government, I get it. Forgive me for speaking casually.
Well that hinges on a unique definition of collapse, but fine, I’ll reword my statement:
I want Libertarians (big “L”) to come to power because their preferred economic arrangements guarantee the swift collapse of the economy, which crisis can potentially be used to begin to the transition to socialism.
Yeah yeah, there’s no government, I get it. Forgive me for speaking casually.[/quote]
Hey, words have meaning and if the big L Libertarians do not agree with the nonaggression axiom then they are not libertarians at all so there is no chance of the scenarios you suggest happening because the only alternative would be for them to be completely pro nonaggression and hence this is still true.
Again, figure it out.
But, I will take the bait. If this fantastical scenario you suggest actually comes to pass what will be the process of “socialization”.
What I see is the fact that this is already happening because democracy must always lead to socialism – the people “own” the government why should they not “own” the means of production too?
I am opposed to this, of course because I believe everyone should own their own life and manage their own property.
Ryan, you talk about productive potential of planned industry and seem to be fascinated by such an industry (you give plenty of examples about the USSR).
Correct me if wrong, but wasn’t the collapse of the USSR mainly due to bankruptcy?? This is what I learned in history class and I just checked it again on wikipedia. If you claim otherwise, please tell me your sources.
We have some socialism in Norway, there is less desperation= less crime, but there is enough capitalism for business to function. Though even the most extreme right wing parties here agree on social healthcare.
