new capitalism vs communism thread

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned


People are selfish, not stupid. This is my point. If everyone's money was redistributed every day, soon everyone would bring a little as he could to class. In the end, everyone would bring exactly the same small amount so that everyone would exist in the school environment just at the starvation level. (Which is what happens under socialism, btw.) Realizing this, they will eventually vote to repeal the paradigm, having learned their lesson in spades.

For the most part I agree. Except I think people are selfish and for lack of a better word short sighted (not necessarily stupid).

You'll have true beleivers of socialism that believe they are doing a greater good, yet the bulk of their movement will be from self serving bastards who only want to live off the supposed excess of others. When it gets used up, things get ugly quickly.

Also I don't necessarily beleive lessons of the past translate too well. Multi-generational lessons often are forgotten and relegated to the "old way of thinking" dust bin.

[Kuciwalker]

As I mentioned, punishment doesn't have much o a deterent effect. Most people do not engage in violence not because they are afraid o being punished, but because violence is alien to them. It is a deeply wrong thing.

How does that prove anything other than people are raised with certain ingrained values?

You think so?

See the point about war...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel

What is a "corporation"? They don't exist in schmooism - there is only a buyer and a seller (or more properly, just two parties to a contract).

Corporations arise from private property. But you don't want to have them? Ok. How will big bussiness develop then? And without big bussiness, how will sophisticated goods be manufactured?

I didn't say I didn't want them, I said that they didn't exist. A "corporation" is just a particularly successful type of contract (or set of contracts). I agree to put in some money, and in return I recieve a percentage of the profits. It's basically a loan.

[Az]

Yes, and without this type of contract, modern capitalism cannot operate.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
How does that prove anything other than people are raised with certain ingrained values?

AUGH!!!!! It shows that we don't consider property rights as important as other rights!!!!!!!

You think so?

See the point about war...

It's a lot easier for individuals to control the thought of others than you would think. Surprisingly easy, as a matter of fact. Stockholm syndrome, brainwashing, cults, etc. All it takes is a threat. But it doesn't happen that often.

[Kuciwalker]

AUGH!!!!! It shows that we don't consider property rights as important as other rights!!!!!!!

And what does that have to do with some fundamental human condition?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
I didn't say I didn't want them, I said that they didn't exist. A "corporation" is just a particularly successful type of contract (or set of contracts).

You also get limited liability. This is the big thing that makes corporations dangerous. Imagine if shareholders were responsible for coporate debts and damages?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yes, and without this type of contract, modern capitalism cannot operate.

Huh? The contract isn't illegal, but you can't just say "the corporations" or whatever. It is a contract like any other. Unless you show that the logic underpinning the contract (specifically, the right to contract and right to property) is invalid, then the contract is OK.

Now, I don't see what's wrong with "corporate" ownership of the media, as the alternative - only allowing government ownership of the media - effectively removes freedom of press.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You also get limited liability. This is the big thing that makes corporations dangerous. Imagine if shareholders were responsible for coporate debts and damages?

If that was part of the contract they signed - thus they agreed to that condition - then what's wrong? If they don't want to agree to that condition, they don't have to sign the contract.

[Pax]

1. What do you guys think would happen if America became a communist or socialist country tomorrow.

2. Does anyone think that Russia would have been better off if they had formed a democratic government after the Russian revolution?

3. What about all the South American and African countries that became "democratic" after independence. The most stable countries after the end of Colonialism seem to be Cuba and Vietnam. These countries also control there own resources unlike Kenya and etc..

[Az]

If that was part of the contract they signed - thus they agreed to that condition - then what's wrong? If they don't want to agree to that condition, they don't have to sign the contract.

and they wouldn't. and what would form big bussiness, the provider of the goods in a market economy, then?

Now, I don't see what's wrong with "corporate" ownership of the media, as the alternative - only allowing government ownership of the media - effectively removes freedom of press.

That's not true. That would happen only if the press would be responsible before the polticians. If you allow it freedom, like you allow the courts, you'll get fair and balanced ( ) reporting.
In the current situation, the control you're afraid of by the government, is simply mirrored by a similar control by big bussiness.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
If that was part of the contract they signed - thus they agreed to that condition - then what's wrong? If they don't want to agree to that condition, they don't have to sign the contract.

That's what corporations are, limited liability. If you had a business, you would be personally liable for all your debts and damages. With a corporation (except small corps) you are only liable for the acutal money you put in. So if the corporations, say . . . illegally pollute a water source which ends up destroying a community. The maximum that can be collected in damages is the value of the corporation. Those who were harmed can't come after the shareholders, whose property was used to do the damage.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
1. What do you guys think would happen if America became a communist or socialist country tomorrow.

The military would revolt plunging the country into civil war.

2. Does anyone think that Russia would have been better off if they had formed a democratic government after the Russian revolution?

They did form a democratic government after the revolution. The Soviets were elected by universal sufferage. It's just during the Civil War, they had to clamp down on parties that revolted. Ultimately, because of the Civil War, the revolution became distorted, allowing an alien group, the bureaucracy, to sieze power from the workers and peasants.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Well, let me re-read your troll:

The goal of capitalism is to make everyone rich which necessarily eliminates poverty. The goal of socialism to make everyone equally poor so by definition there is no poverty.

Sorry sir, but the goal of capitalism is to make capitalists rich, certainly not the common man. Don't forget, we educated people having enough free time to discuss on this Internet board based on a video game are near the very top of the global pyramid of capitalism.
Our computers have been disigned by scientists that are well paid, but the whole prodution process, from those who extraced the minerals with which the comp is built, to those who wrote your adress on the packaging, are not precisely well paid.
The cashiers that make it possible for you to enjoy your riches with consumer goods belong to a very difficult working class. Ask Speer or Nationalist, our two resident "paupers" (which is very relative, they are filthy rich in comparison with the average Indian), if they feel they have been enriched by capitalism. Ask the Haitians who are making the Disney toys you'll buy to your children or grandchildren at Christmas, if they feel enriched by capitalism. Ask the Kenyan miners who extract the sulfur used on your matches. Ask the janitor at your office if he feels capitalism has enriched him. Ask all those people if they don't feel victim of an injustice.

Socialism is not about making everybody poor. Socialism is about making an efficient economic system that benefits everybody, rather than a select few. If there are so many people mourning socialism in former socialist countries, despite the despotic political regime, that's because these people have been plunged in poverty since capitalism. That's because there wasn't even a hint anymore of resource sharing.

So, if the above post wasn't a troll, it is incredibly misinformed.

Let's put it another way. The "effect" of capitalism is to make everyone rich, but some richer than others. The "effect" of socialism is to make everyone poor but equal.

If one then suggests that the "goals" of capitalism and socialism are to be aligned with its effects, then my post is accurated and yours is not.

The problem with your post is that is suggests that socialism can lead to prosperity when it cannot and this is so obvious as to be beyond debate. Thus it is a blatant and outrageous lie that socialists feed the ill informed in order to create a totalitarian state where the socialists rule the world.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Azazel

If that was part of the contract they signed - thus they agreed to that condition - then what's wrong? If they don't want to agree to that condition, they don't have to sign the contract.

and they wouldn't. and what would form big bussiness, the provider of the goods in a market economy, then?

huh?

Now, I don't see what's wrong with "corporate" ownership of the media, as the alternative - only allowing government ownership of the media - effectively removes freedom of press.

That's not true. That would happen only if the press would be responsible before the polticians. If you allow it freedom, like you allow the courts, you'll get fair and balanced ( ) reporting.
In the current situation, the control you're afraid of by the government, is simply mirrored by a similar control by big bussiness.

I would let ANYONE control "media" - that is, anyone is allowed to print newspapers if they want, anyone is allowed to create news channels, etc. If the media is a branch of the government and no one else is allowed to control the "media", then there is no freedom of press, by definition.