Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Oct 10, 2003, 02:21 am

I think Capitalism is the best and gives those practicing the best chance at making their own destiny.

I think socialism makes people unambitious and subject to massive taxes and lower standards of living.

What do you think?

Godsmom · Oct 10, 2003, 03:41 am

The standard of living in Scandinavia and other states dominated by Social Democrats is higher, and especially more evenly distributed, than it is the US and the many Latin American states that are highly market oriented. In those states the standard of living is very high for the uppermost crust, but for the majority, quite low.

Of course, Social Democracy is not socialism, but rather the use of regulation upon markets to acheive a more equitable distribution of rewards for one's input. In other words, hard working dishwashers ought to be paid enough to take vacations, save money, buy a few luxuries, have health care available for themselves and families.

Socialism of the USSR variety is dead and buried, although the body is still twitching in N. Korea and Cuba, and a few other dismembered limbs.

In fact, it is so dead, that your question is really rather stupid. You might as well ask how many people would liuke to live under fuedalism.

Ainbhlinn · Oct 10, 2003, 04:33 am

Godsmom is correct, that no one is stupid enough to want to live under a powerful state with huge taxes, secret police, totalitarianism, stalinism, etc...

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but the USSR for 99% of its existence didn't resemble classical socialism at all. To be truely socialist, you'd need one simple thing: Worker's democratic control of industry. You will not see this in Cuba, the old USSR, Microsoft, or Scandinavia. Today, you'll only find this with special cases in "free market" societies such as the United States, where people with socialist values form cooperative businesses with fair and democratic business practices. Cooperative businesses have been shown to be superior in many ways to your regular feudal capitalist model.

That being said, you can bet that I'd want to live in a socialist economy. The problem is that 80% of the world belongs to a handful of people, and any serious attempt to usurp their power results in a pointless bloodbath. You can see this happening over and over throughout history.

G. Adams · Oct 10, 2003, 06:35 am

As was above stated, Socialism has nothing to do with those states claiming to practice it. All the confusion began when Lenin's bolsheviks, part of the Russian Social Democrat Party, took goverment, and needed a new name for their party as it was only their faction that took power. They picked the word communist. Despite the fact they had little to do with communism when in power. Yes they tried to theoretically justify what they were doing in a communist language, but they were never communist, or fully socialist. They were an authoritarian regime trying to turn a backwards feudal country into a modern one, in which they succeeded. but the price was freedom. Something any socialist wouldn't give up, because they are trying to expand freedom, not take it away.

Section 8 · Oct 10, 2003, 10:05 am

Alright, I think we have at least five socialism topics but oh well.
Communism is not massive taxes, it is no taxes. No form of government. What's interesting is that man started out as a communist society.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 10, 2003, 12:22 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Ainbhlinn@10-10-2003 04:33 AM
I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but the USSR for 99% of its existence didn't resemble classical socialism at all. To be truely socialist, you'd need one simple thing: Worker's democratic control of industry. You will not see this in Cuba, the old USSR, Microsoft, or Scandinavia. Today, you'll only find this with special cases in "free market" societies such as the United States, where people with socialist values form cooperative businesses with fair and democratic business practices. Cooperative businesses have been shown to be superior in many ways to your regular feudal capitalist model.

I wasn't aware that the US market was under its workers' democratic control. Maybe you can inform the employees of Walmart that.

That said, socialist, man. I'd much rather that, because it's plain obvious to see that one's position in the capitalist world has a tenuous relationship at best and no relationship at worst to one's own abilities. The only way I could be sure of my future is to ensure everyone's.

Section 8 · Oct 10, 2003, 07:23 pm

That's like calling the slaves in control of their masters. In the US many break their back while employers walk around in fancy suits and give nothing to society.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 10, 2003, 07:51 pm

The reason that there are five socialism topics, by the way, is because you and G Adams have essentially hijacked the 'liberal' side of all debates.

Section 8 · Oct 10, 2003, 08:53 pm

"hijack" I'm just voicing my opinion.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 10, 2003, 08:56 pm

Then express it as such. Leave "we liberals think thusly about communism" out of the equation.

Section 8 · Oct 10, 2003, 09:07 pm

I speak as an individual, not as a party.

Ainbhlinn · Oct 10, 2003, 09:37 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by "RebelWithanAK"
I wasn't aware that the US market was under its workers' democratic control. Maybe you can inform the employees of Walmart that.

Maybe you should reread my post. I wasn't speaking generally about US business.

Unless I'm mistaken, the US has more cooperatives than most other countries. So then the US is closer to communism/socialism than the USSR was. Not close enough.

Anarchist Patriot · Oct 11, 2003, 01:46 am

I prefer Anarcho Syndicalism, but I would settle for Socialism or at least a mixed economy. But allowing Capitalist whore mongers to control the government... hells no.

castille · Oct 15, 2003, 05:32 am

The problem with "workers controlling industry" is that most workers have no idea about industry.

Example: You work in a bakery. Do you know who your exact target markets are? Who are your wheat suppliers? Who are your production factory suppliers?

As a business owner, I feel that ignorant remarks such as "all bizinezz ownerz are wankerz" are made out of jealousy at success. I do not wear a fancy suit (I don't even own a suit), nor do I bath in money. In fact, balancing business with university means I end up working twice as hard as most of my workers.

G. Adams · Oct 15, 2003, 08:18 am

If socialism was in proper place then these workers would be well educated, enough to ensure they could understand such business decisions.

And although some people do react to owners out of jealousy most socialist, at least those who have been so for a few years, do have logical arguments rather than rantings (like oh say, me) for democratising the workplace.

castille · Oct 15, 2003, 08:30 am

So you suggest teaching workers all the concepts of a business?

In order to produce a television, you need the following knowledge:

-Finance
-Economics
-Accounting
-Production
-Management
-HRM
-Statistics
-Engineering
-Electronics
-Communication (B2B)
-Glassworking
-Mining
-Refining
-Technical repair

Since all workers have a right to make a business decision, a production line worker (without any engineering knowledge) might want to make a giant super duper hover television screen. There will be disagreement, and no real authority to lead the workteams.

And the risks of owning a business?

Remember, 95% of businesses fail in a few years, and 37% of business owners go bankrupt. Do workers have a responsibility to take this risk?

If you get fired, you get welfare. If you lose a business, you go bankrupt.

Oct 10, 2003, 06:35 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	As was above stated, Socialism has nothing to do with those states claiming to practice it. All the confusion began when Lenin's bolsheviks, part of the Russian Social Democrat Party, took goverment, and needed a new name for their party as it was only their faction that took power. They picked the word communist. Despite the fact they had little to do with communism when in power. Yes they tried to theoretically justify what they were doing in a communist language, but they were never communist, or fully socialist. They were an authoritarian regime trying to turn a backwards feudal country into a modern one, in which they succeeded. but the price was freedom. Something any socialist wouldn't give up, because they are trying to expand freedom, not take it away. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 10, 2003, 07:51 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	The reason that there are five socialism topics, by the way, is because you and G Adams have essentially hijacked the 'liberal' side of all debates. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 10, 2003, 08:56 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Then express it as such. Leave "we liberals think thusly about communism" out of the equation. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 15, 2003, 05:32 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	The problem with "workers controlling industry" is that most workers have no idea about industry. Example: You work in a bakery. Do you know who your exact target markets are? Who are your wheat suppliers? Who are your production factory suppliers? As a business owner, I feel that ignorant remarks such as "all bizinezz ownerz are wankerz" are made out of jealousy at success. I do not wear a fancy suit (I don't even own a suit), nor do I bath in money. In fact, balancing business with university means I end up working twice as hard as most of my workers. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 15, 2003, 08:18 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	If socialism was in proper place then these workers would be well educated, enough to ensure they could understand such business decisions. And although some people do react to owners out of jealousy most socialist, at least those who have been so for a few years, do have logical arguments rather than rantings (like oh say, me) for democratising the workplace. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 10, 2003, 02:21 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
BendOverDemocrats Guest Posts: n/a	I think Capitalism is the best and gives those practicing the best chance at making their own destiny. I think socialism makes people unambitious and subject to massive taxes and lower standards of living. What do you think?

Oct 10, 2003, 03:41 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Godsmom Sedimentary Rock Posts: 20	The standard of living in Scandinavia and other states dominated by Social Democrats is higher, and especially more evenly distributed, than it is the US and the many Latin American states that are highly market oriented. In those states the standard of living is very high for the uppermost crust, but for the majority, quite low. Of course, Social Democracy is not socialism, but rather the use of regulation upon markets to acheive a more equitable distribution of rewards for one's input. In other words, hard working dishwashers ought to be paid enough to take vacations, save money, buy a few luxuries, have health care available for themselves and families. Socialism of the USSR variety is dead and buried, although the body is still twitching in N. Korea and Cuba, and a few other dismembered limbs. In fact, it is so dead, that your question is really rather stupid. You might as well ask how many people would liuke to live under fuedalism.

Oct 10, 2003, 04:33 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Ainbhlinn Sedimentary Rock Posts: 9	Godsmom is correct, that no one is stupid enough to want to live under a powerful state with huge taxes, secret police, totalitarianism, stalinism, etc... I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but the USSR for 99% of its existence didn't resemble classical socialism at all. To be truely socialist, you'd need one simple thing: Worker's democratic control of industry. You will not see this in Cuba, the old USSR, Microsoft, or Scandinavia. Today, you'll only find this with special cases in "free market" societies such as the United States, where people with socialist values form cooperative businesses with fair and democratic business practices. Cooperative businesses have been shown to be superior in many ways to your regular feudal capitalist model. That being said, you can bet that I'd want to live in a socialist economy. The problem is that 80% of the world belongs to a handful of people, and any serious attempt to usurp their power results in a pointless bloodbath. You can see this happening over and over throughout history.

Oct 10, 2003, 10:05 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Alright, I think we have at least five socialism topics but oh well. Communism is not massive taxes, it is no taxes. No form of government. What's interesting is that man started out as a communist society.

Oct 10, 2003, 07:23 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	That's like calling the slaves in control of their masters. In the US many break their back while employers walk around in fancy suits and give nothing to society.

Oct 10, 2003, 08:53 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	"hijack" I'm just voicing my opinion.

Oct 10, 2003, 09:07 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	I speak as an individual, not as a party.

Oct 11, 2003, 01:46 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Patriot Molten Ash Posts: 143	I prefer Anarcho Syndicalism, but I would settle for Socialism or at least a mixed economy. But allowing Capitalist whore mongers to control the government... hells no.

Oct 15, 2003, 08:30 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	So you suggest teaching workers all the concepts of a business? In order to produce a television, you need the following knowledge: -Finance -Economics -Accounting -Production -Management -HRM -Statistics -Engineering -Electronics -Communication (B2B) -Glassworking -Mining -Refining -Technical repair Since all workers have a right to make a business decision, a production line worker (without any engineering knowledge) might want to make a giant super duper hover television screen. There will be disagreement, and no real authority to lead the workteams. And the risks of owning a business? Remember, 95% of businesses fail in a few years, and 37% of business owners go bankrupt. Do workers have a responsibility to take this risk? If you get fired, you get welfare. If you lose a business, you go bankrupt. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.