Capitalism- Good or Bad?

[CCGirl]

It's not racist, it's just an expression.

It is a racist expression.

 

[Sketcher]

True. But let's bring up a couple of these rich people. There's what'shisname who owns most of WalMart, he does a lot of charity. But how did he GET his fortune? Is WalMart an ethical company? Certainly not. It is highly unethical, both in the products they carry, and the way they treat their employees. Or how about Bill Gates, who certainly currently does a great job of charity, but he has been known to steal code from opposing companies, perform foul play in order to gain market shares. In short, in order to get rich he has performed some actions which are dubious at best.
So, because they give so much charity, should their wicked actions be ignored? Isn't that sort of like saying we should forget Stalin's Gulags and persecutions because he freed us in WW2? Or forgive the USA for numerous terrible acts because of the Marshall aid?

Wait a second, calm down. You're comparing the practices of Wal-Mart and Bill Gates to the gulags. That's not a valid comparison. Now, let's say you're right about Gates and Wal-Mart. Let's look at the people on the losing end of those deals. Thanks to capitalism, they've got it better than they would in pretty much any other country. A poor person in India or Mexico would love to make what Wal-Mart employees make per hour. And then there's Apple, Xerox, and IBM who all got the raw end of dealing with Gates. They're still in business and doing pretty well for themselves. That's prosperity for you. Capitalism brings it. Socialism takes it away.

Furthermore; You bring up the rich people in your country and the amount of charity they give, what makes you think rich people in socialized countries do not give to charity? What's more, what percentage of their wealth is give to charity?

It's been a good long time since I read the article on that, so I can't give you exact figures. Some of the richer and more religious men gave something close to half.

Besides, what good is it if the rich give so much more money to charity if society is way out of balance, and the difference between the rich and the poor is extreme?

I prefer to look at how well society is doing in absolute, rather than relative terms. In this case, it is because if you look at how well the poor are doing compared to the Forbes Top 50, they are doing lousy. However, when you look at how well off the American poor are compared to the poor in a third world country, they have it much better. When you compare how well our poor do compared to the average commoner in the history of the world, they've got it excellent. Your entire argument requires that people be jealous rather than be thankful for what they have. You may not want a lot of people to want more, but wanting other people to have less is jealousy just the same. "I can't afford it, so he certainly doesn't have the right to have it" is the ethic of socialism. That is jealousy and envy, just taken in a different direction.

In other words, you are capitalists. As it said here, your firms have great freedom. It even mentions the freedom to lay off workers specifically. And this is exactly what some of my criticism of the capitalistic society deals with; Security and rights for the population more than the corporation is what I want.

Of course, you need to remember that firms and corporations are made up of people too.

Again, another area where I criticize the capitalistic system. It pretty much states here that the system has increased the class divide, and that one of your challenges is just this. The problem persists in an evil loop because the "lower levels" of society do not get the education they need - and indeed may very well be equipped for. As people in your system are poor, they have problems getting out of poverty because their children cannot go to school, they cannot pay for healthcare or insurance and thus get in debt whenever they MUST have a procedure done, which decreases their - and their childrens' chances of ever getting out of the loop.

Oh yes, and socialism is their savior.

America's semi-socialist federal aid system leaves a no man's land of families like mine who can't afford college, but are too "rich" by the government's standards to receive any aid. I went to college, but I couldn't afford a 4-year university.

No, it really does not if you do not have money. If you are rich, then yeah, within limits. If you do not, it hinders you and limits you.

Capitalism gives everyone money, and it gives everyone more money than they would otherwise get in another system. Again, I will point to the prosperity of this country. If America was socialist, I would have less money to give to charities because of the tax burden, and there would be more restraints on charity because of increased regulation. But back to my church example. When those who are monied, faithful, and generous get to work, then those who have less receive more help than they would otherwise get. In this way, especially with an active and generous church, capitalism helps everybody in some manner or another.

Or evil.

This is why the church must step up. But you're talking as if we're a bunch of Bond villains over here.

And such is your oppinion based on your experience - in the USA. I still need to see some numbers before I buy into the idea. Opinions do not cut it.

Numbers can't really qualify or disqualify my experiences. I have my experiences, and they helped to make my beliefs. I didn't get this sitting around in an office pretending to be charitable, these are my real-life experiences getting my hands dirty and actually doing charity work.

The only thing you have to your benefit is the response time of your medical system - and only then if you have the money or insurance to get it.
You want to compare with Canada, if so, find figures. Not just a biased document that basically complains about the waiting lines. That waiting lines occur in a socialized health care is unavoidable; If all your population were to get top level health care, you would also get queues. That is an unfortunate fact which is still better than the alternative; Large parts of the population not getting the health care services they need.

And time is everything when you are looking at every serious medical condition. No one should die or slip into a state that they can't recover from because of some bureaucracy.

The best of your doctors are extraordinary. Your best hospitals are great, and you develop much health care related technology the entire world benefits from. But that does not change the fact that if you do not have money - you're in deep trouble. If you are poor, or lack insurance then what do you do? The best doctors in the world do not benefit you if only the rich can go.

Ever hear of free clinics? We have them. Now, as for doctors - if they lose their motivation for excellence here as they did in Canada, then health care as a whole will take a dive. What was only good will become excellent, and therefore what is merely decent will become good. And that which was barely passable will become decent. I don't want some doctor who is bitter about his compensation or lacking in skill. I wouldn't wish such a doctor on anybody.

Your government is not your savior, no. But you have made it the way it is. You want a capitalistic government, we do not. We have a socialistic democracy, and boy does it give us benefits!

Then you can sit there in Norway and hug its leg for all I care. I don't tell you to make your policies, don't tell us how to make ours. Any government strong enough to be someone's savior on that level will definitely be strong enough to crush its people with the wrong people in charge. Less government intrusion is what our Founding Fathers fought and died for, and we were very fortunate since we actually ended up with it. I'm not going to throw that away.

 

[Sketcher]

It is a racist expression.

Only in the eyes of people who want it to be racist, particularly those that can't argue with the point it makes.

 

[TheReasoner]

Wait a second, calm down. You're comparing the practices of Wal-Mart and Bill Gates to the gulags. That's not a valid comparison. Now, let's say you're right about Gates and Wal-Mart. Let's look at the people on the losing end of those deals. Thanks to capitalism, they've got it better than they would in pretty much any other country.

Thanks to Capitalism? Thanks to capitalism plenty of people around the world suffer today.

A poor person in India or Mexico would love to make what Wal-Mart employees make per hour.

That comparison is not valid. Of course they would, because in India or Afghanistan that pay will stretch to a healthy and good life. In the USA it does not. In Afghanistan corporations that thrive on Capitalistic principles do very well by having the people there work for a few cents a day. If that. This is too little to live off of. Many are also treated worse than our cattle is.

And then there's Apple, Xerox, and IBM who all got the raw end of dealing with Gates. They're still in business and doing pretty well for themselves. That's prosperity for you. Capitalism brings it. Socialism takes it away.

Sorry, but this is a blind accusation. If you want to compare prosperity, compare your country to ours. To any Scandinavian country in fact. Check the poverty line, litteracy, healthcare stats. We thrive - even more so than the states given our size. Our BNP per capita is higher than yours. If what you say is right - we should be poor. After all, we are socialists. We have high pay, even for workers, we have great healthcare and a fairly high percentage of our population does not work. Still we thrive. That is true for all Scandinavian countries. Not just oil-rich Norway. By your logic we should all be very poor. We are not.

As for the other companies you mentioned they are not innocent either. There was the case of Apple's iPod production which was - and probably still is - unethical. Apple also uses chemicals in their production of electronics that pollute significantly. Chemicals others have stopped using.
The list of corporations who have conducted themselves poorly (at best) is very very long.

It's been a good long time since I read the article on that, so I can't give you exact figures. Some of the richer and more religious men gave something close to half.

Well, so what? How much of their money did they give? Out of their earnings, what was the percentage? In your country, a rich person can give 50% of his earnings and not feel it sting. A poorer person can struggle with tithing ten percent. What's more, if the rich people all tithed but ten percent that ten percent would amount to whopping amounts of money, giving an unrealistic view of their actual generosity. It is easy to give if it does not really cost you anything.

I prefer to look at how well society is doing in absolute, rather than relative terms. In this case, it is because if you look at how well the poor are doing compared to the Forbes Top 50, they are doing lousy. However, when you look at how well off the American poor are compared to the poor in a third world country, they have it much better.

Yes, but your wealth as a nation cannot be comared to that of the third world. Compare the state of your poor to the state of the poor in another nation with comparable wealth or BNP per capita.

When you compare how well our poor do compared to the average commoner in the history of the world, they've got it excellent.

Ofcourse, but again that would be an incredibly skewed comparison. Extremely biased.

Your entire argument requires that people be jealous rather than be thankful for what they have.

Oh no, you are twisting my words. Though I can see why you would think so. My argument is not that people should be jealous. No way. My argument is that my life is just as much worth as the life of a homeless man. Or His majesty the king's life for that matter. My argument is that the value of a human cannot be measured in money. We are equal before God. And we should be to eachother as well. My argument is that Capitalism strengthens the strong and weakens the weak. My argument is that this is unjust and creates a class division we cannot afford. It is that we (or rather you, thus also a lot of the world) experience a power imbalance which has and still does lead to revolutions in other parts of the world where it has escalated too far, or never really been any different...

You may not want a lot of people to want more, but wanting other people to have less is jealousy just the same. "I can't afford it, so he certainly doesn't have the right to have it" is the ethic of socialism.

Huh? Quit slandering man. That is not socialism. What are you thinking? I have no problem with some people making or having more than me. What I have a problem with is when people are left behind without rights, without a voice to be heard. THAT is my problem with Capitalism. Injustice. Not jealousy or materialism. I believe your focus here may show us what your focus is better than what mine is. I do not want a materialistic consumerist society where we are all under the false lure that consumption = prosperity. I want and fight for a society where all - regardless of social position have a chance - a good chance - to get an education which lets them fulfill their potential. A society where people regardless of their posessions can and will be able to receive what healthcare they need without the possibility of personal bankrupcy or debt.
I care squat about what material goods Bill Gates has, or any of the rich people in the top levels. I do not want that for everyone. I do not advocate jealousy. I advocate justice.

That is jealousy and envy, just taken in a different direction.

While I see what you say, I do tyhink you are adressing the issue from an angle which is not really seen here... Jealousy? Some may be I guess. But it is not what socialism is about. Socialism is about equality. Human worth. Human potential. And a limitation on greed.

Of course, you need to remember that firms and corporations are made up of people too.

Well, yes. Legally a corporation IS a person. A person who can sue, and be sued. Who can invest and so on and so forth. But that is another issue, while it does touch the issue at hand. While a corporation consists of people like a mob consists of people, it is capable of terrible things. As shown by - I believe it was Texaco - who in the Ecuadorian jungle let their spill run free in the rivers killing local animals, and also local citizens. They knew about this, but as the people killed were indigenous tribes in the jungle, they did not care - these people had no voice. So why bother? Not until the press got a whiff did things change. Or Coca Cola who has been accused, and even charged with murder of Colombian citizens who opposed Coca Cola interests. Or Dole, who put children to use in the fields to get rid of snakes and pests - costs a few lives now and again - and spray with pesticides while the workers are in the fields. There's Nike which uses very bad sweatshop labour. Same for Tommy Hilfiger.
Funny thing is, these corporations are made up of people who - in Dole's case - are killed making their products. Or in Texaco's (or was it Shell?) case kill other bystanders because of their product.

Oh yes, and socialism is their savior.

America's semi-socialist federal aid system leaves a no man's land of families like mine who can't afford college, but are too "rich" by the government's standards to receive any aid. I went to college, but I couldn't afford a 4-year university.

Your system is not semi-social. It is pretty much utterly capitalistic. In a properly socialistic country you would - IF you qualified - get a university degree. Lest you didn't want to work for it of course.

Capitalism gives everyone money, and it gives everyone more money than they would otherwise get in another system.

So why do you have such problems with class division? Why do the top 20% run away with the earnings of your country, yet the bottom 80% do not benefit accordingly? Capitalism gives money to those who have money. And takes it away from those who do not. What happens in the USA if you do not have an insurance and get sick? What happens if you are smart and poor? You might get a scholarship. But chances are you will not be able to get to the university, or college.

-end part 1-

 

[TheReasoner]

Again, I will point to the prosperity of this country. If America was socialist, I would have less money to give to charities because of the tax burden, and there would be more restraints on charity because of increased regulation.

I disagree wholeheartedly. What I pay in taxes, you pay in insurance fees. What I get for free. you may still have to pay for even with insurance. Which includes much medical care. but also education.
I currently work in a charity - based organization. I get my pay, and others here do too. Much is given by churches around the country. And a lot is given by the state too.
Furthermore, why on earth would it entail more restrictions on giving to charity? That is tax deductible you know.
You - falsely - accuse me and my entire country to have a system which makes one poor and also is based on jealousy. We are stinking rich. And we give more money than most countries. In fact, I would like to dispute your claim that you give oh so much money to charity.
Here's a list over who gives how much per capita.
Luxembourg; 496,59
Denmark; 366,93
Norway 303,63
Netherlands; 242,55
Sweden; 188,54
And then way down the list the United States at; 23,12 USD per capita.
You do give much, yes. But nowhere near as much as most other western countries. Save Italy, who gives 17,20 USD.

But back to my church example. When those who are monied, faithful, and generous get to work, then those who have less receive more help than they would otherwise get. In this way, especially with an active and generous church, capitalism helps everybody in some manner or another.

Yes, and such is great. But why should that mean that socialization is out of the question?
When my sister got sick with ME her friends, a local church and family all came to help. We had to change a lot on the house to accomodate her new needs. The house was swarming with volunteers who helped out. Then, comes the state and helps her out in the long run. It pays to have a number of assistants hired to take care of her 24/7. And she requires much aid. Usually there are more than one assistant working at a time.
She is severely sick.

This is why the church must step up. But you're talking as if we're a bunch of Bond villains over here.

Well, in a way there are. Power corrupts you know. And the way to power is usually over a few people. Sometimes one may have to step over a few corpses to get the profit one wants. As demonstrated by many companies throughout the times. Probably also before the East Indian Trading companies started their wars and mass murders.

Numbers can't really qualify or disqualify my experiences. I have my experiences, and they helped to make my beliefs.

True, but they can give you a perspective that if organized certain ways things might work very differently - and profitably so - in another country. What baffles me is that you live in a capitalistic country, and you bash socialism as if you knew what it was about by bringing up examples from your own society and system - which is NOT socialistic. You cannot say that socialism is bad because your experiences with a capitalized system has shown you that it can be hard not having money and resources! That is what Socialism is about, helping those without resources and money. Capitalism is not about that. Capitalism is about corporate profit.

I didn't get this sitting around in an office pretending to be charitable, these are my real-life experiences getting my hands dirty and actually doing charity work.

Oh, as have I Currently I sit in an office, but I have not always done so.

And time is everything when you are looking at every serious medical condition. No one should die or slip into a state that they can't recover from because of some bureaucracy.

Absolutely. Which does not really discredit socialism in any way. At least here they have a chance. What is worse? That a lot of people die without any hope of help, or that a very very few die while waiting for help which is within reach?
I choose the lesser of two evils, it is better that everyone gets help and having queues in hospitals, than for just a few to get help and not having any queues.

Ever hear of free clinics? We have them. Now, as for doctors - if they lose their motivation for excellence here as they did in Canada, then health care as a whole will take a dive. What was only good will become excellent, and therefore what is merely decent will become good. And that which was barely passable will become decent. I don't want some doctor who is bitter about his compensation or lacking in skill. I wouldn't wish such a doctor on anybody.

Well, most our clinics are free. But that does not seem to have the effect you claim. Our doctors are very good - with the inevitable exceptions of course. Who are duly fired, if they are bad enough. As far as I remember, by the way, according to the UN, Canada is significantly better to live in than the states. I do not have the figures in my head, but I thought it's healthcare was quite good actually.
I will have to look it up.

Then you can sit there in Norway and hug its leg for all I care. I don't tell you to make your policies, don't tell us how to make ours.

Actually, you have tried repeatedly to change our policies. Your government has threatened us on several occasions to force through your own agenda. Whined and sued Norwegian citizens too, need I mention Jon Lech Johansen - AKA DVD jon?

I am not wanting to tell you how you should run your country. All I want to do is to let you see that there are alternatives out there which may be better. No-one benefits from a mindset which is never challenged. Our ideas and ideals must be questioned and challenged to hone them, change them or strengthen them, whichever is needed. And like it or not, your country is acting as though we were colonies under your rule so I think we should have a little say in how it conducts it's business if it is to affect us as it is. Capitalism, your capitalism, is the source of many global problems today. That means your policies are of our concern.

Furthermore, what injustices do not affect me, still concern me. That people in other countries suffer is my concern even if I never meet them, know them, and even if (probably especially if) their poverty is a direct result of my own consumption and lifestyle. It concerns me. And I wish to deal with the root of the problem. So what? Should I ignore all injustice outside my borders because I lead a happy and good life? Certainly not! Are we - as citizens in the worlds' richest nations tied to some responsibility due to our resources and power? I think we are. And that we need to do something about it - now. Even if that means we cannot live as we used to.

Any government strong enough to be someone's savior on that level will definitely be strong enough to crush its people with the wrong people in charge.

Really? That depends on where it's power lies, doesn't it? In your case yeah. Because your country has a very strong military. We don't. Besides there are plenty of safeguards in place for such an event. Sure, they can be overridden I guess, as yours were with the Patriot act. But fact remains, what you claim is extremely extremely unlikely. Much more unlikely here than in the states because our system is radically different than yours. We do not have people with the power you do domestically. We do not give our corporations the power they get from your politicians. We give it to the people. We would not get rid of politicians because they dropped their pants, but rather because they attempted to drop a bomb.

Less government intrusion is what our Founding Fathers fought and died for, and we were very fortunate since we actually ended up with it. I'm not going to throw that away.

In the event of a power vacuum something will fill that space left open. What we see, I believe, is a "corporatization" of the USA. The corporations and rich individuals get the power because the government is "minimalized". Your distrust is not good. Your government distrusts you, and you it. With good reason too. But maybe it could do with a re-evaluation. Socialism works perfectly here. Why not in the USA?

Take a look at what Capitalism has done for Russia.
http://www.jonhs.net/freemovies/death_of_a_nation.htm
[irony]Awesome, isn't it...[/irony]

 

[CCGirl]

Only in the eyes of people who want it to be racist, particularly those that can't argue with the point it makes.

Then you have no problem saying "someone jewed me out of a nickel"? Or "someone gyped me out of my money?

All 3 are expressions based on incorrect assumptions about races of people.

 

[Maxwell511]

No. I think violence is only permissable for self defense or the defense of others. (I even struggle with violence being OK for defense) It is not right to use violence to force service or to extract payment, even if service or payment is due.

You're a man after my own heart.

 

[jgarden]

The richest people in America also give the most to charity. It's not just raw dollars and cents, but they give significant proportions of their wealth to various charities and they start their own charitable foundations...........

Those making $20,000 or less a year give away more, as a share of their income, than do higher income groups..........

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1127/p01s01-usec.html

Contrary to popular belief, those who have benefitted the most under capitalism are not the most generous.

Ironically, it is the poor who are the most generous - which explains why they aren't good "capitalists."

 

[Pray4Che]

Fine, give up all your luxuries, because goverment has to redistribute them, so that everyone has a fair amount of nice things.

Capitalism is only a horror to those that don't want to work.

Wait until you begin to work. For every dollar that capitalistic overbaron gives you, Big Brother takes 1/3
of it to give to the people that don't want to work.
(Federal, State, local, and school taxes equal 33% or more.)
Who is worse? The capitalist that gives you wages enough to get nice things, or the goverment that wants to take 1/3 of everything you earn? (and more if you want to buy luxuries with that salary)

You do not understand the concept of "private property". If you were familiar at all with Marx or any of the great Marxist thinkers, you would know that by "private property" what is meant is the means of production. The factory; the mines; the big farms. This is different to "personal property". Why would communists want to expropriate cars and tooth-brushes? It is just silly. Here, I will quote Marx to help you to understand:
"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the ability to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation."

You made a sensless comment about how capitalism is only horror for those who don't want to work. That is not true. What about those who starve for want of work during depressions and crises? What about Coca-cola workers who are regularly assassinated and kidnapped for trade union membership in Colombia? Is this laziness or the slaughter of innocents? 842 million people world wide are "chronically malenourished", and they choose this?

To dispell the myth that it is thrift alone which distinguishes the capitalist and allows him to accumulate capital, let us do a little bit of mathematics:

A person works for 40 years of their life. They earn a very reasonably wage of £20,000 p.a. which totals £800,000 earned over a life-time. If they save all of this by being extra-trifty (that is they don't wear clothes, eat food etc.) they have a capital of £800,000 to invest. Compare this with the capital required to drill an oil-well in the Irish sea: about £1,000,000. And that is cheap! The fact is that I will never have the money to go into the oil industry and thrift alone can not account for the multi-billion dollar capitals which exist in the oil industry.

Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution...

 

[bgrass1234]

So how big does my factory or farm have to become (thet I invested my own labor into growing) before the "workers" get to come and take it for themselves?

If I take a stick and attach a rock the end to make a hammer. That would be a means of production, because now I can build houses. Does that hammer now become community property? Isn't it my labor that created it. Does that now mean that I do not own myself, but am then owned by the community?

Self ownership is cornerstone of liberty and freedom. No man owns me and I can't own you. To own another, even if it is collectively, is slavery.

 

[jgarden]

Most and Least Livable Countries: UN Human Development Index, 2006

The Human Development Index (HDI), published annually by the UN, ranks nations according to their citizens' quality of life rather than strictly by a nation's traditional economic figures. The criteria for calculating rankings include life expectancy, educational attainment, and adjusted real income. The 2006 index is based on 2004 figures.

“Most Livable” Countries, 2006
1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Australia
4. Ireland
5. Sweden
6. Canada
7. Japan
8. United States
9. Switzerland
10. Netherlands
----------------------------------------
America may be the richest, more powerful nation in the history of the world but it ranks only 8th in terms of the quality of life as it applies to all her citizens.

Most nations in the top 10 would be considered socialist by American standards and have a more equal distribution of wealth.

 

[oldbetang]

Ironically, it is the poor who are the most generous - which explains why they aren't good "capitalists."

 

[jgarden]

Luke 21:1-4 (Widow's Offering)

1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

Like the widow, America's poor give a greater % of their income than the rich. Its called "sacrificial giving."

 

[bgrass1234]

What if none gave to the poor and the homeless were dying in the streets daily. Would that justify using force to take from others so you could feed the poor?

I don't think it does, but to tell you the truth,I would steal to feed my starving family if I had to, but still I don't think its right.

 

[TheReasoner]

What if none gave to the poor and the homeless were dying in the streets daily. Would that justify using force to take from others so you could feed the poor?

I don't think it does, but to tell you the truth,I would steal to feed my starving family if I had to, but still I don't think its right.

Why do you insist that taxation is theft?
This is a mentality I cannot comprehend.
I pay not far from half my salary in taxes. But I get a health care system which is among the best in the world. For free. I have gotten my education for free. I still have more money than I need - strictly speaking. I have all this, and more. And I pay less than you would do for insurances that would not even cover what I get through taxes.
How is this theft?
I would be more inclined to believe that your insurance system is theft - or at least a poor offer. Among leymen, who understand the contracts and legal jumble an insurance can be? How can they protect themselves from potential abuse from insurance companies? Will the government provide legal aid so that the citizens can understand the terms of their insurance? Certainly not! So then what? Are the citizens supposed to hire a lawyer to explain it to them from a third party viewpoint? We can all agree that for the most part that is not beneficial.
Then what if someone gets sick with a disease they think is covered by their insurance, but it is not?! Then what? Tough luck? Better use your money on a coffin, cause you sure can't afford to get well?
In the case of my sisters they would be in BIG trouble had we had the US system. They have ME. A disease that is real enough, but most insurance companies in the US have "joined" it together with a mental disorder with the same effects; Chronic fatigue. Problem is; If you have ME, and you work outor get into activity you get sicker. In some rare cases death has been the result of health personell trying to force the patient into activity.
If you have the mental equivalent due to depression or what not, then you must get into activity. But if you have ME, activity can in the ultimate consequence be lethal.
In the states it is not usually covered by insurance. It would be a battle beyond compare to get the health care these people need. Here, it is provided for us and paid for through our socialistic system. I do not consider this theft at all! It gives the people real value for their money back. It gives them great services at a fairly low price. Had the money gone largely to the armed forces... I would consider it theft. But it does not. We pay taxes, and we get what we pay back - sometimes with plenty of interest.

So how big does my factory or farm have to become (thet I invested my own labor into growing) before the "workers" get to come and take it for themselves?

Self ownership is cornerstone of liberty and freedom. No man owns me and I can't own you. To own another, even if it is collectively, is slavery.

Is it? Then why is modern day slavery often used by capitalistic corporations who force the human beings employed by them into terrible conditions. Capitalists do own people. That's part of the problem. Because in a capitalistic system the one with the money has the rights. If there are more jobs than people, usually that is good for the employees. But if there are more people than jobs, then the value of the employee drops. And the bigger the difference between available jobs and available employees get, the more rights can be shaved off. The more of the salary can be cut away. Until in the end we have systems which are exactly what we see in Asia, with huge American corporations abusing the local population for their own profit. Using human beings worse than most would use their machines. Because the investment an employee is, is so very low. And they are all eager to get a job, because even if it pays less than they really need, at least it provides SOME food.
See my quote at the end of the post.

Here, I will quote Marx to help you to understand:
"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the ability to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation."

You made a sensless comment about how capitalism is only horror for those who don't want to work. That is not true. What about those who starve for want of work during depressions and crises? What about Coca-cola workers who are regularly assassinated and kidnapped for trade union membership in Colombia? Is this laziness or the slaughter of innocents? 842 million people world wide are "chronically malnourished", and they choose this?

To dispell the myth that it is thrift alone which distinguishes the capitalist and allows him to accumulate capital, let us do a little bit of mathematics:

A person works for 40 years of their life. They earn a very reasonably wage of £20,000 p.a. which totals £800,000 earned over a life-time. If they save all of this by being extra-trifty (that is they don't wear clothes, eat food etc.) they have a capital of £800,000 to invest. Compare this with the capital required to drill an oil-well in the Irish sea: about £1,000,000. And that is cheap! The fact is that I will never have the money to go into the oil industry and thrift alone can not account for the multi-billion dollar capitals which exist in the oil industry.

And thank you for that. In closure, I quote Bertrand Russell;
"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."

 

[TheReasoner]

"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people."

Abraham Lincoln

 

[bgrass1234]

Why do you insist that taxation is theft?
This is a mentality I cannot comprehend.
I pay not far from half my salary in taxes. But I get a health care system which is among the best in the world. For free. I have gotten my education for free. I still have more money than I need - strictly speaking. I have all this, and more. And I pay less than you would do for insurances that would not even cover what I get through taxes.
How is this theft?
I would be more inclined to believe that your insurance system is theft - or at least a poor offer. Among leymen, who understand the contracts and legal jumble an insurance can be? How can they protect themselves from potential abuse from insurance companies? Will the government provide legal aid so that the citizens can understand the terms of their insurance? Certainly not! So then what? Are the citizens supposed to hire a lawyer to explain it to them from a third party viewpoint? We can all agree that for the most part that is not beneficial.
Then what if someone gets sick with a disease they think is covered by their insurance, but it is not?! Then what? Tough luck? Better use your money on a coffin, cause you sure can't afford to get well?
In the case of my sisters they would be in BIG trouble had we had the US system. They have ME. A disease that is real enough, but most insurance companies in the US have "joined" it together with a mental disorder with the same effects; Chronic fatigue. Problem is; If you have ME, and you work outor get into activity you get sicker. In some rare cases death has been the result of health personell trying to force the patient into activity.
If you have the mental equivalent due to depression or what not, then you must get into activity. But if you have ME, activity can in the ultimate consequence be lethal.
In the states it is not usually covered by insurance. It would be a battle beyond compare to get the health care these people need. Here, it is provided for us and paid for through our socialistic system. I do not consider this theft at all! It gives the people real value for their money back. It gives them great services at a fairly low price. Had the money gone largely to the armed forces... I would consider it theft. But it does not. We pay taxes, and we get what we pay back - sometimes with plenty of interest.



Is it? Then why is modern day slavery often used by capitalistic corporations who force the human beings employed by them into terrible conditions. Capitalists do own people. That's part of the problem. Because in a capitalistic system the one with the money has the rights. If there are more jobs than people, usually that is good for the employees. But if there are more people than jobs, then the value of the employee drops. And the bigger the difference between available jobs and available employees get, the more rights can be shaved off. The more of the salary can be cut away. Until in the end we have systems which are exactly what we see in Asia, with huge American corporations abusing the local population for their own profit. Using human beings worse than most would use their machines. Because the investment an employee is, is so very low. And they are all eager to get a job, because even if it pays less than they really need, at least it provides SOME food.
See my quote at the end of the post.



And thank you for that. In closure, I quote Bertrand Russell;
"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."

What do you call taking a persons property by force? Is that theft?

If you pay an organization to equally provide all with the nessessities of of life, than that is great, but when you now force someone who doesn't want to participate to pay into that organization, what do you call that? Is that theft?

How about your a doctor, but you are forced to treat everyone, but are only paid what everyone else decides you should be paid? What if you payment was just a place to live and food to eat? Is that not slavery? How about they let you have $100 a week, maybe $10,000 a week? How much do you have to be allowed to get paid for your labor for it not to be slavery anymore?

I guess theres always the social contract argument. If we choose to live in the society than we are bound to pay for the services the society choses to have right? I guess you have to be OK with debters prisons and indentured serventude right? Isn't that what taxes are? We are indebt for the services that are provided to us, whether we want them or not, and so we need to work to pay off that debt. If we choose not to pay what society decides we owe, then we are hauled off to jail. And heaven forbid I choose to remain free and not let them take me to jail. When I use violent force to defend myself, the armed thugs society sends to my house will kill me and I will get called a kook in the papers the next day.

There is right and wrong in this world. One thing that is wrong is to initiate force against another. I don't understand why the peace loving leftists are oh so willing to justify using violent force to make the greedy capitalists live by their moral standards.

 

[Chabadnik]

Shalom Jgarden,

I'm not so convinced by your findings in the UN Human Development Index, I really think this is a case of apples and oranges...

First, 5 of those top 10, I count amoung the E.U. And those countries are nowhere near the size of American populations, maybe you have a more comparable study between the United States and all the European Union?

Second, in a majority of those countries, post secondary education is completetly subsadized by their goverment and available to all for free, which really reduces the quality of that education ( I've studied in Copenhagen ).

Third, From what I understand, most of those countries are not socialist, in the tradtional meaning, but are Social Democracies, which still rely heavily on Free Market trade, they are just more comfortable with a welfare state, and given the considerable smaller populations and less obligations to the world wide community, they have a better setting to employ these ideas, then the United States.

 

[Chabadnik]

Sorry, but this is a blind accusation. If you want to compare prosperity, compare your country to ours. To any Scandinavian country in fact. Check the poverty line, litteracy, healthcare stats. We thrive - even more so than the states given our size. Our BNP per capita is higher than yours. If what you say is right - we should be poor. After all, we are socialists. We have high pay, even for workers, we have great healthcare and a fairly high percentage of our population does not work. Still we thrive. That is true for all Scandinavian countries. Not just oil-rich Norway. By your logic we should all be very poor. We are not.

I've actually visited most Scandinavian countries and live in Copenhagen for three years. It's really not as peachy as you make it out to be. Granted, the Bubover ( A group of hasid Jews ) do alright in your corner of the world ( it's a very pretty place )

But to be honest, I knew of no less then three people, who actually had to move to the United States, becuase they needed medical specialists simply not found. While I found the genreal healthcare to be alright ( better then Germany ), I was very disappointed by the post secondary education.

I just flipped to the back of my December 16th-22nd issue of the Economist and checked Industrial productions, Retail volumes and unemployment rates and GDP growth and what scandanavian countries that even made the list, didn't even begin to touch the United States ( Turkey is growing/developing faster then any scandanavian country. ) And population has nothing to do with that, becuase Singapore, Israel and Taiwan are out distanceing all American/European countries.

Fact of the matter is, your countries version of Social Democracy doesn't have the fiscal, economic or moral high ground on any libreal democracy found in this world. On the flip side, neither do we.

 

[Pray4Che]

So how big does my factory or farm have to become (thet I invested my own labor into growing) before the "workers" get to come and take it for themselves?

If I take a stick and attach a rock the end to make a hammer. That would be a means of production, because now I can build houses. Does that hammer now become community property? Isn't it my labor that created it. Does that now mean that I do not own myself, but am then owned by the community?

Self ownership is cornerstone of liberty and freedom. No man owns me and I can't own you. To own another, even if it is collectively, is slavery.

You really are confusing a very simple idea. If you have a hammer which you use as an item of personal utility, you are not employing any "workers", so what "workers" are you scared are going to come and take it off you? It is absurd, and a straw man argument. Every worker knows the difference between a factory and a hammer used to do a bit of DIY. "Private property" as described by Marx is capitalist property. I have no interest in your personal property. Personal property has existed since the beginning of time; this does not distinguish capitalism.

I will quote Marx one more time to help you understand.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

The vast majority of the "means of production" exists as capital in a capitalist society. That is it exists as a supply of wealth to employ workers, and putting the means of production at their disposal so that they can add value to them. The product is then sold, and in exchange the worker gets merely enough to subsist.
When a small shopkeeper runs a shop without employing workers it is meaningless to suggest the "workers" take over his shop. But in terms of a factory which employ hundreds or even thousands of workers, the idea of taking over and democratically running the factory makes more sense.