Pros & Cons of Capitalism & Socialism [Archive]

Kuro Morfos

9th June 2006, 10:31

To be fair. Both ideas of Capitalism and Socialism are brilliant in many aspects, ignorant in many others. I'm going to list personal pros & cons of each. There are aspects of both economies I enjoy, others I despise. Some characteristics may be shared with both.

CAPITALISM:

Pros:

-Free Market, people get to independently invent ideas without worrying about any government buerocracy

-Capitalism is a catalyst for rapid growth, if recently installed

-Capitalist countries are generally enjoyable, since entertainment is one of the greatest sources of wealth

-Capitalism in many ways empowers the individual, at least until monopolies grip society

Cons:

-Capitalism encourages greed and phony individualism

-Supply and demand does not account for needs, or truth

-Private media appeals to the emotions and is therefore harmful to society

-Larger monopolies encourage conformity, a slap in the face to individualism

SOCIALISM:

Pros:

-In Socialist societies, the government provides necessity

-Quality of living is generally good if the government is Democratic

-Education is provided almost equally through out the society

-Political policies tend to be more based on reason

Cons:

-Socialist economies can be static, meaning little to no growth

-Laziness is encouraged, thus decreasing GPD

-Socialist societies may be serene, but they are quite boring

-A scientist would need permision from the government in order to do anything

-Economic conformity encourages other types of conformity

overlord

9th June 2006, 12:06

To be fair. Both ideas of Capitalism and Socialism are brilliant in many aspects

What's brilliant about socialism?

SOCIALISM:

Pros:

-In Socialist societies, the government provides necessity

-Quality of living is generally good if the government is Democratic

-Education is provided almost equally through out the society

-Political policies tend to be more based on reason

You know, I think I've been a bit hard on socialism. It really can be a very wonderful system if capitalists don't interfere.

SOCIALISM:

Pros:

- In Socialist countries, the government fails to provide the necessities.

- Quality of living is generally good if the government is Democratic, but it never is.

-Education and propaganda is provided almost equally through out the society.

-Political policies tend to be based less on reason and least on reality.

Yes, how foolish I have been. :( I must learn some socialism. We must try harder comrades! :) Viva la retardation!

BobKKKindle$

9th June 2006, 13:26

Kuro Murfos

Capitalist countries are generally enjoyable, since entertainment is one of the greatest sources of wealth

Actually, according to several studies, Life-Satisfaction and Overall Hapiness has been declining along with the increased penetration of material goods and since the start of Post-Industrial Society.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happ...ula/4771908.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4771908.stm)

This is a result of a wide range of factors, including the nature of work under Capitalism. This is the most important factor for me. Marxists believe that conscioius labour is a fundamental part of human nature, and should be of the individual's own choosing, and as a means of self expression, instead of simply a means of living. Labour for most people under Capitalism is based upon the need to survive, and is utterly boring.

Capitalism is a catalyst for rapid growth, if recently installed

What makes you think that Growth is automatically a good thing? Aside form the environmental reprecussions, since the 80s increases of GDP have genreally lead to increases in the income of only the highest income groups. Once the forces of production (part of the mode of production, along with relations) have reached a point where our needs can be satisfied, I find that economic growth becomes redundant. And what does 'recently installed' mean?

Capitalism in many ways empowers the individual, at least until monopolies grip society

Everh heard of Wage Slavery?! Workers have hardly any choice in the type of work they perform, and Capitlaists often impose strict rules upon workers when at Work. Not to mention the way in which the media binds us to the producers and the system...Gramsci discussed the idea of Hegemony. Very interesting.

people get to independently invent ideas

What makes you think this wont be the case under Socialism?! When people are allowed to choose their work as something they can enjoy instead of just a means to pay the bills, and when we have free access to educaiton of the highest standard, and when workers know they will recieve the full benefits of production, I think there will in fact be far greater innovation under Socialism.

Larger monopolies encourage conformity

What makes you think this is restricted to Monopolies?! Capitalist advertising relies on making the individual feel deeply insecure so that they will purchase the same products as others...conformity is by no means restricted to monopolies comrade.

Overlord

What's brilliant about socialism

People like you will not matter

In Socialist countries, the government fails to provide the necessities

Actually, 'Socialist' countries in history have been very adept at providing education and basic foodstuffs. True, other consumer goods were in short supply...but those countries were not based upon Marxism or any other Leftist system, so they do not serve as arguments. And Anyway - What government?! Socialism has no no government as we understand it. Not for me, anyway.

Quality of living

Define this term. It is entirely subjective. And Check the Link above.

overlord

9th June 2006, 14:04

Bobkittens:

People like you will not matter

Why, because i'll be dead right? ........phsyco-boy! :lol: Just keep taking the medication man and those murdurous thoughts will disapear!

Actually, 'Socialist' countries in history have been very adept at providing education and basic foodstuffs. True, other consumer goods were in short supply...but those countries were not based upon Marxism or any other Leftist system, so they do not serve as arguments. And Anyway - What government?! Socialism has no no government as we understand it. Not for me, anyway.

If those countries weren't socialist of even leftist as you state, why are you defending them?

QUOTE
Quality of living

Define this term. It is entirely subjective. And Check the Link above.

my def: Doing what you want, free from constraints.

BobKKKindle$

9th June 2006, 14:26

Under*****

If those countries weren't socialist of even leftist as you state, why are you defending them?

Well, its always nice to prove someone wrong, no matter what one's personal beliefs. And most Capitalists do their best to argue that these countries were real leftist ideas put into practise, so one has to expect the worst.

Doing what you want, free from constraints

So Somalia has the highest quality of life in the World, right?

But if you are talking about freedom in the sense of the individual's rights, then Socialism would be a far freer Society. Capitalism is described as a free system on the basis that the worker has a choice of where, for whom, how, and when to work. It must be noted that workers are not slaves in the traditional sense - they can, indeed, technically choose the work they peform, and are not bound to any one particular master. However, this is simply the image of the system. Under Capitalism, workers do not own the factors of production, and so cannot live without selling their labour power to others. There is often little choice in the type of work avaliable, and the work itself may be throroughly boring, alienating, montonous, and exhausting. Workers are essentially wage slaves, since they cannot escape their predicament. In this way, work becomes a means to survive and purchase commodities, instead of an end unto itself. This is fundamentally oppossed to what Marx termed Human's inner working nature - Natural work is not a means, but an end unto itself as a means of expression, and is of one's own choosing. The Single incentive to subject oneself to the system is the threat of having no-one to sell your labour to - Unemployment. The effects of this loss of control over one's work has effects far beyond the workplace itself. The loss of the primary means of free human expression means that a work-like discipline and pointlessness is imposed upon our entire lives. Our leisure activties assume the same monotony and rigidity as work itself.

Under Socialism work would revert to being an activity of the individual's own choosing and an act of creativity, and personal development. Far Freer than Wage labour.

Why, because i'll be dead right

No, I would be so happy with being able to spend my time doing work that I found interesting, I would not care about you. Presuming you were not killed in the Revolutionary uprising.

overlord

9th June 2006, 14:35

Bobkittens:

Well, its always nice to prove someone wrong, no matter what one's personal beliefs. And most Capitalists do their best to argue that these countries were real leftist ideas put into practise, so one has to expect the worst.

Yes, I do enjoy proving the communists here wrong. You are all wrong in almost every detail, but that doesn't stop you now does it? So were those countries leftist or not? ie, Do you support them?

So Somalia has the highest quality of life in the World, right?

Good one. You just insulted all the anarchists on this site. Anyway, what's wrong with Somalia is its a poor African country. The place is a desert. You can't compare it to a country with a rich agricultural base.

No, I would be so happy with being able to spend my time doing work that I found interesting, I would not care about you. Presuming you were not killed in the Revolutionary uprising.

Yes, I'm sure a capitalist like me could be 'conveniently' done away with during the height of revolutionary passion. These things happen you know. Of course you should not be supporting the sort of revolutionary situation which might result in such a murder now should you?

Connolly

9th June 2006, 15:00

Yes, I do enjoy proving the communists here wrong. You are all wrong in almost every detail, but that doesn't stop you now does it?

Almost every detail........................... :lol:

So were those countries leftist or not? ie, Do you support them?

Yes, they were leftist. They were not socialist or communist.

I suport them. Support should be given to all enemies of imperialism, PLO, INLA, Cuba, Sadaam, Iran, Soviet Union, Gadaffi.

They all stretch capitalism to its progressive limits.

Good one. You just insulted all the anarchists on this site.

Somalia isnt anarchism (in the ideological sense of the word) - you should get your definitions correct.

Yes, I'm sure a capitalist like me could be 'conveniently' done away with during the height of revolutionary passion. These things happen you know. Of course you should not be supporting the sort of revolutionary situation which might result in such a murder now should you?

Why the hell not? The workers will take pleasure in torturing you capitalist scum :lol:

Didnt you know Overlord............................we are all murderous bastards on this board..........................we just dont like to express our hidden agenda :lol:

BobKKKindle$

9th June 2006, 15:08

Of course you should not be supporting the sort of revolutionary situation which might result in such a murder now should you?

"A Revolution is not something so decadent and courteous as a Dinner Party, or Painting a picture; rather, it is the insurrection and triumph of one class over another and the crushing of the Capitalist system beneath the wheels of History"

-Mao tse Tung

Do I support Violence, Terroism, Murder, Torture inflicted upon capitalists, imperialists, and fascists? Absolutely.

Connolly

9th June 2006, 15:13

"A Revolution is not something so decadent and courteous as a Dinner Party, or Painting a picture; rather, it is the insurrection and triumph of one class over another and the crushing of the Capitalist system beneath the wheels of History"

-Mao tse Tung

Im no fan of Mao, but thats a good quote :D

[excellent work comrade, your posts are of good quality ;) ]

overlord

9th June 2006, 15:13

The Reddemon:

Almost every detail...........................

Hey, this is my attempt at modesty. :blush:

Yes, they were leftist. They were not socialist or communist.

I suport them. Support should be given to all enemies of imperialism, PLO, INLA, Cuba, Sadaam, Iran, Soviet Union, Gadaffi.

They all stretch capitalism to its progressive limits.

Sadaam, Soviet Union were national communist imperialists. I'm not sure they stretch capitalism to progressive limits. Except PLO and some aspects of Quadaffi's 'third way', Aren't they mainly on the lunatic fringe?

Somalia isnt anarchism (in the ideological sense of the word) - you should get your definitions correct.

Fair enough

Why the hell not? The workers will take pleasure in torturing you capitalist scum

:blink: How progressive? Will it be the iron maiden or the rack?

Didnt you know Overlord............................we are all murderous bastards on this board..........................we just dont like to express our hidden agenda

Not all of you but some of you are Pol Pot in waiting.

overlord

9th June 2006, 15:18

Bob'sKittens:

"A Revolution is not something so decadent and courteous as a Dinner Party, or Painting a picture; rather, it is the insurrection and triumph of one class over another and the crushing of the Capitalist system beneath the wheels of History"

-Mao tse Tung

With statements like that I can see why he was popular. Hitler was popular too.

Do I support Violence, Terroism, Murder, Torture inflicted upon capitalists, imperiliasts, and fascists? Absolutely.

I don't wish that upon you. I have lots of commie friends at uni. One of them I asked "what do we do with the greedy people who like making money"? His answer: "We kill them all". Again I am shocked at the level of ethics present in your moral system. Shocked I tell you.

This post has been edited by bobkindles on Jun 9 2006, 12:14 PM

You must have said something really sick there and edited it out on second thoughts.

Connolly

9th June 2006, 15:29

Sadaam, Soviet Union were national communist imperialists. I'm not sure they stretch capitalism to progressive limits.

"Liberation" struggles do not start from nothing, they usually start due to a popular dislike of the present conditions of existance.

They struggle for the advancement usually of the poor and disadvanaged. Fighting, and winning, usually advance those conditions of existance - increasing standard of living, gaining new rights etc. These new advancements for the under class puts pressure and strains on the capitalist systems ability to sustain them. Continuous attacks on the present system of society in favour of the underclass helps attack the present relations to the mode of production. which communists reject.

Aren't they mainly on the lunatic fringe?

So am I.

How progressive?

If you want a list of the exact torturing apparatus just ask ;)

Not all of you but some of you are Pol Pot in waiting.

So am I.

BobKKKindle$

9th June 2006, 15:29

Im no fan of Mao, but thats a good quote
[excellent work comrade, your posts are of good quality ]

Thank you Comrade, I appreciate that! The same goes to you!

With statements like that I can see why he was popular. Hitler was popular too.

Its simple, if you support or accept the revolution and the social and political system that goes with it, we will welcome you with open arms. But if you try and stop the transistion from Capitalism to Socialism, or if you try and overturn the Socialist society....we will do everything necessary to defend the gains of the revolution. And any way - Are you saying the Capitalist system is not bloody? Your balance sheets are soaked in the blood of workers. There is a slogan I like that appear during May 1968..I really like it:

A single nonrevolutionary weekend is infinitely more
bloody than a month of total revolution.

overlord

9th June 2006, 15:33

BobKissesKittens:

Under***** huh? :lol: Disecting your edit:

But if you are talking about freedom in the sense of the individual's rights, then Socialism would be a far freer Society.

Not if there is lots of rules. Capitalism=no rules.

Capitalism is described as a free system on the basis that the worker has a choice of where, for whom, how, and when to work. It must be noted that workers are not slaves in the traditional sense - they can, indeed, technically choose the work they peform, and are not bound to any one particular master. However, this is simply the image of the system.

Good so far.

Under Capitalism, workers do not own the factors of production, and so cannot live without selling their labour power to others. There is often little choice in the type of work avaliable, and the work itself may be throroughly boring, alienating, montonous, and exhausting.

Boo Hoo.

Workers are essentially wage slaves, since they cannot escape their predicament. In this way, work becomes a means to survive and purchase commodities, instead of an end unto itself. This is fundamentally oppossed to what Marx termed Human's inner working nature - Natural work is not a means, but an end unto itself as a means of expression, and is of one's own choosing.

Capitalism allows you the freedom to chose your work that the progressive 20th century regimes did not.

The Single incentive to subject oneself to the system is the threat of having no-one to sell your labour to - Unemployment. The effects of this loss of control over one's work has effects far beyond the workplace itself. The loss of the primary means of free human expression means that a work-like discipline and pointlessness is imposed upon our entire lives. Our leisure activties assume the same monotony and rigidity as work itself.

Mine don't. I don't have a job, never will. On holydays, (every day except uni) I often go to sleep at 3 AM and waken at midday. My leisure is exhilerating. I have many many many hobbies.

Under Socialism work would revert to being an activity of the individual's own choosing and an act of creativity, and personal development. Far Freer than Wage labour.

As it is under capitalism.

overlord

9th June 2006, 15:40

Reddevil:

QUOTE
Sadaam, Soviet Union were national communist imperialists. I'm not sure they stretch capitalism to progressive limits.

"Liberation" struggles do not start from nothing, they usually start due to a popular dislike of the present conditions of existance.

They struggle for the advancement usually of the poor and disadvanaged. Fighting, and winning, usually advance those conditions of existance - increasing standard of living, gaining new rights etc. These new advancements for the under class puts pressure and strains on the capitalist systems ability to sustain them. Continuous attacks on the present system of society in favour of the underclass helps attack the present relations to the mode of production. which communists reject.

Understood.

QUOTE
Aren't they mainly on the lunatic fringe?

So am I.

QUOTE
How progressive?

If you want a list of the exact torturing apparatus just ask

QUOTE
Not all of you but some of you are Pol Pot in waiting.

So am I.

Et tu Brute? How will you torture someone like me?

AND NOW FOR KISSYKITTENS:

Its simple, if you support or accept the revolution and the social and political system that goes with it, we will welcome you with open arms. But if you try and stop the transistion from Capitalism to Socialism, or if you try and overturn the Socialist society....we will do everything necessary to defend the gains of the revolution. And any way - Are you saying the Capitalist system is not bloody? Your balance sheets are soaked in the blood of workers. There is a slogan I like that appear during May 1968..I really like it:

A year ago I declared personal jihad against Socialism. Me and some mates rip down the silly socialist posters at Uni. What is my punishment?

Capitalist system is not as bloody as socialism. There is little discussion of torture on capitalist forums.

BobKKKindle$

9th June 2006, 15:48

Capitalism allows you the freedom to chose your work that the progressive 20th century regimes did not.

As it is under capitalism

So, according to you, Workers choose to work in Factories on 40-60 Hour Shifts? Children dream of becoming Factory Labourers in their adult lives? It must be admitted that many of the 'Socialist' states did not allow their citizens to choose their own jobs. However, for the first time in History for these countries, educaiton was avaliable of a high standard, free, for everyone, which opened a much wider range of oppurtunities than every before. The USSR went from being a peasant state to a State at the forefront of Science and Technology. But to say that everybody can participate in free labour under Capitalism is utterly absurd. At the end of the day, No Work = Misery and/or Starvation under Capitalism. So workers have no choice except to take any work they get! No freedom!

Not if there is lots of rules. Capitalism=no rules

Somalia has no rules. Go Live there. You can sell drugs in the Street (a Capitlaist enterprise) and noone will care.

Mine don't. I don't have a job, never will. On holydays, (every day except uni) I often go to sleep at 3 AM and waken at midday. My leisure is exhilerating. I have many many many hobbies.

And you enjoy those hobbies a great deal right?! Under Socialism, your hobby would be your job (to give a simplified description, obviously it is slightly more complicated)

And I have no desire to pry into your personal life, but..er..what exactly do you do?! How old are you, how do live without a job?!

Capitalist system is not as bloody as socialism. There is little discussion of torture on capitalist forums.

At least we socialists openly admit the need for Violence. You think Capitalism does not involve Violence?! Look at Haditha! Iraqis being tortured in the name of imperialism (which is military conflict for control of scarce resources in oder to preserve profits and efficiency) What of the Ludlow Massacre, in which workers were fired upon for Striking?! And could you please give us the URL of this forum, I would like to take on more people like yourself.

overlord

9th June 2006, 16:02

So, according to you, Workers choose to work in Factories on 40-60 Hour Shifts? Children dream of becoming Factory Labourers in their adult lives? It must be admitted that many of the 'Socialist' states did not allow their citizens to choose their own jobs. However, for the first time in History for these countries, educaiton was avaliable of a high standard, free, for everyone, which opened a much wider range of oppurtunities than every before. The USSR went from being a peasant state to a State at the forefront of Science and Technology.

Actually I have always kind of admired the USSR. They were an interesting experiment and as a kid I was actually disapointed in 1991 when they were collapsing. :( They provided a nice balance of evil over good.

But to say that everybody can participate in free labour under Capitalism is utterly absurd. At the end of the day, No Work = Misery and/or Starvation under Capitalism. So workers have no choice except to take any work they get! No freedom!

More starvation under state socialism though. You must admit history teaches us that. And Look, what freedom are you looking for, the Garden of Eden? This is RIDICULOUS! Everyone must work, whether they like it or not. You're comparing reality to a utopia and saying: "Look how good the utopia is".

Somalia has no rules. Go Live there. You can sell drugs in the Street (a Capitlaist enterprise) and noone will care.

I am not Somali. Why should I? I am no dealer either.

And you enjoy those hobbies a great deal right?! Under Socialism, your hobby would be your job (to give a simplified description, obviously it is slightly more complicated)

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH! :lol: SOOOOOO TEMPTING .......... NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I have no desire to pry into your personal life, but..er..what exactly do you do?! How old are you, how do live without a job?!

I am a 24 y.o. capitalist man of means, owner of property and capital and proud of it. you?

At least we socialists openly admit the need for Violence. You think Capitalism does not involve Violence?! Look at Haditha! Iraqis being tortured in the name of imperialism (which is military conflict for control of scarce resources in oder to preserve profits and efficiency)

So capitalism is "secretive" HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH! nothing could be as secret as a state socialism. And as for Iraq, these are just crazed american individuals, hardly representative of capitalism as such. As for profits of war, as ummProfessional said, these are just evidences for human nature.

World cup starting in an hour, are you watching? Whose gonna win?

overlord

9th June 2006, 16:10

HMMMMM, everyone here seems to have buggered off into the dustbin of history, suppose i'll leave too.

BobKKKindle$

9th June 2006, 16:18

More starvation under state socialism though. You must admit history teaches us that. And Look, what freedom are you looking for, the Garden of Eden? This is RIDICULOUS! Everyone must work, whether they like it or not. You're comparing reality to a utopia and saying: "Look how good the utopia is".

Those countries were State Capitalist. Socialism calls for the ownership of the means of production socially through a system of workers councils. In these countries, the MoP were owned by state managers - similair to the Capitalists that exist under Capitalism.

I am not saying people would not work under Socialism. They would just choose how, and it would be for themselves, not for some Capitalist. Are you saying that under Capitalism, people can freely choose their job? if so, prove it to me.

I am not Somali. Why should I? I am no dealer either.

You advocate a system free of rules. That can be found in Somalia.

I am a 24 y.o. capitalist man of means, owner of property and capital and proud of it

I am a 16 year old Student. The fact that you can sit at home whilst Workers create Commodities (stores of labour value), which you gain the benefits of, despite the fact that you have done nothing to create them, clearly shows the absurdity and unfairness of the system. Let me ask you; where did you get these MoP from?

As for profits of war, as ummProfessional said, these are just evidences for human nature.

What Human Nature?! Prove that Humans are naturally greedy; I beg of you. The fact is that Humans are shaped by the material conditions in which they live. So your argument is simply indicative of the nature of society and the way of thinking under Capitalism.

Actually I have always kind of admired the USSR. They were an interesting experiment and as a kid I was actually disapointed in 1991 when they were collapsing. They provided a nice balance of evil over good.

Yes, now the US is free to establish its global imperialist hegemony and export its neo liberal agenda across the globe without an oppossing super-power

overlord

9th June 2006, 16:30

I am not saying people would not work under Socialism. They would just choose how, and it would be for themselves, not for some Capitalist. Are you saying that under Capitalism, people can freely choose their job? if so, prove it to me.

Come on man, people choose their jobs all the time. Hey, I go the fridge to get ice-cream or cake or whatever, Do I choose?

You advocate a system free of rules. That can be found in Somalia.

Hey man, rules are made to be broken. ;)

I am a 16 year old Student. The fact that you can sit at home whilst Workers create Commodities (stores of labour value), which you gain the benefits of, despite the fact that you have done nothing to create them, clearly shows the absurdity and unfairness of the system. Let me ask you; where did you get these MoP from?

The Blood Sweat and Tears of my family, including myself.

What Human Nature?! Prove that Humans are naturally greedy; I beg of you. The fact is that Humans are shaped by the material conditions in which they live. So your argument is simply indicative of the nature of society and the way of thinking under Capitalism.

I really should leave this to ummProfessional you know. Expect to receive what can only be described as 'an education'! :P

Personaly my own short response would be human nature is base instinct, greed and lust.

Yes, now the US is free to establish its global imperialist hegemony and export its neo liberal agenda across the globe without an oppossing super-power

Better than a USSR hedgemony: "PAPERS PLEASE! YOU PAPERS ARE NOT IN ORDER!" "ARREST THIS MAN!".

BobKKKindle$

9th June 2006, 16:44

The Blood Sweat and Tears of my family, including myself

Oh, so you physically produced the means of production yourself? And now that you own the means of production, you steal the commodities that Workers produce to sell for your own benefit..whilst paying them less than the value of the things that they produce? No doubt you squeeze every Minute of Work time possible out of them as well. Explain to me how you owning the Means of Production means you are entitled to recieve Wealth that is created through the efforts of workers.

Expect to receive what can only be described as 'an education'

I have already seen Ummprofessionals attempt to argue in favour of 'HUman Nature' being greedy cruel etc. It consisted of linking be to the Wikipedia article on the subject, which actually said the opposite of What he wanted it to say. Not very impressive. I think it was Jean Jaques Rousseau (Somebody correct if need be) that said "Man is Savage when confronted with Savagery, Kind when met with Kindness" or something along those lines. In the thread 'Is Destiny over ones life possible' Ummprofessional concded that the value's of Society and Culture have the big effect on the way we act. The Marxist concept of economic Determinism also provides an interesting view in Human Nature as well; The Way in Which HUmans organise their economic produciton will determine the way in which they view other individuals and interact with Society

Hey man, rules are made to be broken

OK, go live in Somalia then, all the rules of government have been broken and trampled, so in theory it should be a free market Utopia

Better than a USSR hedgemony

If you are going to make a feeble attempt to rebutt a point, at least understand the concept first. Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups (a group could also be a country, as in the case of my point) So, as I said, the fall of the USSr means that the US now has complete imperialist dominance over other nations.

Come on man, people choose their jobs all the time

Workers may drift from Wage Slavery under one Capitlaist to Wage Slavery under another, but do you seriously think they have the oppurtunity to persure their own career interests? Do you think that your average factory labour has the ability to become, say, a bio chemist (or another interest)n under Capitalism?

overlord

9th June 2006, 16:49

I'll leave ummProfessional to answer this bullcrap. I'm off to the pub to watch the world cup. Nice debating for like 4 hours though. heheh

Martyr

9th June 2006, 17:01

They are both fucked. Both cost millions of lives for idiot ideas.

Tungsten

9th June 2006, 18:24

Kuro Morfos

Cons:

-Capitalism encourages greed and phony individualism
Greed isn't necessarily bad and what's phony about it?

-Supply and demand does not account for needs, or truth
Supply and demand is truth, and the reason it is the truth is because it doesn't account for needs.

-Private media appeals to the emotions and is therefore harmful to society
:lol: You're kidding right? Take a look at the state run media in Germany from 1933 to 1945 and tell me that wasn't intended to appeal to emotion. Any media can appeal to emotion and be dishonest.

-Larger monopolies encourage conformity, a slap in the face to individualism
Large monopolies are rare and tend not to last long unless they're goverment enforced.

-In Socialist societies, the government provides necessity
The government doesn't provide anything, the workers do.

-Education is provided almost equally through out the society
Equally good or equally bad? Equality isn't good on it's own.

-Political policies tend to be more based on reason
Policies such as...?
bobkindles

Labour for most people under Capitalism is based upon the need to survive, and is utterly boring.
Will sweeping the floor suddenly become exciting and "artistic" under socialism? Who'll want to do that out of choice? Or anything else for that matter.

What makes you think this wont be the case under Socialism?! When people are allowed to choose their work as something they can enjoy instead of just a means to pay the bills, and when we have free access to educaiton of the highest standard,
How can you guarantee there's going to be a high standard of education to have access to?

So Somalia has the highest quality of life in the World, right?
It's in a state on anarchy and I'm not an anarchist.

But if you are talking about freedom in the sense of the individual's rights, then Socialism would be a far freer Society.
An individual's needs and rights would be subordianted to those of a majority.

Under Capitalism, workers do not own the factors of production, and so cannot live without selling their labour power to others.
You can, but it's easier to work for others.

Workers are essentially wage slaves, since they cannot escape their predicament. In this way, work becomes a means to survive and purchase commodities, instead of an end unto itself.
Why would anyone want work be an end unto itself? You mean we ought to just be working for work's sake?

Under Socialism work would revert to being an activity of the individual's own choosing
Why would they do it?

And any way - Are you saying the Capitalist system is not bloody? Your balance sheets are soaked in the blood of workers. There is a slogan I like that appear during May 1968..I really like it:

A single nonrevolutionary weekend is infinitely more
bloody than a month of total revolution.
You need to stop thinking in slogans and use your brain.

And you enjoy those hobbies a great deal right?! Under Socialism, your hobby would be your job (to give a simplified description, obviously it is slightly more complicated)
This is unworkable. Who mines coal or works in a factory as a hobby? Both of these things are necessary if you're to retain anything resembling a modern standard of living.

At least we socialists openly admit the need for Violence. You think Capitalism does not involve Violence?! Look at Haditha!
Who? What?

Iraqis being tortured in the name of imperialism (which is military conflict for control of scarce resources in oder to preserve profits and efficiency)
Why do you all talk like you're copying your every word from the communist mannifesto?

What of the Ludlow Massacre, in which workers were fired upon for Striking?!
The workers were the agressors in that situation. No one has the right to demand employment. Do I have the right to demand employment from you?

I am a 16 year old Student. The fact that you can sit at home whilst Workers create Commodities (stores of labour value), which you gain the benefits of, despite the fact that you have done nothing to create them, clearly shows the absurdity and unfairness of the system.
You're right there, kid. It's the system known as the welfare statism -a system your ilk "fought hard" to put in place. I applaud overlord living off it to hasten it's collapse.

What Human Nature?! Prove that Humans are naturally greedy; I beg of you.
People naturally put their own survival above those of others. Especially those unfamiliar to them.

Oh, so you physically produced the means of production yourself?
Did you? Then by what right are you entitled to them?

And now that you own the means of production, you steal the commodities that Workers produce to sell for your own benefit.
Stealing implies ownership. You don't own your labour after you've sold it.

Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups (a group could also be a country, as in the case of my point)
You mean when the revolution happens, that will be an example of hedgemony?
The RedBanner

I suport them. Support should be given to all enemies of imperialism, PLO, INLA, Cuba, Sadaam, Iran, Soviet Union, Gadaffi.
These people are enemies of imperialism? That's a laugh.

BobKKKindle$

9th June 2006, 19:12

Will sweeping the floor suddenly become exciting and "artistic" under socialism? Who'll want to do that out of choice? Or anything else for that matter.

This is unworkable. Who mines coal or works in a factory as a hobby? Both of these things are necessary if you're to retain anything resembling a modern standard of living.

As I and my comrades have said many times before in this forum sectiom, there are of course several occupations that are socially necessary, but would not be chosen. However, instead of forcing these occupations upon the (lumpen)proletariat as jobs for their entire lives, we advocate either A) Encouraging Rapid mechanisation of this work or B) Sharing this work out equally amongst everybody for a small period of time every week.

Stealing implies ownership

Propety does not imply theft, Propety is theft ;)

How can you guarantee there's going to be a high standard of education to have access to

Well, for a start, A Socialist governemnt will not spend five times more on the military than education as the US government does (check the budget) Its simply about putting Human need above profit and imperialism. Even pseduo Socialist states have provided an outstanding education system, as shown by Soviet Scientific advances.

Why would anyone want work be an end unto itself? You mean we ought to just be working for work's sake?

Do I have to keep repeating myself? When you say the work, you think in the Capitalist sense. I envisage something very different. Marx believed that conscious labour was the only constituent of Human Nature. If Work were of the individual's own choosing and were as a form of expression and not simply a means to survive, workers would not be subject to the alienation and stress that is present in Capitalist Society, and would actually enjoy their work as part of their lives, not something seperate from it. This would encourage workers to show more innovation and effort, because they are doing something they enjoy for their own benefit, not simply producing commodities for a capitalist. Ask yourself: WOuld you not like to choose the type of work you do? What are your hobbies tungsten? Or do you seriously think that an assembly line job is satisfying? If work under Capitalism were fun and fulfilling, people would not try and survive on welfare.

You can, but it's easier to work for others

It is easier in the sense that the alternative is hard to achieve. You are basically admitting that Capitalism is a system of Wage slavery and not personal freedom. Noone ever said changing the world was going to be easy, I accept that. But the work itself is far from 'easy'. Unless you want to prove that a 14 Hour Shift is a doddle?

Did you? Then by what right are you entitled to them?

I do not feel I am not entitled to deriving the benefits of the commodities made in the production process just because I own the means of production. Thats Why I am a Socialist....did you even read what Overlord tried (poorly) to explain or argue?

No one has the right to demand employment. Do I have the right to demand employment from you?

I am not the State, dont be stupid. And everyone has the right to work, especially under Capitalism, where its hard to survive without work. How can you deny a man a living wage? Under Socialism, of course, the government, whatever form it took would willingly give everybody a job. Because we are about putting people over profits. Unless of course you think that throwing workers onto the streets and locking them out of the factories due to a periodic crisis is acceptable.

You need to stop thinking in slogans and use your brain

We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take, occupy.

People naturally put their own survival above those of others. Especially those unfamiliar to them

On the contrary, it is common in nature, and to a lesser extent amongst Humans, to see an individual give themselves up for the good of the Collective. Its known as the herd instinct. However, how would you respond to the idea that Human Behaviour is determined by material conditions?

You're right there, kid.

If you want to have a reasoned discussion, show some respect and cut that tone.

You mean when the revolution happens, that will be an example of hedgemony

Yes, as described by the Marxist-Leninist concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. And it is spelt Hegemony.

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Tungsten

9th June 2006, 20:06

bobkindles

As I and my comrades have said many times before in this forum sectiom, there are of course several occupations that are socially necessary, but would not be chosen. However, instead of forcing these occupations upon the (lumpen)proletariat as jobs for their entire lives, we advocate either A) Encouraging Rapid mechanisation of this work or B) Sharing this work out equally amongst everybody for a small period of time every week.
A)Is a cop out. B)What are you going to do if some workers tell you to piss off? Force them to work? How are you going to decide what's socially necessary and what isn't?

Well, for a start, A Socialist governemnt will not spend five times more on the military than education as the US government does (check the budget) Its simply about putting Human need above profit and imperialism.
Money won't guarantee anything of the sort.

Do I have to keep repeating myself? When you say the work, you think in the Capitalist sense. I envisage something very different. Marx believed that conscious labour was the only constituent of Human Nature. If Work were of the individual's own choosing and were as a form of expression and not simply a means to survive, workers would not be subject to the alienation and stress that is present in Capitalist Society, and would actually enjoy their work as part of their lives, not something seperate from it. This would encourage workers to show more innovation and effort, because they are doing something they enjoy for their own benefit, not simply producing commodities for a capitalist.
The fact that you believe this shit proves how out to lunch you are. Work is work no matter what the system. Scrubbing toilets isn't going to be seen an enjoyable by anyone. Not ever.

Ask yourself: WOuld you not like to choose the type of work you do? What are your hobbies tungsten? Or do you seriously think that an assembly line job is satisfying?
But you're claiming it will become statisfying after the revolution.

If work under Capitalism were fun and fulfilling, people would not try and survive on welfare.
Probably not, but work is not fun (read my signature) and never will be.

It is easier in the sense that the alternative is hard to achieve. You are basically admitting that Capitalism is a system of Wage slavery and not personal freedom.
No I'm not and never have done.

Noone ever said changing the world was going to be easy, I accept that.
I'm not talking about revolution. I'm taking about makig a living on your own.

But the work itself is far from 'easy'. Unless you want to prove that a 14 Hour Shift is a doddle?
It's easier than starting your own business and easier than making a living on your own.

I do not feel I am not entitled to deriving the benefits of the commodities made in the production process just because I own the means of production.
Of course you do. Why else would you want to own the means of production? How long have you been a socialist for? A week?

I am not the State, dont be stupid.
Neither is the capitalist.

And everyone has the right to work, especially under Capitalism, where its hard to survive without work.
No you won't have a right to a job, as I've explained.

How can you deny a man a living wage?
Easy. I don't have the money to pay him one. Also, I might not need any jobs doing if I did have the money.

Under Socialism, of course, the government, whatever form it took would willingly give everybody a job.
Paid for with everyone else's money.

Because we are about putting people over profits.
This will favour those who don't work over those who do, forcing (and alienating) the latter to subsidise the former. You system will create class antagonisms and self destruct, as we see it doing at the moment.

On the contrary, it is common in nature, and to a lesser extent amongst Humans, to see an individual give themselves up for the good of the Collective. Its known as the herd instinct. However, how would you respond to the idea that Human Behaviour is determined by material conditions?
Mostly false.

If you want to have a reasoned discussion, show some respect and cut that tone.
You're a sixteen year old kid willing to kill people who have done nothing to you. What respect do you deserve?

Connolly

9th June 2006, 22:07

A)Is a cop out. B)What are you going to do if some workers tell you to piss off? Force them to work? How are you going to decide what's socially necessary and what isn't?

What a ridiculous question :lol:

Are the brakes on a car necessary?

Is the steering system?

How about a nice set of alloy wheels?

DVD in the dash?

Is the engine necessary?

Use some common sense to find the "necessities".

Money won't guarantee anything of the sort.

Nor will a shit starved school.

The fact that you believe this shit proves how out to lunch you are. Work is work no matter what the system. Scrubbing toilets isn't going to be seen an enjoyable by anyone. Not ever.

Aint that good :o , you have finally used some sense to conclude a job you think of necessity.

Recent advancements in japan have removed the "necessity" to scrub toilets.
Maybe you are too poor to avail of such advancements.

Work is work, no matter what the system - what changes is how that work is done.

All the shitty jobs I can think of can be solved using present technology. Once the shit jobs are replaced by advancement - all thats left are the more enjoyable, less repetitive, more challenging and most importantly, more rewarding ones.

But you're claiming it will become statisfying after the revolution.

Manual assembly jobs are still in existance due to the cost and practicality of the machinary involved. The demand to remain competitive and profitable drives the capitalist mode of production to automation and advance it. Such unsatisfying jobs, I would imagine, will be almost eliminated before the revolution.

It's easier than starting your own business and easier than making a living on your own.

That depends whether the capital is existant or not. If I inhereted Bill Gates's wealth, I dont think it would be too hard to pay "you, you and you and set a company up that sells horse manure for me". Easy as pie.

Why else would you want to own the means of production?

I have seen dogs inheret the means of production - ask those dogs if they are doing it for the benefits. Wuff Wuff.

This will favour those who don't work over those who do

Of course - the capitalist class are the only ones who work :lol:

Mostly false

How so?

You're a sixteen year old kid willing to kill people who have done nothing to you. What respect do you deserve?

BobKindles, listen to the man - they have done nothing on you!!!! :lol:

Orange Juche

9th June 2006, 22:44

Originally posted by Kuro [email protected] 9 2006, 03:32 AM
-Capitalist countries are generally enjoyable, since entertainment is one of the greatest sources of wealth
Tell that to homeless people, or the other great portion of people beloy poverty line. I'm sure they're really enjoying capitalism.

violencia.Proletariat

9th June 2006, 22:53

This thread belongs in the trashcan. After hearing it 10000+ times from us, you'd think the capitalists would realize what is and isn't socialism. I guess thats asking too much.

Martyr

11th June 2006, 04:14

Originally posted by MeetingPeopleIsEasy+Jun 9 2006, 12:45 PM--> (MeetingPeopleIsEasy @ Jun 9 2006, 12:45 PM)
Kuro [email protected] 9 2006, 03:32 AM
-Capitalist countries are generally enjoyable, since entertainment is one of the greatest sources of wealth
Tell that to homeless people, or the other great portion of people beloy poverty line. I'm sure they're really enjoying capitalism. [/b]
In life your given an opportunity to succeed. Like my family who moved from Poland(Under communist rule cause they knew if they stayed there there would be no future) and came to Canada with only $500 for two weeks we were lving in shelters and basically homeless. Then my parents discovered real estate(Probably THE capitalist business) and now live in a house ten times then what they expected. They worked more then 10 hours went to school and worked in unbearable conditions. So what did capitalism do

Negative: Always the talk of money
Sometimes Business interveres with family
Corrupted my parents a little bit

Positive: I'am going to university
Better future

I'am not pro capitalist or anti capitalist because capitalism has many many flaws including the appaling rate of human violations when I went to New york and other American cities that I went to. But socialism is a false hope in this day and age its near to impossible to force these moral ideas of sharing and working with the people onto others when business rules the world. Maybe in the times of Christ or in the middle ages it could work but now you are your own individual and it is your duty to succeed in life and no one can help you get up except of course the people in your life. There are two kinds of people in my area that live out on the street lazy people or sick people and its their problem that they live this way. However in other coutnries it is tougher but people do somehow survive. So don't expect some government to hand everything to you because its not going to happen. I mean tell me one country were socialism succeeded and tell me one country were capitalism succeeded?

ummProfessional

11th June 2006, 05:29

after spending 10 minutes going briefly through the responses on this thread and the way Tungsten has tried to talk obvious sense to all these idiots and what not, i saw over and over again the same crap we go over and over again in each thread about work and what not, but jesus i just couldn't help but notice this response i forgot who it was, it was some dude Tungsten was thrashing...

On the contrary, it is common in nature, and to a lesser extent amongst Humans, to see an individual give themselves up for the good of the Collective. Its known as the herd instinct. However, how would you respond to the idea that Human Behaviour is determined by material conditions?

BUAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! THE "HERD INSTINCT :lol: what? i think we have comed a long way from evolving into homo sapiens, i don't think anyone living in todays world is a homo erectus living in a "herd" of HOMO ERECTUSES! lol dude you gotta be kidding me, a great example is how the citizens of the world are not giving a fuck about other humans being killed as we speak in Darfur and Congo...the good of the Collective? that is the biggest bullshit iv ever heard, why doesnt Bill Gates give 50 Billion dollars to be distributed through the countries of Africa ?(hell still be left with like 10 billion anyways), wouldn't he fit the "herd instinct" :lol: i mean he is human right? lol

face it that's just flawed, nobody until now has been able to show how humans are not naturally greedy and selfish animals thank you :D

Kuro Morfos

11th June 2006, 07:18

I effectively pissed off both sides of this arguement. I must be doing something right. ^_^

Marx_was_right!

12th June 2006, 13:49

Why are there so many restricted members here?

face it that's just flawed, nobody until now has been able to show how humans are not naturally greedy and selfish animals thank you

You're talking about the middle ages pal. :rolleyes: Question: Do we still sacrifice people at the ampitheatre? Where is your proof that humans are greedy? Do you imagine the comrades of the Paris commune were greedy capitalists? :blink:

that is the biggest bullshit iv ever heard, why doesnt Bill Gates give 50 Billion dollars to be distributed through the countries of Africa ?(hell still be left with like 10 billion anyways), wouldn't he fit the "herd instinct" i mean he is human right? lol

Bill Gates has made a packet out of selling flawed operating systems. Giving away his fortune is the least he could do.

You look like just another one of these stuck-up arrogant rich cappies I have in my school. I bet you have to put on your rose-coloured spectacles if you think capitalism is anything other than a mad-cap exploitative system. :angry: