• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Eat the Rich

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
The the problem then is with the government.

Worker unification under a strong authoritarian leadership? Just another political party. We've enough trouble with Republicans and Democrats.
History shows us that without government intervention and working unions, corporations are far, far worse than either. Without both, we'd basically still be living with no anti-child labour laws and zero workers rights.

To champion business while decrying states and unions belies a fundamental lack of understanding of history. While none are spotless, two out of three are clearly more interested in helping workers - or,at least, better things happen for them when they exist.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Because most haven't. Not usually part of public education so most people have a wrong understanding of capitalism.
I certainly didn't receive my understanding of capitalism through public education so I understand why so many misconception exist about it.
What misconceptions have I expressed?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
One anecdote....
....illustrates the possibilities.
I offered it as that, not as proof of anything.
But regarding anecdotes, I've known many many people
who are barely scraping by, & the vast majority simply
don't do what it takes to get ahead, eg, not stealing from
employers (I've had a bunch'o those), not trying to learn
new skills, not showing any initiative.
I've also known a few with mental illness genuinely
preventing their being employable. But they're a minority.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I guess we can all be called socialists and capitalists at the same time. What differs is where we are on the gradient. I propose to call anyone arguing for more social justice (in their environment) a socialist and those being content with the system or even want to cut social security a capitalist.
The more I think about that idea, the more I like it. I could call @Revoltingest a socialist and he would have to agree :)
Oh, brother....another personal definition.
So few of us use dictionaries these days.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Do you think Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Planck, et al. foresaw the Digital Revolution, GPS, and the other practical applications of their research when they spent years learning about particles, spacetime, and subatomic interactions? It seems pretty clear to me that a lot of their research could be classified as "learning for the sake of learning," and we can all see how practically useful that turned out to be.
Do you really see no difference between studying physics,
& studying art history, victimization studies, women's studies, etc.
Physics uses skills applicable to engineering, economics, systems
analysis, etc, etc.
Physicists with PhDs are often hired to for "quant" work at private
equity companies. Their analytical skills have broad application.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
there is nothing in capitalism that says interest and profit should be put ahead of the common good.
Similarly, there is nothing in the definition of socialism
that favors progressive values, liberty, democracy, or
economic equality of the classes.
Too many socialists define "socialism" as their utopic
dream. But they define "capitalism" in terms of their
worst nightmare. Double standard, eh.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
there is nothing in capitalism that says interest and profit should be put ahead of the common good.
Capitalism isn't a philosophy - it's an economic system in which progress is driven by profit. That is the core of capitalism. There is no "capitalist doctrine" which decrees "thou art not a capitalism if thou art putting forward profit over common good - theneth thy be BAD CAPITALISM''.

Profit over common good is merely the inevitable result of capitalism. You can call it "bad capitalism" if you want, but it's an enviable result of the capitalist system. You cannot really avoid it.

The best you can really do is have strong regulation and strong unions to curtail it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Such as China and North Korea eh? (the usual examples cited by fans of capitalism)
N Korea fits the definition perfectly.
China embraced capitalism with a vengeance though.
Alas, they retained the authoritarian government so
typical of socialism. But they're better off than before,
eg, free to travel, more food.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
What works best is to undercut the competition.
What works "best" (for the capitalist) is price rigging. The naïve notion of the "invisible hand" only works when corporations don't (or can't) co-operate. In the real world "breakfast talks" set the prices.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I've often wondered where this belief came from.
Their dream of a utopia.
They imagine that a socialist system would change
human behavior, eg, they'd become altruistic, they'd
stop being greedy. Problem is that those pesky humans
will still have their inherent tendencies.
Economic systems should be designed based upon
criteria of how humans actually behave, not on how
they should behave. Behavioral economics is very
illuminating & informative regarding public policy.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What works "best" (for the capitalist) is price rigging.
I disagree. Free markets are better for us than
inflexible ones such as those that arise in monopolies.
Regulation, such as monopoly prevention, can be
useful in optimizing capitalist system performance.

BTW, if rigging is bad, then socialism would be one
of the worst systems. This is because (empirically)
government fixes prices.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Similarly, there is nothing in the definition of socialism
that favors progressive values, liberty, democracy, or
economic equality of the classes.
Too many socialists define "socialism" as their utopic
dream. But they define "capitalism" in terms of their
worst nightmare. Double standard, eh.

And vice versa. That's the problem, it becomes an all or nothing for a lot people and I don't think that's necessary.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And vice versa. That's the problem, it becomes an all or nothing for a lot people and I don't think that's necessary.
Instead, what I seen from conservatives is the same
wrong definition used by liberals, ie, that "socialism"
is about the social welfare system. So both sides
will call Scandinavian countries "socialist".
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
What you are calling "affordable", here, is really dubious.

If you are in business to make as much money as possible, would you rather sell 1 widget for $1000 dollars, or 10 widgets for $100 dollars, each? Keep in mind that the latter will cost YOU more than the former, and cut into those big profits that you're seeking.

So, no, the capitalist is not interested in selling more or better widgets at a cheaper price. All he's interested in is getting as much of your money as is possible. And if he can do that without giving you ANYTHING AT ALL, in return, he would much prefer that. Because that is actually the ultimate ideal of the capitalist prime directive: to get ALL OF YOUR MONEY. Once that has been achieved, you become irrelevant to the capitalist system. Which is why everything costs as much as the capitalists can get away with charging for them, regardless of their actual value. And is why everyone who is not a capital investors, stays one paycheck away from being broke.

It's a terrible system based entirely on the power it gives to greed, at the expense of everything and everyone else.
This is a good point. And let's not ignore the role credit plays in capitalism. The easy credit that banks dole out let's people buy stuff they can't afford. They often end up in huge financial debt and default sometimes. The American Dream is now all paid for with credit.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Instead, what I seen from conservatives is the same
wrong definition used by liberals, ie, that "socialism"
is about the social welfare system. So both sides
will call Scandinavian countries "socialist".

Sure, and I've seen conservatives use the term socialism for environmental regulations.

If both systems have elements to offer that will have positive impacts for humanity, we shouldn't be so concerned about throwing the labels at each other as political weapons.
 
Top