• 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

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
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.
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.

How do you see socialism working?

Either governmental control of the company or equal capital investment by all members of the company?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
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.
You are contradicting yourself. Either you want free market or you want a regulated one. And it is inevitable that monopolies or oligopolies will form under the free market doctrine (because the capitalist only cares what works best for him, not the system).
The idea of the "invisible hand" is debunked by Nash's game theory.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Sure, and I've seen conservatives use the term socialism for environmental regulations.
Aye, they're ridiculous. There's nothing inherent about
socialism or capitalism that would protect our environment.
This is a choice made (or not) by government of either.
I favor useful environmental regulation....it's not "socialist".
It's more "libertarian", ie, protecting individual rights to
things like clean air & water.
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.
Socialism is economic authoritarianism.
I reject it.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You are contradicting yourself. Either you want free market or you want a regulated one.
Wrongo pongo. There is a vast continuum between
a command economy's authoritarianism, & economic
anarchy, ie, no regulations at all.
Regulation, as I pointed out, can enhance free markets
by preventing monopolies, or ensuring lender stability.
Moreover, regulation doesn't mean "the people owning
the means of production". It can be useful things like
requiring contract language being understandable &
not contrary to public policy, licensing doctors so they
are competent & safe.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
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.

Credit cards are a "good" socialist model. To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability to pay. Spreads the wealth, spreads the risk. And participation is all voluntary.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Aye, they're ridiculous. There's nothing inherent about
socialism or capitalism that would protect our environment.
This is a choice made (or not) by government of either.
I favor useful environmental regulation....it's not "socialist".
It's more "libertarian", ie, protecting individual rights to
things like clean air & water.

Socialism is economic authoritarianism.
I reject it.

There is a type of socialism that isn't. Like a co-op. Where everyone involved provides equal investment in capitalism.
Although this is really just another form of capitalism.

Or how does the capital get paid for? The only other option is yeah, government authoritarianism, unless I'm missing something.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
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.

Those that do leave lots of opportunity from those that don't. If only people understood capitalism better. Opportunity and risk. This is what governs capitalism.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Wrongo pongo. There is a vast continuum between
a command economy's authoritarianism, & economic
anarchy, ie, no regulations at all.
Regulation, as I pointed out, can enhance free markets
by preventing monopolies, or ensuring lender stability.
Moreover, regulation doesn't mean "the people owning
the means of production". It can be useful things like
requiring contract language being understandable &
not contrary to public policy, licensing doctors so they
are competent & safe.
I have a feeling we'd agree on the policy but disagree in the definitions.
For me "free market" is the naïve idea that "the invisible hand" will regulate markets, a basic tenet of capitalist economic theory.
I think we can agree that that notion is debunked, can we?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What works best is to undercut the competition. The exception to this is when you have a reputation of providing excellent products or services.

What you think you know about capitalism is completely wrong. If capitalism worked as you think it does, it would have defeated itself long ago. Yet here we are, were socialism is not. :shrug:

Most of that is because capitalism was restrained and tamed by leaders such as the Roosevelts (both Teddy and Franklin). And many capitalists didn't like those guys very much, although they might have put up with him because they were fearful of far more left-wing alternatives which were available.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Most of that is because capitalism was restrained and tamed by leaders such as the Roosevelts (both Teddy and Franklin). And many capitalists didn't like those guys very much, although they might have put up with him because they were fearful of far more left-wing alternatives which were available.

Yes, a lot of companies that would have otherwise went out of business were propped up by the government.
I'd prefer the government would get out of corporate socialism.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Too little time for such a read.
But thanx for trying to educate a lazy groundskeeper.
Summary: babies can feed off mum for about a year, at which age some number of them (from families that can't afford food mom can't produce herself) can be turned into food for others. Oh, and wonderfully soft kid gloves for ladies, too. At a profit!

A lot of its shock value is because he first describes the plight of starving beggars in Ireland, and we're not quite ready for the surprise when he goes on to say: "A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or a ragout."

And Swift owns he has no ulterior motives -- his kids are too old and his wife is past child-bearing.

Quite wonderfully satirical, actually, and worth the read. Written in 1729, I think.
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, a lot of companies that would have otherwise went out of business were propped up by the government.
I'd prefer the government would get out of corporate socialism.

Well, in a sense, governments have been propping up businesses as a matter of course. In the United States, how much would mine owners have earned if our government did not expand its territory? How much would railroad builders have profited if they were confined to a coastal republic east of the Appalachians? How much would business interests in the Western U.S. have profited if not for the government-provided cavalry to secure the territory and protect their investments? (I won't even mention how much the government did to encourage and maintain slavery, as well as the subsequent illegal and treasonous creation of a new government just to protect the economic interests of slaveholders.)

The other side of that is regarding the restrictions government put on workers restricting their rights, such as the right to organize unions and collectively bargain. Those were hard-won rights; they weren't automatic.

Capitalists often speak of a free market economy which (in their ideal) has minimal government interference, but they seem two-faced and hypocritical on this point. They'll gladly welcome government intervention when it works to their benefit, but when it doesn't, suddenly they change their tune. The government's primary role should be to ensure a level playing field between management and labor.

In practice, this might mean that business can never employ strikebreakers, but if they do, the government would be required to send an equal number of police to confront the strikebreakers.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
The other side of that is regarding the restrictions government put on workers restricting their rights, such as the right to organize unions and collectively bargain. Those were hard-won rights; they weren't automatic.

Capitalists often speak of a free market economy which (in their ideal) has minimal government interference, but they seem two-faced and hypocritical on this point. They'll gladly welcome government intervention when it works to their benefit, but when it doesn't, suddenly they change their tune. The government's primary role should be to ensure a level playing field between management and labor.

This is wrong, IMO. We shouldn't let our government do this. The government should not support the rights of one group over the other.

The Congress's main job is the budget. Makes it hard to remove the influence money has on our government.

One thing I didn't understand is how socialism is supposed to fix this?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
There is a type of socialism that isn't. Like a co-op. Where everyone involved provides equal investment in capitalism.
Although this is really just another form of capitalism.
Aye, tis "socialistic".
I approve because it's voluntary.
Or how does the capital get paid for? The only other option is yeah, government authoritarianism, unless I'm missing something.
If the "people" rather than individuals or associations of
individuals own the "means of production", then it would
be economic authoritarianism.
 
Top