You could try the original argument. But on second thought, nevermind. If your the best socialism has to offer. I am not worried in the slightest. Toodles
-
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!
What is the Justification for Capitalism? For Socialism? For Communism?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
You could try the original argument. But on second thought, nevermind. If your the best socialism has to offer. I am not worried in the slightest. Toodles
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I doubt it. And there ya go again. I'm a narrow-minded Biblist not a socialist. You effed up again.
Yes a great nation. Which is why so many people come here everyday to try and live the dream. Every country had it's problems, and no system is perfect. But most other countries are p00p by comparison.
Sure thing, I totally believe that. So back to the debate.
I used Karl Marx, and the U.S.S.R as an example of how socialism fails. To which you replied one instance is not proof. Fair enough, so I listed a substantial list of every failed socialist state to date. To which you started changing the subject chaotically to avoid debating the topic further.
So now I am just waiting for you to counter the argument of how socialism is proven to be a failure of a political system.
So have at it.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I knew you'd be back. Participation is nonmandatory resistance is futile.
No, you said that socialism leads to communism. Hence my response which you offered up a non-sequitur too. I've just been toying with your various other misconceptions until you got your wandering, imaginative arse back to point one.
I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. Would you like to provide some?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
No, because your assuming there is a cause and effect relationship. You first need to show the cause inherent in socialism that leads to communism.
Until then I plan to continue toying with your other screwy assumptions along the way.
History is proof enough that it is.
If you want to refute it, you need to show it. I am not doing your job for you.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I knew you were going to say that.
What you are offering are observations. Observations only do not constitute proof.
But you know what, I'm too bored for even this pitter patter. You can ad hominem me another day.
Ta ta.
History is proof. You can deny it and run away from it all you want. But time and time again history has shown us that socialism is a complete failure.
LionLooking
Member
Well, a small minority of them can. But the same can be said of all other Western nations - however, they don't trumpet about their 'Greatness'.
Except for the slaves of course.
Many other nations have the same values - France, for example - why do they not receive the same adulation?
They also go to Europe, Australia, Canada and others but I can't hear those countries announcing with pride how wonderful they are.
I think we see here the standard of your argument - insults and a superiority complex.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Nonsense. Entrepreneurs come from all walks of life and only need a good idea, hard work and perseverance. I'm surrounded by them and I live among hillbillies.
Seems if you British had banned slavery before 1833 we wouldn't have been stuck with your mess.
Good point about pure -- or nearly pure -- socialist states failing. But I think one could pretty much say the same thing about pure capitalist states failing. When countries have come near to that -- as the US did in the decades before the Great Depression, the capitalist system has shown itself to be a cause of huge suffering. It's great at creating wealth, but not so good at distributing it. Hence, it tends to result when unchecked in a division of society into a few very wealthy individuals, a huge mass of poor people, and a small middle class -- as we had in the US before the Great Depression, and as we are headed towards once again due to increasing deregulation of corporations, the suppression of unions, etc.
LionLooking
Member
Plus a heck of a lot of luck
Come off it - the US had won its independence long before then - but in the Land of the Free slavery continued for longer than it did in other western nations.
And let's not forget the apartheid that existed there until the 1960s - what a Great country
Besides which, I'm not going around pretending that my country is 'Great'.
Duke_Leto
Active Member
I'm writing this very late at night, so I apologize if my writing isn't very lucid right now. If I am at all unclear I'll be happy to try to clarify.
In reference to the OP, I'd like, for clarity, to attempt to redefine the terms being used. I think a lot of confusion has come from the fact that "capitalism", "communism", and "socialism" are words without precise meanings, and so often a great deal of misinformation is easy to spread, whether consciously or not.
As the OP noted, I ought to provide justification for doing this – Since Marx has had the greatest contribution to communist thought, almost defining it, as well as having coined the phrase "capitalism" to begin with (or at least was the one responsible for making the term fall into popular usage), his understandings of the terms will be the most useful in discussing what communists actually think.
Capitalism is a mode of production in which commodities are exchanged for profit. This process inevitably results in an ever-expanding number of people becoming compelled through economic necessity to sell their own labor power; that is, to find employment. It should be understood that this does not mean to have any job at all, but specifically to be employed by others. Though some profit the employer may make can be explained through trade – buying materials at a low price somewhere and selling them elsewhere at a higher price – the majority of his profit derives from the fact that he pays his employee less than the value the employee creates for him. The employer skims off the surplus value created by his employment of the worker.
Socialism, or Communism – These words are essentially interchangeable – is a mode of production wherein producers are able to freely associate; that is, workers are not compelled to sell their labor to others.
It should be noted that these two terms are completely exclusive. It is impossible to have a "mix" of capitalism and socialism, a condition many here have suggested. Socialism also has nothing to do with social programs, welfare, taxation, or anything of the sort. By this definition, the USSR was, despite its name, not socialist, Cuba was not socialist, and, in fact, one would be hard pressed to find any nation-state that ever was. I don't believe any has ever existed.
So then, if these are not socialist societies, what would one look like? The answer may be best explained by comparing it to what capitalism isn't.
In a capitalist society, class tensions continually bubble under its surface. I'm assuming most of the people here are American or British. A cursory look at either country's history (in the latter's, since and during the Industrial Revolution), should make this clear. Those dispossessed by capitalism find themselves unable to work and therefore make an honest living except by selling their labor to the remaining proprietors of mines, farms, forests, factories – anything that one would need to actually be able to produce much. It is in the employee's interest to be paid as much as possible; this will, natually, not exceed the approximate value that he creates for his employer – He will obviously not be paid for more than he is worth. But it is in the employer's interest to pay the employee as little as possible. An employer will, of course, not employ someone for even the same amount of value that he creates, since it would be entirely pointless to; therefore he pays him less, and tries to reduce the costs of labor further to increase his own rate of profit. The employer must pay him enough that the employee thinks it worth his time to work there (rather than moving somewhere else, attempting to make a living with what he has, or instigating a revolt), but this is essentially the bare minimum he is obligated to provide, unless compelled by law. In fact, if he pays his employees more than he must, this makes his costs rise, and causes his business to become uncompetitive! So, assuming the economy is doing rather well, the upper class which has the means to own businesses and the like will grow wealthier, while employees will need to fight to keep what they have.
This is the primary rallying cause for socialists. To borrow a phrase popular today, it is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Throughout history workers have been forced into various life-threatening, excruciating, or degrading work which they would not have agreed to if truly free. The deaths and suffering caused by these conditions have sparked innumerable strikes and protests, leading to more violence. Socialists want a world in which this class antagonism is resolved, and goods will stop being produced merely for profit, but instead for use.
I should note that what I've said is really an abstraction and should be understood as such. Obviously, the upper class usually works itself, and a CEO may "sell himself" to a company. What I've said does not describe corporate ownership or investment and the like, and a worker may request a loan and start a business. But it's a useful abstraction, because it describes the tendencies that do cause the conditions which exist. I've also not described other miscellaneous oppositions socialists have to capitalism, for instance, the tendency for money to gradually infest every aspect of life, or the environmental or spiritual degradation that is caused by industrialization or working long hours in a meaningless job. But I hope this clears up at least some of the confusion in this thread.
In reference to the OP, I'd like, for clarity, to attempt to redefine the terms being used. I think a lot of confusion has come from the fact that "capitalism", "communism", and "socialism" are words without precise meanings, and so often a great deal of misinformation is easy to spread, whether consciously or not.
As the OP noted, I ought to provide justification for doing this – Since Marx has had the greatest contribution to communist thought, almost defining it, as well as having coined the phrase "capitalism" to begin with (or at least was the one responsible for making the term fall into popular usage), his understandings of the terms will be the most useful in discussing what communists actually think.
Capitalism is a mode of production in which commodities are exchanged for profit. This process inevitably results in an ever-expanding number of people becoming compelled through economic necessity to sell their own labor power; that is, to find employment. It should be understood that this does not mean to have any job at all, but specifically to be employed by others. Though some profit the employer may make can be explained through trade – buying materials at a low price somewhere and selling them elsewhere at a higher price – the majority of his profit derives from the fact that he pays his employee less than the value the employee creates for him. The employer skims off the surplus value created by his employment of the worker.
Socialism, or Communism – These words are essentially interchangeable – is a mode of production wherein producers are able to freely associate; that is, workers are not compelled to sell their labor to others.
It should be noted that these two terms are completely exclusive. It is impossible to have a "mix" of capitalism and socialism, a condition many here have suggested. Socialism also has nothing to do with social programs, welfare, taxation, or anything of the sort. By this definition, the USSR was, despite its name, not socialist, Cuba was not socialist, and, in fact, one would be hard pressed to find any nation-state that ever was. I don't believe any has ever existed.
So then, if these are not socialist societies, what would one look like? The answer may be best explained by comparing it to what capitalism isn't.
In a capitalist society, class tensions continually bubble under its surface. I'm assuming most of the people here are American or British. A cursory look at either country's history (in the latter's, since and during the Industrial Revolution), should make this clear. Those dispossessed by capitalism find themselves unable to work and therefore make an honest living except by selling their labor to the remaining proprietors of mines, farms, forests, factories – anything that one would need to actually be able to produce much. It is in the employee's interest to be paid as much as possible; this will, natually, not exceed the approximate value that he creates for his employer – He will obviously not be paid for more than he is worth. But it is in the employer's interest to pay the employee as little as possible. An employer will, of course, not employ someone for even the same amount of value that he creates, since it would be entirely pointless to; therefore he pays him less, and tries to reduce the costs of labor further to increase his own rate of profit. The employer must pay him enough that the employee thinks it worth his time to work there (rather than moving somewhere else, attempting to make a living with what he has, or instigating a revolt), but this is essentially the bare minimum he is obligated to provide, unless compelled by law. In fact, if he pays his employees more than he must, this makes his costs rise, and causes his business to become uncompetitive! So, assuming the economy is doing rather well, the upper class which has the means to own businesses and the like will grow wealthier, while employees will need to fight to keep what they have.
This is the primary rallying cause for socialists. To borrow a phrase popular today, it is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Throughout history workers have been forced into various life-threatening, excruciating, or degrading work which they would not have agreed to if truly free. The deaths and suffering caused by these conditions have sparked innumerable strikes and protests, leading to more violence. Socialists want a world in which this class antagonism is resolved, and goods will stop being produced merely for profit, but instead for use.
I should note that what I've said is really an abstraction and should be understood as such. Obviously, the upper class usually works itself, and a CEO may "sell himself" to a company. What I've said does not describe corporate ownership or investment and the like, and a worker may request a loan and start a business. But it's a useful abstraction, because it describes the tendencies that do cause the conditions which exist. I've also not described other miscellaneous oppositions socialists have to capitalism, for instance, the tendency for money to gradually infest every aspect of life, or the environmental or spiritual degradation that is caused by industrialization or working long hours in a meaningless job. But I hope this clears up at least some of the confusion in this thread.
Sure they do. Canadians think they live in a great country. Australians think they live in a great country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
It's also just an opinion. Thicken your skin up, it's rough world out there.
I agree, nothing wrong with a decent mixture like we have in the U.S. today. It's not perfect by any means, no system is, but it works well.
LionLooking
Member
You don't think so?
To quote Samuel Johnson -
'Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.'
Besides which, we don't get subjected to Canadians or Australians shouting that their country is the greatest - only Americans seem to do that.
The American superiority complex really annoys me - if you don't like anyone to take issue with t, then don't tell them your country is thee greatest.