Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others but Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others...

Brent-on-the-Run · 06-19-2009, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

I like how you concede that the playing field is slanted and then change the subject as though it's immaterial. There's nothing "fair" at all about inequality of opportunity. Also, it's, in fact, socialism that emphasizes and rewards a strong work ethic, not capitalism.

Seems like the vast majority of those opposed to socialism are those who don't even know what it is.

How does socialism reward a strong work ethic? You work harder so the Man can take more of it? That makes no sense to me. People have a lot less incentive to work hard if they do not get to keep what they've worked for. It's human nature. That said, do you think the USA would be as great as it is if it's always stuck to socialistic policies?

I'm surprised you take this position on socialism as well, since nearly all of the people I have heard or read about from Canada do not believe the expediency of health care in particular is that great. In fact not at all. Is that false?

This country was founded on capitalism. It is as strong and as prosperous as it is because of capitalism. To change it is incomprehensible.

Hesher · 06-20-2009, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent-on-the-Run

I'm surprised you take this position on socialism as well, since nearly all of the people I have heard or read about from Canada do not believe the expediency of health care in particular is that great. In fact not at all. Is that false?

False. Canadian health care, while sometimes not the fastest service, is far better than the LA hospital practice of dumping non-paying patients in front of homeless shelters in nothing but their hospital gowns and slippers. There are countless stories of people becoming sick through no fault of their own and then becoming absolutely destitute paying for care - even with insurance from an HMO, the profit-based model of the company will try to eliminate candidates who are likely to become sick and will try to deny as many medical procedures as possible to keep their costs down. That is nothing short of barbaric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent-on-the-Run

This country was founded on capitalism. It is as strong and as prosperous as it is because of capitalism. To change it is incomprehensible.

I won't argue that America was founded on capitalism; I think it has been one of the best working systems in the world. Ayn Rand's vision of a capitalist utopia is as beautiful and yet as pie-in-the-sky as a Marxist communist utopia. However, capitalism and it's externalities are not a perfect system and have done serious damage in areas that they can avoid being accountable for. We are not discussing socialism vs. capitalism however as much as we are discussing government-funded health care.

Son of JayJamJah · 06-23-2009, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

"Labor is a commodity, like any other, and its price is therefore determined by exactly the same laws that apply to other commodities. In a regime of big industry or of free competition – as we shall see, the two come to the same thing – the price of a commodity is, on the average, always equal to its cost of production. Hence, the price of labor is also equal to the cost of production of labor.

But, the costs of production of labor consist of precisely the quantity of means of subsistence necessary to enable the worker to continue working, and to prevent the working class from dying out. The worker will therefore get no more for his labor than is necessary for this purpose; the price of labor, or the wage, will, in other words, be the lowest, the minimum, required for the maintenance of life.

However, since business is sometimes better and sometimes worse, it follows that the worker sometimes gets more and sometimes gets less for his commodities. But, again, just as the industrialist, on the average of good times and bad, gets no more and no less for his commodities than what they cost, similarly on the average the worker gets no more and no less than his minimum."
- Friedrich Engels, "The Principles Of Communism"

Basically, under capitalism, the capitalist class monopolize the means of production and thus the working class are left with no choice but to sell their labour to the capitalists and pay them surplus value (meaning profit, interest and rent) in exchange for their mere survival. They produce commodities which then allows the capitalists to obtain that surplus value as profit. Capitalism operates on the very groundwork of paying workers less than the full value of their labour. The state serves to safeguard this inequality of power and the reserve army of unemployed workers serves to continually pressure the employed into working hard purely to survive and to create profit for the ruling class. This is how capitalism is innately exploitative and rarely rewards a strong work ethic. Under socialism, the means of production would be owned collectively and thus profit would be dispensed with and no one would be capable of simply sitting back and living off of the hard work of others.

Socialism, as Lenin claimed, can be encapsulated by the Biblical precept, "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

Good post, it's a shame Engels didn't get to see the 20th century, he would have had to really rethink his views. Socialism is a wonderful concept, but it is so obviously flawed in that it strips people of motivation at a certain point and thus brings down the quality of life. As Lenin would find out with socialism he who does work may still not eat. Socialism in my opinion works best in small groups for small periods of time, otherwise it's bound for eventual failure.

As for capitalism, you're only describing one of the relationships and a few demographic's that make it work and doing so with a rather preconceived slant. My experience doesn't fit into your archetype at all. Despite the numerous flaws in the system it presents more options than any other system and that's what I value, choice, to try something else if I don't like whats behind door number one.

Son of JayJamJah · 06-23-2009, 01:33 PM

@ Wayfarer

Engels would have watched communism and socialism fail all over the globe in the past century and would have realized that people are all different and assuming each person will work just as hard as the others and that the same amount of money is necessitated and warranted for each individual are simply wrong and have been proven wrong in practice.

To your second question (How so)it's common sense really. If you're compensation is tied to the success of the industry on the whole and the guy next to you is working half ass what motivates you to work to your own potential?

Thirdly, the basis for my opinion is multiple decades of studying and teaching world history and watching a pattern of imperialistic and socialistic governments crumble after initial boons.

Finally, capitalism in the United States offers more options because it's a free market and when an industry fails or struggles their is less red tape for a new more adept competitor in that or a competing industry to get past and eventually thrive. The same is true for personal career choices. I changed careers twice and was able to do so while still supporting a family because of the system I live in.

Because of this system, my family and many like them came to America in the the 20th century with nothing and now have wonderful lives, families and careers here, something the vast majority of us could never have achieved in our countries of origin.

Back on topic:

I think the primary flaw with our health care system in the US is medical malpractice litigation and what it does to the insurance costs of even basic care.

Son of JayJamJah · 06-26-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Firstly, at no point has there ever existed full-fledged communism, let alone in the past century. Secondly, what does it mean, to you, for a political ideology to "fail"? Was it the collapse of the Soviet Union that brought you to this verdict that socialism has been proven a "failure"? Thirdly, if you knew the first thing about socialism, you would be aware of the fact that the notion that, under socialism, everyone necessarily receives equal compensation for their labour is an absolute myth.

Marxists view profit as being a very contemptible incentive for the progression of society to begin with, and it is the very essence and purpose of the transitional stage of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (or, socialism) to strip society of that subversive, detrimental, deplorable, paternal "reward-punishment" psychology. It is what separates Marxism-Leninism from the perceived idealism of anarchism and left-communism.

See, "human nature", in the sense that champions of capitalism so regularly use the term, must refer to something characteristic of all humans at all times. For example, the "stalk and pounce" impulse is characteristic of all felines at all times. The insatiable greed of humans, however, is quite apparently not characteristic of all humans at all times, and even when it is characteristic of us, it evinces in many differing ways - not all of them being entirely materialistic. Under capitalism, there is ceaseless uncertainty about the future, and thus one is forced to continually strive to accumulate more because of the risk of losing what he/she has. As follows, under capitalism, it is quite rational to be greedy. In an egalitarian society, the same rules do not apply. Looking at it from a more evolutionary viewpoint: if the instincts and physicality of a species are shaped by its environment, and humanity's primary environment is society, we are not insatiably greedy hence capitalism, we live in a very prominently capitalist world hence the insatiable greed found so often in so many of us. As humans we are quite apparently capable of compassion and selflessness, we've simply been thrust into a situation in which competitiveness, aggression and greed are rewarded.

Which governments, exactly, are you referring to? Have you not also perceived of the crumbling of a myriad of capitalist nations? What about the Misean, anarcho-capitalist Somalia? There's a prime example of exactly where lassez-faire gets us.

The "free" market is anything but free. Where is the freedom in being compelled by the threat of starvation and death to sell your labour-power to a member of the class towards whom the system is slanted in the first place?

To the first paragraph; yes I'd say the collapse of the Soviet Union is what you call failure, if you disagree fine, but I think that's a bit of a reach. As for as no real communist nations, maybe in theory the don't fit the bill exactly, but perception is reality and if you asked anyone if the USSR was a communist state, they'd say yes.

The first bolded comment to me is the crux of our dissension. I think that's a good thing for a person. The second bolded one is me calling BS. This is never an issue for anyone in America who does not deserve it. I'll explain more if you need me to.

Capitalist governments collapse when there is government corruption which is why I favor less government not more.

I still think you were a bit harsh with some of this and other posts leading up to it, we disagree and you're not changing my mind anymore then I'm changing yours. Questioning my understanding of the issues is very disrespectful, questioning my way of thinking is always acceptable.

Sorry for the delayed response.