Socialism promotes slavery (stereotypes, world)

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Originally Posted by branh0913

The slave owners weren't socialist. But socialism and government was the only thing that could sustain a slavery system. If a slave could just escape, there would be no legal obligation for him/her to return to their master. Unless slavery itself was enforceable by law. So in many ways the government was able to keep slavery alive. Else anytime a slave escaped they could be free, and there would be no real backlash to them doing so.

What part of this seems like socialism to you? Slavery WAS enforced by the legal system. It was the very definition of capitalism in that those who owned the system LEGALLY were able to reap all of the rewards. That's exactly how the system worked to enrich the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, et al.

[Costaexpress]

Originally Posted by jertheber

Another thread on the evils of the much feared and dreaded socialism. All I can say is that if one doesn't see the fact of a mixed American economy being a hybrid of capitalism and socialism they simply aren't looking too hard. In their purest form neither is all that desirable, capitalism being the dominant part of our system holds sway over most of those socialistic aspects that have caused many an argument that has no end in sight.

We all love those aspects of socialism that are a benefit to us, and many hate the excesses of the capitalistic system that serve as a punitive measure to those who aren't at the top of things, economically speaking. Of course the view of socialism as a complete system isn't the favorite either, especially when compared to the potential of all that capitalism promises, even when it doesn't, or can't fulfill those promises. Economics is, and has always been, about power, not theories.

The big drawbacks to both theories are the facts that support the notion of both systems potential for being rigged in favor of the top classes. This glaring hole in the theoretical promise of each system only serves to underscore the idea of fairness and justice as fairy tale notions only believed by the economically uninitiated or the mentally challenged. Ideologues aside, I'd think that by now most over the age of thirty would recognize the fact that the potential for corruption among the power elite is never truly ameliorated by the addition of theoretical speculation, especially when that speculation is coming from those who will never benefit at the level of those who truly hold that power.

the game is always rigged. fairness is in fact subjective to people's viewpoints and ideologies. so it's hard to measure fairness. anyhow, as chairman mao said, "either western wind trumps eastern wind, or the eastern wind trumps western wind." there will always be a power structure with varying degrees of fairness and justice.

we need the rule of law to moderate conflicts, disputes, and problems. but the basic rules of evolution haven't changed and will not change.

the way i see it is that the political left today uses the language of justice and compassion to advance their kind of power structure. they aren't liberating people from a power structure. the political right certainly has their own brand of power structure.

i support a system that is based more on merit. i want a fair, not welfare society.

[Brighton888]

If Americans were so afraid of socialism they would have done away with all these big government programs. Do you not realize how many your country actually has? Do I really need to list them? Okay, so you don't have a national health service for everyone but you provide so many other socialist things. Are you not aware of how many of your citizens are on welfare, EBT ect?

A person in your country can get on disability for just "being to fat". Literally no other country in the world has this scenario occurring.

[Julian658]

Originally Posted by Brighton888

If Americans were so afraid of socialism they would have done away with all these big government programs. Do you not realize how many your country actually has? Do I really need to list them? Okay, so you don't have a national health service for everyone but you provide so many other socialist things. Are you not aware of how many of your citizens are on welfare, EBT ect?

A person in your country can get on disability for just "being to fat". Literally no other country in the world has this scenario occurring.

Disability for obesity is common in right wing folks.

[Phil75230]

True (i.e. absolute) freedom works only if you're Robinson Crusoe. Even in a group of two, one will have some level of power over another in certain contexts.

People keep talking about "freedom" in a power relations sense, which is fair enough as far as it goes. The ultimate problem is how powerful people use that power - self-interest vs the good of the society (I perfectly understand that people will, sooner or later, use that power more and more for their own benefit instead of what's good for others). At the end of the day, it boils down to our flawed nature. Flawed because we know we shouldn't initiate hurt, harm, or degradation others; know what generally constitutes such hurt, harm, and degradation; yet choose to do so anyway.

Because of the above, so long as two or more people interact with each other, there has to be some rules of conduct and restraints on what we may or may not do to others. That means we have to have at least some restrictions on our freedom. Otherwise why not say it's A-OK to throw bricks through car windows just for the thrill of it? Or likewise say it's permissible for an adult to scream and berate four-year-old children in a maniacal manner?

OK, back to the economic part of freedom. It's wrong to keep a person involuntarily bound (i.e. enslaved) to an employer or government mainly because it removes the option to prevent abuse by the one in the powerful position. Not far behind in second place is that slavery denies the person the right to choose what type of work is the best fit for him or her, and as such prevents the whole of society from benefitting from his or her pursuits (f.ex., if not for slavery, an exceptionally talented person who happened to be African-American may have invented the light bulb or telephone by 1855, or the mass produced automobile by 1880. And we today? The internet would be "your grandpa's technology!". Hey, stranger things have happened!!).

As for which system works best, I would have to say Social Democracy, as explicitly distinct from Marxism-Leninism. Social Democracy is basically free market capitalist, but with two modifying features.'

1) Buying and selling goods and services, like any other human activity, is regulated to prevent abuses by the selfish and uncaring, or to prevent mass-psychology from undertaking acts that inadvertently make matters worse.

2) The productive capacity of capitalism is taxed to provide key services to the economy as a whole (public roads and/or rail) and general population's quality of life and well-being (health, education, some forms of transportation, to name three). 19th Century Europe and 20th Century Latin America and Africa especially show that it's cheaper in the long run (even for the wealthy) to help the poor rather than tell the poor to "sink or swim".
See French, Russian, Chinese and Cuban Revolutions for details.

[Skydive Outlaw]

Capitalism promotes wage slavery: which is just slavery with a fancy twist. Wages slaves actually cost their employers less than what it would cost to own a slave since a slave owner has to also pay for food, shelter, clothing and medical care. And slave owners deal with the threat of a violent slave revolt. An employer paying wage slaves minimum wage just has to call 911 if anyone freaks out.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Skydive Outlaw

Capitalism promotes wage slavery: which is just slavery with a fancy twist. Wages slaves actually cost their employers less than what it would cost to own a slave since a slave owner has to also pay for food, shelter, clothing and medical care. And slave owners deal with the threat of a violent slave revolt. An employer paying wage slaves minimum wage just has to call 911 if anyone freaks out.

I would agree IF you said "Insufficiently regulated capitalism promotes wage slavery". Yet, with proper regulations, specifically minimum wages and adequately funded education for job and vocational training. So capitalism doesn't inevitably mean wage slavery.

Still, great points about the commonalities between (presumably) plantation-like slavery and "mere" shockingly low pay. Actual slaves (i.e. Plantation South) got no wage, but the owners subsidized their food, clothing, and shelter. Low wage workers are given a salary to adequately cover little beyond food, clothing, and shelter - and that only if they're lucky. The result is essentially the same.

The only differences are in (a) how the money is channeled and (b) the extent of choice about who to work for. For (a) did the money path go from the owner to the seller of life's necessities? or from owner to worker to the seller of life's necessities? For (b) the difference is that a plantation slave was tied to his or her owner's land (unless sold) whereas a lowest-wage worker could (theoretically, and even somewhat in practice) change employers.

The latter situation might - just might - be bearable if the government adequately funded education and job training, especially for those of lower socioeconomic status. But everyone here knows how that's going in the USA; which highlights what is going on. It's a combination of low wages and inadequate funding of education, especially for people in the lower socio-economic levels but increasing for those in the middle class as well. Anyone claiming this is not toxic to general social stability and even democracy itself simply lacks a broad perspective of world history. Looking at US history alone simply doesn't cut it.