Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Under capitalism, if I have money from an inheritance, I can do something like purchase rentals or dividend investments and never work again. In fact I know people like this. Who's the lazy one?
Capitalism is not about the value of labor. Labor is quite cheap, nearly worthless on its own.
Ah. So you don't value intellectual labor and results; but activity instead. Do you evaluate your staff on results produced or activity you see? Many managers value activity. After all it's been one of the issues with the transition to work from home.
If I recall, you work for a college or do I have you confused with someone else? Oh well, let's try a little gedanken experiment. Now we all know that in college some students are just naturally gifted and breeze through with A's. Others work their butts off to get a A. While still others float along content with C's. And some struggle not to flunk out.
So, in the interest of fairness, should not those students who are naturally gifted and got A's, give part of their grade to those struggling? Instead of a A, take a B or C so that a struggling D student could also share in the C's and B's. And perhaps the student who worked their butt off for the A should be willing to share with the student who partied over the weekend and is floating through college so that both can share in a nice B?
Ah. So you don't value intellectual labor and results; but activity instead. Do you evaluate your staff on results produced or activity you see? Many managers value activity. After all it's been one of the issues with the transition to work from home.
If I recall, you work for a college or do I have you confused with someone else? Oh well, let's try a little gedanken experiment. Now we all know that in college some students are just naturally gifted and breeze through with A's. Others work their butts off to get a A. While still others float along content with C's. And some struggle not to flunk out.
So, in the interest of fairness, should not those students who are naturally gifted and got A's, give part of their grade to those struggling? Instead of a A, take a B or C so that a struggling D student could also share in the C's and B's. And perhaps the student who worked their butt off for the A should be willing to share with the student who partied over the weekend and is floating through college so that both can share in a nice B?
That's not how education worked under communist sytems. So no. The Soviet education system was actually more meritocratic than the American one. If you were smart enough to be a scientist they pushed you toward that. It didn't matter where you came from, who your parents were whether you were a man or woman, a minority from the provinces, etc... There was a reason they got to space first.
That's not how education worked under communist sytems. So no. The Soviet education system was actually more meritocratic than the American one. If you were smart enough to be a scientist they pushed you toward that. It didn't matter where you came from, who your parents were whether you were a man or woman, a minority from the provinces, etc... There was a reason they got to space first.
You totally missed that point. Had nothing to do with communist education systems.
And no, that also had nothing to do with getting to space first. We held back our best rockets at the time for political reasons. Too much to go into here.
You totally missed that point. Had nothing to do with communist education systems.
And no, that also had nothing to do with getting to space first. We held back our best rockets at the time for political reasons. Too much to go into here.
I know what point you want to make. No, individual merit would not be done away with. The Soviets had awards they would give out for people that excelled in their work, etc...
The end state of communism would see all the people benefit equally and have an equal stake from the economic production of the society. Every person would be an equal stockholder in the world economy, so to speak. They would also all contribute; it was envisioned that even the higher-ups would do stints as manual laborers. The ideology of communism saw manual labor as honorable.
It doesn't mean that everyone would be equal in all things. Humans are apes, and apes always make an hierarchy. They made hierarchies under communism too. Only under communism those hierarchies would not be based on economic class or control of property & capital.
The reasons why communism never worked are because
1) both the theorists and practitioners underestimated how much people like their consumer trappings & creature comforts. They always downplayed economic development & focused on large-scale schemes & projects. Over time this would cause a loss of confidence because at some point people don't care if their country has the best athletes, the best ballet, the best engineered space capsules, the best tanks, best army, etc... but they damn well care that they can't get eggs at the store.
2) because of #1, countries with robust middle classes were never all that interested in communism. But countries that were feudal or quasi-feudal were, since they had no or very small middle classes and the exploitation of the poor by the rich is very clear. Countries in the feudal stage of development according to communist theory are not ready for communism. They don't have the mindset nor the resources for it and are, in a kind of irony, too poor to make it work.
Those two combined are the fatal flaws.
Bismarck was ultimately right when he said the way you beat socialist and anarchist agitation is by taking away the source of their agitation. Which means you build up a robust middle class, then see to it there are insurance programs to keep the middle classes from becoming poor. If the middle classes perceive they are becoming poor, they will join whatever revolt is going on, and that's very bad.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,225,683 times
Reputation: 57822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
There is no way to achieve "equality of outcome", nor can there be. It's ridiculous to even suggest it.
That's right, and if there was, the entire world would come to a halt.
Imagine this: Everyone gets paid the same, say $25 hour whether a doctor, lawyer, or a restaurant dishwasher. I don't think I'd like to have surgery done by a doctor making the same as a dishwasher. Who will be willing to go through 8 years of schooling for that little pay?
Socialism does not stop you from having a good life, it does stop you from being successful by exploiting others and giving your kids an unfair advantage.
The main problem I see with this argument is that there will always be overlords.
One of the reasons the income tax is unfair is because it only taxes income, which is usually what you get for selling your labor, and rich people don't work.
The wealthiest people have set up tax-free foundations that own all the stuff they use. Or they have their money invested in corporations set up in tax havens, with lots of intermediaries, and they drive corporate cars, vacation in corporate resorts, dine and entertain on corporate credit cards, and manage to live quite well, and have lots of power, while having their name on very little.
THat is the trouble with socialism. The wealthy and powerful will be the ones who decide who gets what, and what comes from whom. YOU are the one who will be paying, and THEY are the ones who will be getting.
All the Communist and Socialist countries have very very wealthy people at the top, with lots of minions and shadow corporations between them and the public, so people don't recognize what's going on.
Until the average person is able to understand where their intersts lie, and who is serving those interests, we will continue to be ripped off by the ruling elite, no matter what kind of obfuscating labels they give themselves.
That's right, and if there was, the entire world would come to a halt.
Imagine this: Everyone gets paid the same, say $25 hour whether a doctor, lawyer, or a restaurant dishwasher. I don't think I'd like to have surgery done by a doctor making the same as a dishwasher. Who will be willing to go through 8 years of schooling for that little pay?
Yet many people willingly eat food prepared by workers making $7/hour with no paid sick leave, does that make anyone nervous? I just think the pendulum swings both ways here.
intuitive answer: no, because nothing is as good as communism.
On paper, it sound like a great goal. However, it is a utopia.
The reality? Why have most communist countries tried keeping their people locked-up in their own countries. If such system is the best, why do people migrate to non-communist countries. Do you see people trying to move to communist type systems? Not that I see.
Do a random search and see which types of systems attract people from other countries. Look at immigration data of people moving from their home countries. Which are the countries that most people try to move to?
Granted, capitalism and democracy are not perfect. They have their flaws. However, the more a country allows open market capitalism, the better off there people are. You can cite examples of poverty in capitalist countries. However, I am talking as a whole. Compare the poor in the US and see how they fare as compare to many other countries. Overall, they fare better that a lot of countries when I comes to standards of living. Do research. Now, do research with an open mind. Don't look for sources that support YOUR views only. Do what I ask my students in management classes. I ask them to write their research paper with sources and information that support their thesis claim. However, this is the hard part. I also ask them to write opposing point with sources and information on the points they support it. Many have a hard time doing so. Some, find it very difficult to do so. Why? Because they do not want to hear about the positives of the opposing points. People tend to want to see topics with right or wrong only, black and white only.
I spent about a month in the Republic of Georgia in the capital city Tibilisi. I saw the results of a communist/socialist system. Also, when I went to visit Berlin, as soon as we traveled in the area that was controlled by a communist system, you could see the difference as you pass that section as compared to Berlin. How about Taiwan? How did capitalism affect this small place as compared to China. They became one of the "Asian Tigers" due to their economic prosperity. Such a small place became more financially prosperous than China.
Again, without much data, which communist countries provide an overall higher standard of life than non-communist countries? Again, what has happened with countries that have experimented with communism? USSR and their satellite countries? Venezuela? Look at Cuba.
Look at China. They have realized that capitalism does make a country more rich and powerful. After so many years of strict communism and socialism, they opened their markets to the world and have allowed capitalist business ventures in their citizens. Granted, still very controlled but the capitalist idea is there producing results.
Again, any system has flaws. My point is to take a close look both systems. Which one have produces more powerful countries economically? Which one has provided a higher standard of life for it citizens? Which one can freely leave a country?
You have a great day.
elamigo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
