|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted February 10, 2009 01:10 AM |
|
|
Well obviously my point is, those organizations do something. They don't ask for donations so they can lazy off all day. Notice, pure socialism would be like a society full of non-profit organizations (they do something, again). And they'll distribute what they do, with welfare, so kinda equally 
In capitalism you cannot sell things for free, unless you have a steady income or profit. Thus you are discouraged to make non-profit organizations. Even if you do make one, you'll have to seek donations and sometimes, that isn't guaranteed.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 01:15 AM |
|
|
If they got donations and then didn't do anything, then they wouldn't get any more donations.  Essentially, their donors are paying them to do something. So "non-profit organization" is somewhat of a misnomer - a more accurate name would be "non-consumer physical benefit organization". (But that'd be a rather long name.)
And, under socialism, who would fund all these organizations?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 01:18 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:18, 10 Feb 2009.
|
Quote:
And, under socialism, who would fund all these organizations?
Didn't I say this already? They fund each other with what they do, assuming there are many of them. Or the "government" if you prefer (which takes from all and distributes it equally, ideally).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 01:34 AM |
|
|
Why would these organizations want to fund each other? Funding another organization would make each one less effective. Plus, think of what the donors would do. "I really want to help starving children in Africa. I'm going to donate $500." And then the organization gives that $500 to some cultural folk-dance promoting organization. What will the donor say? "That's the last time I'm donating to that organization."
Plus, giving equally to all is punishing the more productive.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 01:47 AM |
|
|
They fund each other with their services/products, not with money, because technically, money wouldn't even exist
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 04:27 AM |
|
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 08:07 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 08:09, 10 Feb 2009.
|
Mvass, I like to call you naive The thing you are promoting is an IDEALIZED version of capitalism that has never has and never will -ever- exist. The same goes for true ideal socialism. Both imply a human nature that isn't there.
Buuuut what do I know? I'm just a Troll
Quote:
The satisfaction of demand is maximum in a capitalist system.
Materialistic dumbass America, the supreme capitalist nation of the world, contradicts your statement.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 10:25 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 10:36, 10 Feb 2009.
|
Quote:
But no one has to be poor. Everyone can be at least middle class if they try.
Second, you can't survive under socialism at all. You have to go work in Gulag or Comrade Commissar will shoot you.
Are you aware of the amount of naive generalization you're making? 
Everyone can be middle class if they try? You think all those millions of low-class immigrant workers who toil 12 hours per day for a minimum wage are too lazy? You think the American dream's waiting them around the corner?
And I don't see commissars sending people to Gulags in Norway, for example. Quite the opposite, it was voted out as one of the most desirable places to live on the planet, if I recall correctly.
See, everything's relative. Socialism isn't communism, although DeadMan would shoot every other kind of socialist. And capitalism isn't Utopia, it's just a system made for profit and mixed up with democracy to give people a sense of liberty of some kind.
And please note that, although I support some socialist views, I don't think I'm a socialist. Mainly because I think Marx was, in many ways, an idiot. In fact, if there was such a thing as "agnostic" in politics, I'd be one.
But of all the available stuff out there, this social democracy thingy looks the most appealing to me right now (besides the Green ideology, but it rarely achieves much unless it, like the German Green party, sells itself out).
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 02:48 PM |
|
|
Moonlith:
To prevent you from spreading misconceptions, America is hardly as capitalist as it can be. There are numerous regulations, and subsidies for various groups, and corporate welfare. Corporate welfare has nothing to do with capitalism. It distorts the market process.
Bak:
Obviously, those immigrants are much better off than they were in their home country - or otherwise they wouldn't come, would they?
But I'm more referring to their children. Their kids should be able to go to school and then become middle class.
And Norway is hardly socialist. http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx Norway is ranked 28th of 179. And Denmark, another Scandinavian country, is ranked 8th. You want to know the countries with the lowest economic freedom? North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Burma. Are any of them great paradises? I thought not.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 04:02 PM |
|
|
Father:
It's impossible to do away with the economy. As long as humans are alive, so will there be an economic system of some sort. From slavery to feudalism to capitalism to finally socialism - all are economic systems.
But only under socialism are all people as equal as you desire. As long as bourgeois capitalism exists, there will be great inequality.
TheDeath:
Indeed, the bourgeoisie is arrogant. What other than arrogance would permit a class to thus dominate a class?
But socialism is against personal selfishness, you are correct. But the proletariat - joined as the International - should dominate and control all the Earth. That is, according to most religions, their right. Humanity has dominion over the Earth.
mvassilev:
The capitalist running dogs have certainly gotten to you. Your economic proposal does nothing to guarantee the equality of outcome, as is the goal of socialism. You would dispute the validity of such a goal, but all people are equal - so they deserve to live equally.
Baklava:
No, I have never lived in a communist society, because one never existed. The Soviet Union, the so-called "socialist states" of Eastern Europe, China, and North Korea were all state capitalist - replacing the dictatorship of the private sector with the dictatorship of immoral, greedy central planners. They stole the surplus value from the proletarians as surely as the capitalists did before them.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 04:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How would exchange work without money? Barter?
Dammit what did I say? You're not paying attention?
Non-profit organizations make stuff. Ideally, obviously (not practically) if people were angels, they would distribute this stuff equally. However, in the real world, some people are crapsacks selfish (no, not you trust me ). Therefore we need government regulation (which may or may not be corrupt, that's a different problem altogether) to take all the stuff they make, and distribute it equally.
Either that, or make people choose what they want from a "budget per person" or something like that. For example, someone may choose a big plasma TV instead of a computer, if they so wish. From the government, not directly from the organizations, to keep it under control so to speak.
Quote:
But socialism is against personal selfishness, you are correct. But the proletariat - joined as the International - should dominate and control all the Earth. That is, according to most religions, their right. Humanity has dominion over the Earth.
You mean by authority? Well I am of the opinion that "respect for authority" (let's say, from the animals ) has to be earned. Dominating something and commanding respect is arrogant at it's finest. Deserving to be respected is not.
This even applies in religion, even if you are a Catholic and don't agree with it . Usually though, priests and saints really deserve that, but obviously there are exceptions. I don't respect them for authority, I respect them because they deserve it. (most times; don't start with those 'corrupt' etc).
So for our "authority" to be respected we'll have to earn it -- that is, we have to be not dominators but 'watchers' of some sort, like a parent for a child, not like a Master against for a slave.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 05:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And Norway is hardly socialist. http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx Norway is ranked 28th of 179. And Denmark, another Scandinavian country, is ranked 8th. You want to know the countries with the lowest economic freedom? North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Burma. Are any of them great paradises? I thought not.
We cold vikings over here are atleast somewhat leftsided compared to what it could be.
America is the most capitalistic country in the world, why can't we NOT call it "the" capitalist country then??
Mvass, you are brainwashed. You are not even attempting to be leftsided, or you Americans got a really wrong political axis. In a total socialist country there would exists no money. Its that simple.
An example of how a ridiculessy leftwinged country would be, just look at FOSS?
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 09:10 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 21:13, 10 Feb 2009.
|
@DeadMan
That sentence about most religions giving us the "right" to abuse nature couldn't be more wrong. In fact, only the Abrahamic religions even remotely support that claim. Buddhism, hinduism, native American spiritualism and many others in fact support mankind living in harmony with nature and respect to all living beings. In fact, if you support socialism only towards humans without respect for anything else you are not much different from Nazis (National Socialists) supporting socialism only towards Germans.
Besides, how can you support religious theories when Marx said that religion is an "opium for the masses"?
If there is an International which dominates the Earth, then surely its leaders aren't really equal to other people? Or am I wrong? You can't have some people forcing equality because those people themselves will, hence, never be equal to anyone.
I think that after the entire 20th century of repression, starvation and mass murders in dozens of countries which tried communism, we can safely assume that communism indeed cannot work and stop trying to impose it on everyone. Enough people have died for one bad idea already.
@MVass
Just because someone is born in a poor country makes people born in rich countries superior to them?
Or, to put it this way, if a man is beaten twice per day in his home country, and then comes to you, does that give you the right to beat him once per day?
By a country being socialist, I didn't mean cutting its economical freedoms. I never said anything about that, so I don't really see a connection with that top list you posted (speaking of which, how is that economic freedom actually calculated? I never really thought that Albania is so much more economically free from Croatia, for example). However, Norway's leading "Red-Green alliance" is composed of a socialdemocratic, a socialist and a centrist party, so I think we can safely call it a rather left-leaning government... Am I wrong?
EDIT
It appears to be my destiny to constantly get caught between two fanatical sides. Theists and atheists, commies and capitalists... Ah well.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 10, 2009 10:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, Norway's leading "Red-Green alliance" is composed of a socialdemocratic, a socialist and a centrist party, so I think we can safely call it a rather left-leaning government... Am I wrong?
Theoreticaly and historicaly speaking: Correct
Practice: Centrist and maybe a small inch to the left. The union is not really leftwing anymore.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 12:01 AM |
|
|
DeadMan:
Why do people "deserve" the equality of outcome?
TheDeath:
But why should this stuff be distributed equally in the first place?
del_diablo:
Quote:
America is the most capitalistic country in the world
New Zealand, Ireland, Australia, Singapore, and Hong Kong are more capitalist.
Quote:
In a total socialist country there would exists no money.
Then how do things get exchanged?
And what's FOSS?
Bak:
Quote:
Just because someone is born in a poor country makes people born in rich countries superior to them?
No, of course not. But it often makes them less productive, which means they rightly get less money.
Quote:
how is that economic freedom actually calculated?
http://www.heritage.org/Index/PDF/Index09_Methodology.pdf
Quote:
However, Norway's leading "Red-Green alliance" is composed of a socialdemocratic, a socialist and a centrist party, so I think we can safely call it a rather left-leaning government... Am I wrong?
Government =/= country. America's economic freedoms didn't change much when Bush was elected, and again didn't change much now.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 11:32 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 11:37, 11 Feb 2009.
|
Why on Earth would someone be less productive if he/she comes from a poorer country? Especially for physical labour, which is what most immigrants do...
In fact, it is most often the case that immigrants are MORE productive than their equivalents in the USA. That would explain why a lot of the leading scientists and experts in any field whatsoever do not actually come from the US, but other countries (and usually not rich ones, a lot arrive from Eastern Europe, for instance), and why most of physical workers are foreigners too (cheaper AND as efficient as - or more than - domestic ones). But Eastern Europe is still in a far better condition than, say, some parts of Mexico and some other regions people immigrate from, and it gives a better level of education - thus allowing people to do something other than menial jobs, and get paid better. But people from Nicaragua or Kazakhstan or some backwaters in Mexico don't have such choice. Is it their fault that they were born there? Of course not. But capitalism has a use for them - demeaning, but still a use. And that piece of bread is enough for them. They will not complain not because they're happy, but because they know they'll lose even those crappy jobs if they do. Is it alright to profit on their humbleness and misfortune of being born elsewhere?
I don't expect you to answer that. In capitalism, if something brings money, then it's already alright.
Actually the idea appears to be that less and less "true" Americans works as physical labour and that various immigrants from poor countries just fill out those positions cause they came from poor countries. Which is a type of economical fascism that I strongly dislike.
And about unskilled immigrants' children getting better education and having better chances at life, go to a ghetto and tell them that. See their reaction.
If you were born in a tiny, ruined flat swarming with cockroaches in some semi-ghetto post-apocalyptic neighbourhood with your father working 12 hours per day in some coal plant and your mother in some tailoring factory to bring some food on the table, it's a question whether you'd like the system so much.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 11:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
TheDeath:
But why should this stuff be distributed equally in the first place?
The question is: Why would it not in the first place?
del_diablo:
Quote:
America is the most capitalistic country in the worldNew Zealand, Ireland, Australia, Singapore, and Hong Kong are more capitalist.
Singapore and Hong Kong are they not a part of China or someting?
Quote:
Then how do things get exchanged?
And what's FOSS?
Why do we have exchange today then?
FOSS is short for "Free Open Source Software".
Quote:
Government =/= country. America's economic freedoms didn't change much when Bush was elected, and again didn't change much now.
Well what has the politic to do with the case, they tok of a bit of the budget for health and similar communal services. They buildt less roads and they did less. They took less stances and claimed more than they did.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 12:13 PM |
|
|
And Hong Kong is an administrative part of China, but it keeps a different system and freedom of all affairs except military and foreign politics.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 02:41 PM |
|
|
Bak:
Quote:
Why on Earth would someone be less productive if he/she comes from a poorer country?
No, I meant if he/she is in a poorer country.
Quote:
Is it alright to profit on their humbleness and misfortune of being born elsewhere?
You mean, is it all right for socialists to deny them the opportunities to rise?
Quote:
Actually the idea appears to be that less and less "true" Americans works as physical labour and that various immigrants from poor countries just fill out those positions cause they came from poor countries. Which is a type of economical fascism that I strongly dislike.
So people making their lives much better = fascism. Great.
Quote:
And about unskilled immigrants' children getting better education and having better chances at life, go to a ghetto and tell them that. See their reaction.
Obviously, there's room for improvement.
del_diablo:
Distribution shouldn't be equal because not all are equally productive - and if the productive don't get all the rewards for their increased productivity, then they will become less productive.
Quote:
Why do we have exchange today then?
Seriously, you don't know? It's because it is much more effective for people to produce something they're relatively good at producing, and then trade it for something else.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 11, 2009 03:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, I meant if he/she is in a poorer country.
You know what's so funny about this? Skip back some few hundred years, and try to make women equal to men in this respect, when let's say, you have to be a blacksmith and women usually lack the strength.
What you propose is absolutely AGAINST FAIRNESS or equality -- you say "more productive is what matters", but then again, if men were more productive than women (hypothetically speaking), that would make them 'better' in this regard. And what did the woman deserve to not be in the same situation? We don't get to choose our genders or family at birth (for example, rich family).
Quote:
Obviously, there's room for improvement.
Obviously, that's somebody else's problem. Right?
Quote:
Seriously, you don't know? It's because it is much more effective for people to produce something they're relatively good at producing, and then trade it for something else.
I already explained how the exchange would work and be distributed, why do you keep on asking this?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
