Capitalism .V. Socialism

[Arising_uk]

People are free to barter under Capitalism. It happens all the time.

People are free to barter under any economic system but my point was that your voluntary transactions are not exclusively the defining feature of Capitalism.

Socialism, a la Marx, stands for the worker owning the means of their production, surely a much freer approach?

[ForgedinHell]

People are free to barter under Capitalism. It happens all the time.

People are free to barter under any economic system but my point was that your voluntary transactions are not exclusively the defining feature of Capitalism.

Socialism, a la Marx, stands for the worker owning the means of their production, surely a much freer approach?

Hardly. Under Marx, the idea is to ignore human nature. He claims that we could arrive at a utopian point where people who work hard would willingly give to others with greater need. So, a person who goes to med school, becomes a neurosurgeon, who works 60 hours a week, but who is single, and has no kids to support, would be okay with making less money than a person who does not work, gets drunk all day, but has ten kids to support. Socialism is what was supposed to be used to get to that stage. Socialism is where a handful of commie party members dictate how much you shall earn, which makes that small handful of peope the owners of the means of production. Socialism is needed because the people with visions of utopia in their head need a method to force their views on others. Socialism is forcing people to engage in non-voluntary transactions. Capitalism lets people decide for themselves how to live their lives, so it is morally superior to socialism, and always will be. It's also more productive.

[bobevenson]

Unfortunately, you're talking to somebody (Arising) who doesn't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, and never will, even if you break it down into 1 + 1 = 2.

[ForgedinHell]

Unfortunately, you're talking to somebody (Arising) who doesn't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, and never will, even if you break it down into 1 + 1 = 2.

I have noticed that he and chaz and others on here have a love affair for commies, socialists, islamic terrorists, and an irrational hatred for America. I've gotten tired of reading their irrational comments, and feel it's about time to confront them. Their position is childish.

[tbieter]

“A St. Paul woman has been charged with assaulting a disabled man with a brick after he declined her prostitution offer.”
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... brick-when

As a disabled man who uses a cane, I am offended by this business-woman’s anti-capitalistic actions. Doesn’t she know that the consumer has a right to decline to buy the service or product that is offered?
We need better education in capitalism for our prostitutes.

[Arising_uk]

Hardly. Under Marx, the idea is to ignore human nature. ...

Care to say what you think Marx's view of 'human nature' was? As I thought he thought it was our nature to work productively and co-operatively.

He claims that we could arrive at a utopian point where people who work hard would willingly give to others with greater need.

Where does he claim this?

So, a person who goes to med school, becomes a neurosurgeon, who works 60 hours a week, but who is single, and has no kids to support, would be okay with making less money than a person who does not work, gets drunk all day, but has ten kids to support. ...

Very emotive but where does he propose such a system?

Socialism is what was supposed to be used to get to that stage. ...

I doubt you've ever read a word of Marx nor heard of his Historical Materialism if you think this.

Socialism is where a handful of commie party members dictate how much you shall earn, which makes that small handful of peope the owners of the means of production. Socialism is needed because the people with visions of utopia in their head need a method to force their views on others. Socialism is forcing people to engage in non-voluntary transactions.

I think you're confusing Socialism and Communism and are thinking about Stalinism and Maoism which were pretty much State Capitalism.

Capitalism lets people decide for themselves how to live their lives, so it is morally superior to socialism, and always will be. It's also more productive.

With respect to productivity and creativity this is what Marx said about Capitalism. Although I think with respect to China you'd have been pushed to have made Capitalism feed themselves in the way Maoism achieved nor restrict their numbers. Do you think Capitalism is suitable for a billion plus nation? Just asking as the Chinese think not.

You appear to ignore that there are social controls upon Capitalism in your country, as even your most ardent free-marketeer realises that laissez faire Capitalism leads to monopolies, price-fixing and a stifling of innovation. You also ignore that you are not free to decide to live completely how you like as there are social controls upon many things that could be traded in a Capitalist system, drugs, prostitution, slavery, etc.

[Arising_uk]

I have noticed that he and chaz and others on here have a love affair for commies, socialists, islamic terrorists, and an irrational hatred for America. I've gotten tired of reading their irrational comments, and feel it's about time to confront them. Their position is childish.

FIH appears to be a fairly typical example of the American I call the Yank(or in cockney-rhyming slang, Septic Tank), i.e. an ability to read selectively with a strong confirmation bias combined with the attitude that any critique of American policy is 'anti-american' and shows a 'hatred' for America, add to that the idea that anyone who critiques Capitalism is a 'commie'. As such I ask him to show me where I've posted anti-american propaganda, where I've supported Islamic terrorists or these 'commies', etc? That you think any critique of American policy or Capitalism is 'childish' just shows how far you need to mature. My take is that you'd be happier back in the '50s under Macarthy.

I'd now consider myself an old-fashioned British Liberal(no, not the 'Liberal' you think about from Fux News) and as such think the American obsession with the pursuit of individual happiness and the almighty dollar to the exclusion of all others a poor idea upon which to build a sustainable and cohesive society, as it ignores that, at times, the individual's needs may have to be subservient to the greater good. This is why I have a pet theory that America always needs an ideological 'enemy' to unite them, The Redskin, The Black Man, The Red Menace, The Yellow Peril and now the Mad Mullahs and the Ragheads, as their own internal tensions and the contradictions inherent in Capitalism would divide them tout suite if left to themselves.

[ForgedinHell]

Hardly. Under Marx, the idea is to ignore human nature. ...

Care to say what you think Marx's view of 'human nature' was? As I thought he thought it was our nature to work productively and co-operatively.

He claims that we could arrive at a utopian point where people who work hard would willingly give to others with greater need.

Where does he claim this?

So, a person who goes to med school, becomes a neurosurgeon, who works 60 hours a week, but who is single, and has no kids to support, would be okay with making less money than a person who does not work, gets drunk all day, but has ten kids to support. ...

Very emotive but where does he propose such a system?

Socialism is what was supposed to be used to get to that stage. ...

I doubt you've ever read a word of Marx nor heard of his Historical Materialism if you think this.

Socialism is where a handful of commie party members dictate how much you shall earn, which makes that small handful of peope the owners of the means of production. Socialism is needed because the people with visions of utopia in their head need a method to force their views on others. Socialism is forcing people to engage in non-voluntary transactions.

I think you're confusing Socialism and Communism and are thinking about Stalinism and Maoism which were pretty much State Capitalism.

Capitalism lets people decide for themselves how to live their lives, so it is morally superior to socialism, and always will be. It's also more productive.

With respect to productivity and creativity this is what Marx said about Capitalism. Although I think with respect to China you'd have been pushed to have made Capitalism feed themselves in the way Maoism achieved nor restrict their numbers. Do you think Capitalism is suitable for a billion plus nation? Just asking as the Chinese think not.

You appear to ignore that there are social controls upon Capitalism in your country, as even your most ardent free-marketeer realises that laissez faire Capitalism leads to monopolies, price-fixing and a stifling of innovation. You also ignore that you are not free to decide to live completely how you like as there are social controls upon many things that could be traded in a Capitalist system, drugs, prostitution, slavery, etc.

Marx didn't think people had a human nature, that with brutal force people could be taught to work their asses off to willingly support the lazy. Not likely. And I'm not confused about anything, you are. You socialists advocate the use of force to dictate to others how they should live. Piss on that. You can take your slave-loving dogma and stick it. It doesn't work.

[Arising_uk]

...
Marx didn't think people had a human nature, that with brutal force people could be taught to work their asses off to willingly support the lazy. Not likely. And I'm not confused about anything, you are. You socialists advocate the use of force to dictate to others how they should live. Piss on that. You can take your slave-loving dogma and stick it. It doesn't work.

As I thought. Not read one word of Marx but an 'expert' upon him.

I forgot to mention the other two Yank traits, a complete aversion to the question mark and a love of strawmen.

[Kayla]

Capitalism works better in practice. Compare the GNP of North Korea to that of South Korea.

maybe we should do a more meaningful comparison

like how many people go bankrupt due to medical bills in the usa vs canada or sweden

[ForgedinHell]

...
Marx didn't think people had a human nature, that with brutal force people could be taught to work their asses off to willingly support the lazy. Not likely. And I'm not confused about anything, you are. You socialists advocate the use of force to dictate to others how they should live. Piss on that. You can take your slave-loving dogma and stick it. It doesn't work.

As I thought. Not read one word of Marx but an 'expert' upon him.

I forgot to mention the other two Yank traits, a complete aversion to the question mark and a love of strawmen.

You asked a question, and I answered it. Typical Marxist: Always in denial.

[ForgedinHell]

Capitalism works better in practice. Compare the GNP of North Korea to that of South Korea.

maybe we should do a more meaningful comparison

like how many people go bankrupt due to medical bills in the usa vs canada or sweden

How would that be meaningful?

[Kayla]

maybe we should do a more meaningful comparison

like how many people go bankrupt due to medical bills in the usa vs canada or sweden

How would that be meaningful?

how would comparing the gnp of North korea and South korea be meaningful

ok how about we compare various quality of life indicators of the usa vs every other western country -

we could start with infant mortality which is much lower in socialist sweden than capitalist usa

[ForgedinHell]

maybe we should do a more meaningful comparison

like how many people go bankrupt due to medical bills in the usa vs canada or sweden

How would that be meaningful?

how would comparing the gnp of North korea and South korea be meaningful

ok how about we compare various quality of life indicators of the usa vs every other western country -

we could start with infant mortality which is much lower in socialist sweden than capitalist usa

Why would that be meaningful? What basic principle do you think those indicators will reveal, which will in turn cause you to favor socialism over capitalism, or capitalism over socialism? I'm sticking with freedom as a basic principle worth fighting for, so for me the meaningful indicators would have to revolve around that principle. What is it you believe should be the guiding principle in accepting some form of political-economic system?

[Arising_uk]

You asked a question, and I answered it. Typical Marxist: Always in denial.

I'm a British Liberal.

But you are right, it was my mistake to use the words "what you think Marx's view of 'human nature' was" as it allowed you to restate your original opinion. I was hoping that the words after that would have qualified what I was asking for but I forgot the Yanks selective reading ability. So, show me where in Marx's writings he states the version of human nature that you ascribe to him?
You also missed these;

"Where does he claim this?"

"Very emotive but where does he propose such a system?"

"Do you think Capitalism is suitable for a billion plus nation?"