Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Guest_ringledman_*

Capitalism Produces - Socialism Distributes

Recommended Posts

Not true.

The vast majority of people in the Far East and Africa still live in abject poverty.

Try comparing the quality of life of an ordinary working person in Africa or the Far East with one in say Sweden or Finland.

Socialism, characterised by public education, universal health-care and strong trade unions has done more than anything to lift people out of poverty.

Even the poor in socialist European countries have a lifestyle that only available to the very richest in these countries.

If u give everyone money who will bother to work? poverty [ with it's endless definitions to suit politicians]will always exist .

Education doesn't = job ,how are they created? £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you honestly think there would be more equality of oppurtunity in a totally capitalist society with no public education system or universal healthcare than there currently is in Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Finland?

Whats the sense of sending our kids to university spend all that time money for them to work at Starbucks.

Better to send them to assassin school to shoot Brooncolites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism produces wealth for the elite

Socialism redistributes the wealth amongst the supporters of Socialism

Revolution resets the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism accumulates. Socialism re-distributes.

Without re-distribution, capitalism will fail.

does both that is what it is, the most efficient at allocating scarce resources in society.

You may not agree with the result but people are voting with their money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

capitalim doesn't = fair, just the the optimum means of allocating scarce resources and it's not perfect, just better at producing wealth than

the alternative ie Socialism which via tax and State uses force to allocate resources. We operate under a mixed system in which recently

the "thickness" of the State led them to be to a larger extent an executor rather than an enabler in the allocation process, leading to mass

malinvestment and it's prerequisite market price distortion.

There's no perfect system but to favour Socialism , when their wet dream USSR blew up, highlighting it's obvious self

destructive faults is just someone veiwing life thru" Broon" tinted specs.

No use producing wealth if only a few people have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism works fine at the level of wealth creation- but it cannot distinguish between human resources and other resources, treating both in the same way. So, failing to grasp to relationship between income and demand, a purely capitalist society would be compelled by it's own internal logic to deploy any technology that increased production- even if this deployment would lead to mass unemployment and a collapse in demand that would bring down the system.

This is failure is due to the fact that to capitalism human beings are totally expendable- if a factory could operate more profitably with zero human labour, this would be the course of action that capitalism would take- it would be the right thing to do.

Basicly it's a dumb machine. So why do you want your life to be controlled by a machine?

Erm because it's not a machine.

Capitalism is really simple, here is it's dna.

1) You get to refuse other peoples offers.

2) you get to keep what you make.

3) nobody owes you anything, unless you make an explicit agreement with them.

4) you don't owe anybody anything, unless you make an explicit agreement with them,

5) What capital is for the person you are dealing with is found by free trade - that is they are allowed to refuse you and your offers.

I fail to see where there is any control in this. It's the maximal possible human freedom, in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

No use producing wealth if only a few people have it.

If you take capitalism to its logical conclusion then the only production would revolve around building diamond encrusted Rolls Royces and Gucci bags whilst half the population starved to death, they'd be a revolution long before then of course. Mind you, socialists seem to be well into their commodity fetishism too, that's why they try and justify their obsessive materialism with utilitarianism, but I think we're already at the point where everyone who wants a fridge freezer and microwave already has one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm because it's not a machine.

Capitalism is really simple, here is it's dna.

1) You get to refuse other peoples offers.

2) you get to keep what you make.

3) nobody owes you anything, unless you make an explicit agreement with them.

4) you don't owe anybody anything, unless you make an explicit agreement with them,

5) What capital is for the person you are dealing with is found by free trade - that is they are allowed to refuse you and your offers.

I fail to see where there is any control in this. It's the maximal possible human freedom, in fact.

What your describing is real capitalism as would take place in an allotment, desert island or small comunity, what most people understand to be Captialism is in-fact State Capitailism which is just a picture on one side of the coin, the other side of the coin is State Socialism. Heads they win, tales you lose.These are however, only the images on each side of the coin, the substance of the coins is the real power structure. The State is the shadow cast on society by big business, attempts to attenuate the shadow will not alter the substance.

Edited by enrieb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, socialists seem to be well into their commodity fetishism too, that's why they try and justify their obsessive materialism with utilitarianism, but I think we're already at the point where everyone who wants a fridge freezer and microwave already has one.

You get corrupt ignorant cúnts in all spheres of life.

I hate New Labor supporters even more than i hate Thatcherites. And that's saying something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What your describing is real capitalism as would take place in an allotment, desert island or small comunity, what most people understand to be Captialism is in-fact State Capitailism which is just a picture on one side of the coin, the other side of the coin is State Socialism. Heads they win, tales you lose.These are however, only the images on each side of the coin, the substance of the coins is the real power structure. The State is the shadow cast on society by big business, attempts to attenuate the shadow will not alter the substance.

Yes, I know.

All I am doing is outlining capitalism in the vague hope that people will stop blaming what is a relatively and easy to understand peaceful innocuous process for what are actually problems brought about because of statism.

As for the state being subservient to big business, that's insane.

Peaceful trading --------------------------------------------------------------------- Coercion

we are here-------------------------------------------------------->

And that's why everything has gone tits up. No price signals.

Edited by Injin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

What your describing is real capitalism as would take place in an allotment, desert island or small comunity, what most people understand to be Captialism is in-fact State Capitailism which is just a picture on one side of the coin, the other side of the coin is State Socialism. Heads they win, tales you lose.These are however, only the images on each side of the coin, the substance of the coins is the real power structure. The State is the shadow cast on society by big business, attempts to attenuate the shadow will not alter the substance.

Years ago people didn't even try and make a distinction between the two, that's why people like Ricardo and Adam Smith always talked about the "political economy" rather than in 'isms. We have different organising principles, that's all, capitalism doesn't stand alone as some flawless system, it demands a strong state to protect private property rights and quell unrest resulting from inequality, it also needs the state to break monopolies in order to function efficiently. Above all it requires government to fulfill those roles without being corrupted and bought off by special interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capital itself would alter in form and substance.

which is exactly what is happening now.

all capital can be reduced to information when judged by conciousness.

everything is relative under concious judgement.

which is why sovereigns are being stripped of their AAAs.

the last three hundreed years have been based on assumption of absolutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which is exactly what is happening now.

all capital can be reduced to information when judged by conciousness.

everything is relative under concious judgement.

which is why sovereigns are being stripped of their AAAs.

the last three hundreed years have been based on assumption of absolutes.

Of course they have.

We've just had repeated attempts to bring about the world described in plato's republic.

Aristotle was right, plato was wrong. now we see the whole thing in action. ideas follow experience, experience doesn't follow ideas.

We need a free market because we don't have a clue what's going on inside other peoples heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook

What your describing is real capitalism as would take place in an allotment, desert island or small comunity, what most people understand to be Captialism is in-fact State Capitailism which is just a picture on one side of the coin, the other side of the coin is State Socialism. Heads they win, tales you lose.These are however, only the images on each side of the coin, the substance of the coins is the real power structure. The State is the shadow cast on society by big business, attempts to attenuate the shadow will not alter the substance.

bingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook

Except not bingo, it's just ******ed up massively. (Hence the thread.)

There is no such thing as real capitalism any more than there is such thing as real communism. They are both just ideals based on a misunderstanding of how humans actually are.

They both rely on everyone playing "fair" according to each of their parameters and, when they don't, the nice, uncorruptable state will step in and make them.

And that's a generous interpretation!

Edited by Steve Cook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Years ago people didn't even try and make a distinction between the two, that's why people like Ricardo and Adam Smith always talked about the "political economy" rather than in 'isms. We have different organising principles, that's all, capitalism doesn't stand alone as some flawless system, it demands a strong state to protect private property rights and quell unrest resulting from inequality, it also needs the state to break monopolies in order to function efficiently. Above all it requires government to fulfill those roles without being corrupted and bought off by special interests.

One of the main reasons that distorted-keynsian economics is so popular amongst elites is that it creates stability amongst the dominant power structures. True Capitalist Austrian economic solutions may well end the boom bust cycle more effectively, but they create an unstable political situation whereby the population could swing disproportionately to the left or to the right creating a revolution that would reset the wealth system.

Keynsian economics is distorted, because governments never save enough money to spend during the bust cycle.

Edited by enrieb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as real capitalism any more than there is such thing as real communism. They are both just ideals based on a misunderstanding of how humans actually are.

There is such a thing as capitalism.

It's not a prescription, it's an observation.

If you do x, y and z you get result a.

Capitalism is completely dependant on how people are - in the same way that any exercise plan or medical treatment depends on how people actually are. And, just like an exercise plan or a medical treatment, actually going ahead with it is optional. The results of that choice are not.

They both rely on everyone playing "fair" according to each of their parameters and, when they don't, the nice, uncorruptable state will step in and make them.

And that's a generous interpretation!

Pfft there is no state in capitalism. They are opposite behaviours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bingo

A game which many play, yet few win. Success in the game depends on all your numbers being called out. In a fair game, allocation of numbers would be done in a random manner, however it's possible to envision a rigged game whereby certain people are allocated winning numbers before the game begins, numbers that are more likely to be called out, whereas other may be allocated numbers which are less likely to be called out.

Audio Book - George Orwell 1984 Chapter 10 (an explanation of how societies work, 11 mins in becomes very relevant)

http://ia331309.us.archive.org/0/items/George-Orwell-1984-Audio-book/1984-10.mp3

Full 1984 George Orwell Audio book, Free

http://www.archive.org/details/George-Orwell-1984-Audio-book

Edited by enrieb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not my logic, it's the logic of the free market- if a cheap replacement for expensive human labour came along you would be compelled by market forces to dump the humans and replace them with machines- if you refused to do so then market forces would destroy your company as you would be too expensive to compete.

Yes in a market with perfect knowledge that would be the case, but machinary has been advancing for 100's of years yet the only time we experience severe unemployment is when the housing bubble pops. Releasing people from the land opens up new avenues and creates jobs in markets that wouldn't have been able to exist before.

...............this would destroy demand

The presence of machinary doesn't destroy demand, if as you say people get poorer once we introduce mandroids then demand would increase. Rising prices destroy effective demand (demand coupled with the ability to pay) so lowering prices by using mandroids would actually raise effective demand.

How would a society based purely on free market capitalism save itself from financial disaster in this scenario?

That's the question I would like answered.

Unfortunately the question doesn't make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a load of crap. Please eplain why we have just bailed out the banks? Capitalism requires credit to sustain growth without credit people can't afford A home or the wealth of luxury items that grace our homes and thus there is no growth. Therefore capitalism is flawed and will in the end require public subsidy just like we have seen.

Capitalism is broken and until we realise that the we will still have to witness another bout of HPI and HPC. We need another way but that doesn't mean socialism either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism is the base state of the human condition since the first sand dweller thought of exchanging his services for chunks of gold. It is the simplest form of human societal structure and endeavour, it has been with us a very long time. Monarchies and despots throughout history all firmly believed in the capitalist ethos and the progress of these societies is well documented. The rise and fall of the roman Empire, the mongol empire and the british empire, all based on these simplistic ideas. Capitalism has one ally in every strata of every society that has ever been and it is fear.

Socialism on the other hand is a very recent ideology, it scares the willies out of capitalists, because they simply cannot grasp the point of it all. Every man for himself, survival of the fittest, strongest wins, these are all the natural ideologies of the capitalists who have the weight of history behind them and cannot see the reason for anything ever being different. Socialism is a reaction to all of that. It is the idea that, everyman for himself, might not be the right way to go in an enlightened more civilised society, and that survival of the fittest, has led the world down a one way path that is increasingly hard to move away from. Socialism as it has been seen in the past century has severe flaws, the communist embodiment of socialism has been a disaster for many, though go to any of these countries and talk to those who lived their lives there, and you will find an affection for the old days, mixed with tales of horror and hardship.

God is a capitalist! And like the monotheistic religions, capitalism will take a long time to wither and crumble, but it will go the same way, only putting up a much greater fight along the way. Socialism will I hope evolve and mutate in due course, the dissemination of knowledge will help it thanks to such things as the internet, the greatest anti-capitalist invention if ever there was one. Rupert Murdoch is the epitome of capitalism and everyone of the other moneymen will be watching as he tries to take control of the internet away from the masses and into the hands of the few.

I am definitely 100% a socialist, though I've never read marx or any other socialist manifesto, and I certainly don't believe we are all equal. I don't believe money is the root of all evil, though the ruthless aquisition of it is, and I do believe there must be a better way than anything we have seen so far, but I also believe things will get so much, much worse before they ever take a turn for the better. I doubt very much I'll be around to see it. It will take another 1000 years before we can move away from our gods, and it will be longer before we can move away from our deepest fears.

Time for a crumpet! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany, Sweden,Finland,Norway,Netherlands,Denmark,Austria.

Interestingly, you have chosen capitalist states with higher levels of redistribution that the UK rather than socialist states.

Germany's government expenditure is 48% of GDP. Ours is not that far behind in normal times. I would gladly pay a few extra percent in tax if I got the same value for money that German taxpayers enjoy.

Within the German banking sector, the Landesbanken are the weakest by far. They are state owned. The state is even worse at running banks than the private sector. If the state would allow bankrupt private banks to fail, the surviving private sector banking system would be much more robust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 192 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.