posted 06-03-99 10:52 PM ET         

profit: 1. A valuable return:GAIN 2. The excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction 3. Net income for a given period of time 4. The ratio of profit for a given to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales 5. The compensation accruing to entrepeneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent.

1 and 3 sound like what were talking about, while the others sound like what you were talking about. Remember, Darwin was mistaken in a few areas(probably), we now think evolution was a slow rate of no change, followed by short bursts of evolution. Look somewhere else about this, though, but the fossil evidence points that direction. You might want to read "Darwin's Black Box" as well.

posted 06-03-99 11:05 PM ET         

In a capitalist society you aren't forced to do anything you don't wish to. What you're saying is that it is just as moral to let people choose what they do in their own lives as it is to force people to follow your plan.

Figure out what capitalism really is. It is a system of free will and natural rights with no Big Brother breathing down their shoulder. That doesn't sound at all immoral to me.

I do suppose your system would appeal to the lazy, those who dislike getting the right consequences for their actions. These types are leaches, they steal off the govt. and take advantage of hard working citizens like myself. These certainly have very little that can be protected by natural rights, and if they were the only ones, the country would go to hell over night.

posted 06-03-99 11:22 PM ET            

High Priest: "In a capitalist society you aren't forced to do anything you don't wish to"

If, hypothetically, I don't recongnize the concept of ownership of property, and refuse to claim that I own anything because it all belongs to the community, how can I get food to eat in a capitalist country, without begging people who embody the opposite of that philsophy? (This isn't necessarily my position, I'm explaining what you are "forced" to do in capitalism).

posted 06-03-99 11:41 PM ET         

I still don't see what this has to do with capitalism/socialism.

I believe you mean to say that according to Evolution, profit can only be that which helps you advance into the next generation. First off, we've got to tread carefully to stay on the same wavelength. I am not talking about the benefits to human evolution. I am simply talking about economics.(I think you should know that)

Now lets look at money. It has benefits that are much similar to having fun, in fact they are often directly related. A happy, fulfilled existence has an even better quality. However, lack of money can directly influence other matters, namely living conditions. If because of poverty, you are always in pain, and your family has starved to death, you wouldn't have a happy, fulfilled existence. You will obviously have worked as hard as you can to eak out an existence, but your attempts are fruitless.

Money is nice, lack of money is very bad as well. And you'll find a lot of "lacks" in socialism.

Now in a capitalist system, the above example would never have taken place. Why? Because the victims would have worked as hard as possible to get money(and everything that goes with that), and would have gotten enough to prosper and be happy.

When you increase the number of so-called "rich," in a capitalist environment you naturally will increase living conditions for everyone, giving them more fruit for their labor. Of course, if they refuse to work(and are perfectly cpabable of work), thats their problem, not the government's.

In a socialist system, living conditions can never be as high due to lower production on a whole.

Now as to the other values of great achievement, capitalism simply helps guide people to jobs they love using money as a bait. Also, most people will obviously want monetary compensation, and when they don't get all they rightly deserve, they get angry, discouraged, and either stop trying or move to the US and get a job at Lockerbie(the guy who invented stealth technology).

Capitalism provides something everyone wants=money. And you can get quite a bit more than in socialism if you simply do decent work. Socialism also can't directly control other urges such as achievement.
Its the money part that works and is what I'm talking about. Your "morality" talk has very little to do here, and even then, for aformentioned reasons, capitalism is the more moral of the two.

Now in trying to make myself a bit clearer, I must state that monetary value can reproduce in the long run, happiness can as well, and is much more likely to take place with a fulfillment and security of prosperity. Some of the greatest deeds in history came directly out of the capitalist philosophy(American Revolution).

Capitalism is not a pure money, immoral system. It is a practical and very profitable(for everyone) system that deals mostly with money, although often tied to other things. The ideal situation, and I can think of no other, for the ideal capitalist state would be a Republic with fair laws, checks and balances, will of the majority/protection of the minority, Bill of Rights, free elections, etc. etc. etc.

posted 06-04-99 12:00 AM ET            

It doesn't, it has to do with capitalism.

Biological "fitness" of an organism in an evolutionary system

is very very similar to:

profitability of an economic agent (i.e. an individual or a company) in a capitalist system.

By recognizing the similarities, we can apply our knowledge of one to the other. For example, evolution doesn't play "favorites". It doesn't necessarily select the most complex or humanlike organism to survive, just the one that is best suited to survival. Similarly, capitalism doesn't necessarily pick the smartest, nicest, or most moral person to be successful, just the one who is the best at working the capitalist system.

"In a socialist system, living conditions can never be as high due to lower production on a whole."

This is a point in contention, and cannot be assumed without supporting arguments. Any arguments based on this premise will be completely unconvincing because this premise is not accepted by the majority of your opponents. If I said "capitalism can never be as good as socialism because it is more evil on the whole", wouldn't you find that completely unconvincing? Explain why a socialist system must, necessarily, be less productive. And don't just say "it's human nature", because that's another point in contention .

posted 06-04-99 12:02 AM ET         

though...

"If, hypothetically, I don't recongnize the concept of ownership of property, and refuse to claim that I own anything because it all belongs to the community, how can I get food to eat in a capitalist country, without begging people who embody the opposite of that philsophy? (This isn't necessarily my position, I'm explaining what you are "forced" to do in capitalism)."

Simple, if you want to take other people's and to be a lazy, godrotting leach, so be it.
things, which they no doubt worked hard for, and be a lazy, godrotting leach, so be it. If you want to work for what you get, then you will profit. People have no "right" to be given handeouts by the government while they sit on their arses all day, and those who do have very little rights anyway. You have no rights to get somthing for nothing.

Thats right, capitalism does not, and should not, accept thievery.

Capitalism gives those who work for what they make their fair share. Socialism steals from those who are honest workers, and gives to those who are not.

A thief has no rights over what he steals.

posted 06-04-99 12:13 AM ET            

I just saved the HTML page and cut out the smilies, I didn't actually go install my own forum... The "post reply" links still connect you to the regular forum server, so your replies ended up in the old thread.

"Simple, if you want to take other people's and to be a lazy, godrotting leach, so be it."

posted 06-04-99 12:28 AM ET         

I essentially meant to say was that Capitalism takes care of money, but doesn't have control over other, stronger goals.

As to industrial might, I have mentioned this enough so I thought it would be clear by now, but I guess I'll say it again:

In a capitalist system you are rewarded by how much you work/the quality of your work. Most day to day responsibilities are carried out in the private sector. The US government has found it is more economical to give certain positions to private contractors than to do it themselves.

Why? Because of the socialistic lack of competition. Look at mercenary companies as opposed to UN "PeaceKeeping" forces. Executive Outcomes can successfully conclude a long, drawn out civil war for almost a third of what UN charges.(No, I can't get the exact numbers until www.eo.com opens up again).

In socialism you aren't rewarded at all. By its very nature it encourages laziness and sloth. Why work when it will do you no good? And as for examples, just look at the Soviet Union. It was a socialist state, and you(Bishop) have yet to put out a good reason why it was not.

Just thinking about it(without looking at past attempts) it should seem obvious that without money as a bait, you will create a lack of work and initiative to start great projects. Nationalizing is very dangerous. Getting politicians involved in business can be lethal, let alone the fact that this business has a monopoly.

If most of my opponents don't agree with that, they should get their heads examined.

Is it just a coinsidence, but are all the socialists those who have almost no experience in what they are talking about(college kids, etc). I see capitalism succeeding in great ways every day, while I have yet to hear of socialism succeeding equally. I also have seen the dangers of nationalizing/monopolizing firsthand as well(govt. work).

All right, a good example. Why is it that when you see govt. workers on a "job," It seems on does all the work while the others sit around guzzling drinks and chatting. A little while later, another takes the shovel/paintbrush and the original worker takes up drinking and chatting. They know they'll be paid no matter what kind of job they do, so who cares? This is socialism at work, and is why capitalism is SOOOOOOO much more profitable.

posted 06-04-99 12:35 AM ET         

How should the community have rights over the individual? By taking it, the community would then be the thief(as would all those who unrightfully profited from this deal). A community is not a seperate organism, but a mix of clashing interests. The individual has only one set of interests(rightfully or not), thus that is where natural rights stop, not at the community.

Anyway, if you get fed up with the community, just move and join another community. If you get fed up with yourself, or what you are given, the only answer is suicide(very extreme).
If I(hypothetically) believe that a community is a seperate organism with naturals rights all to itself, I would belong in a hospital, not on the street.

posted 06-04-99 03:20 AM ET            

Anyone who thought that big companies were not hierarchically run, because workers recieved money from them and could move between several companies:

You've got to learn to expect more. Really, recieving certian compensation for your work which is considerably lower than the wages of those above you in the hierarchy, having no say in the running of the workplace and having no way to realise your full potential just because someone has more money than you doesn't sound ideal to me.

posted 06-04-99 07:39 AM ET            

A few things:

Provost Harrison

It is a fact that the latter day Soviet Union was a bureaucratic nightmare. But the growth of the Soviet Union in it's early days was enviable by any capitalist imperialism, despite the civil war and fight to establish the socialist system. It's industrial growth in the 1920's was 150%!!! Only the hijacking by bureaucracy stopped it from becoming successful.

Let's do a bit of economics 101 again, shall we ? You say "despite the civil war" - I say beacuse of - when we are talking about growth rates. After that war, industrial output was about 10-15 % of what it had been in 1913. It's quite easy to grow fast from a low start
and to reach earlier levels. Look at european reconstruction after 1945 - the growth rates have been extremely high from a very low level.

Then, how did the story go on ? Stalin used price control, forced labor etc to squeeze out about 50 % of GDP for the state - military, state consumption and investment. Huge investment brought a massive increase in the capital base of the economy, especially from a low starting point. The slowing down is the unavoidable result of lack of growth in productivity. Say, we have a capital base of 100, get a producton of 20 out of it and use 10 of that for investment.

year 1: 100-20-10
year 2: 110-22-11
year 3: 121-24,2-12,1

etc.

In this example, you get 10 % annual growth. Just what happens when the economy gets more mature ? Depreciation of assets kicks in, slowing growth.

In the case of the USSR, additional aspects were:
a) people wanted to consume, so under Cruchtshow the amount of imnvestment was cut back
b) wrong decisions. In the beginning, building up a heavy industry is pretty simple. Got coal, got iron ore ? Build a steel plant. Later on, the production process is getting more and more complex, too complex for the administration to handle. The bureaucratic nightmare you mention was the direct result of a planned economy going into ever more complex production processes.

And you tell me how long the volatile (to say the least) market economy will take before it will crash horrendously.

Volatility is flexibility, or adjustment to changing needs. The simple basis of higher labor productivity and increase in the efficiently used capital base mean further expansion - point.

Wraith:

We also allow other countries all sorts of liberties with regards to trading practices (which is why our foreign deficit is still huge).

Ah, finally I can disagree with you again... Low saving rates are the main reason, not US free trade.

Highpriest:

Just look at my stats in the Reagan thread(God they've proved useful).

Uuh... I don't feel like digging that up. What are they about ?

Hugo:

In a socialistically run company, The workers recieve their fair share of the profits, have democratic control over what's happening in the company, can get jobs that suit their ability and still have all the benefits of changing company whenever they want.

a) who decides what is their fair share ?
b) do they have the right to make the democratic decision "we'll compete with company b" ?
c) when they are allowed to change companies, do those companies compete with one another ?

posted 06-04-99 11:41 AM ET            

Sounds one hell of a lot better than having society control your life -- telling you where to work, what you can work as, etc. What happens in a fully socialistic society when you have, for example, too many doctors and not enough streetsweepers? Some of the doctors are told to go out and sweep street. Hardly realizing "your full potential".
Where I work, yes, I do make considerably less than the owner. By my "full potential" I could become a consultant and make(not earn) gobs of money, etc.
But, get this, I don't want to. I am comfortable where I am, and with what I make(which in material terms is considerably more that I could hope for in any socialist country). I like my job, I feel I am fairly compensated for what I do, and I have an effect on how the company is run. Am I in management? No. I am a computer tech/programmer. But management listens to me. And this is in a privately owned, 'controlled' by one man, 'hierarchical' company. Does the company always do what I think it should? No. Would a democratically run company always do what I thought? No.

posted 06-04-99 12:30 PM ET         

Allright Roland. I'll attempt to dig it up for you. If I'm successful, I'll post it in the Reagan Returned thread.

posted 06-04-99 03:58 PM ET         

Rereading this statement I couldn't help but see the ignorant irony of it.
Socialism is NOT about recieving a fair share. It is about making everyone's share equal, fairness excluded. They have no chance to move up the ladder by ability. A mob mentality type of system is hardly what I'd call freedom. The reason you have (supposedly) benevolent and able leaders is to protect everyone, and guide the company on a track to prosperity, and the greatest benefit to ALL, not an angry ignorant mob.
Socialism has no way to keep its leaders in check, capitalism does. As already mentioned by competition, checks and balances, and strikes/workers moving to another company. In socialism you can not move to another company. You're stuck in the one you have for the rest of your life.

Hugo, do you have any experience in what you are talking about? It seems you are arguing against those(Spoe, myself, etc.) who live what you are yapping about every day. Unless you fall in one of the four previous categories, I can't figure out where you are coming from.

There is a great difference between rights on an individual basis, and rights on a community basis. Community rights, and socialism with it, gives no consideration for the potential or the needs of the individual, and thus is gravely immoral.

Think of it like this:
If you so wanted to, you could put yourself under a lot of pain, even give up parts of your anatomy, like a kidney, for a benefit to the rest of your body that you deem fit.
This is perfectly all right.
In a much wider example, some parts of your body help you more than others, yet they recieve the same amount of care and nutrients. This is all right, because you're stuck with these parts. It would be extremelly impractical, if not impossible to replace these with more efficient organs. Your other organs don't complain, and if you did try to replace the less than great ones, it would be completely moral because they are part of you, and you are making the decision.

In socialism, the community becomes the organism, and the members become organs. The members of this community can not leave it. Being as to conflicting interests, those who do more work should get more goodies. Not so, even the faulty ones get the same amount of goodies. If the "community" wishes to sacrifice, or rob certain valuable members, they then have the right to, being as the members are part of the community, and the community made the decision.

Seems a bit cruel and heartless to me.

posted 06-04-99 04:22 PM ET         

I gotta leave pretty soon
But I'll be back Sunday to pick up where I left off, but if you want to say anything, please do it within 30 minutes so I can reply immediatly, and not on Sunday.

(hate working on weekends )

posted 06-04-99 07:56 PM ET            

You'll have help.

--"Darwin's opinions of economics"

I believe he meant that he wasn't up on the defintion of Darwin's theory of evolution (ie. how to explain it).

--"What is important is that capitalism, as a system, operates in a fashion similar to that proposed by Darwin for Evolution via Natural Selection."

Yes, but are you placing this argument as a defense of capitalism or a criticism of capitalism? It seems like it'd be a great argument for capitalism to me, but you may have a different interpretation.

--"(This isn't necessarily my position, I'm explaining what you are "forced" to do in capitalism)."

I'll have to bring up my free to leave comments again. If you don't like it, you're free to gather like-minded people and set up your own system.

--"Explain why a socialist system must, necessarily, be less productive."

Because it is limited to the idea of cooperation for the good of society is the only good. If two people have differing views on what's the good of society, it'll get argued out in commitee (or with whatever other method is used) and only one method will be used. In the capitalist system, if both ways seem viable, both will be used, and eventually one (generally, but not always, the technically superior) will win. And if it later turns out that the choice was the wrong one, the capitalist system will be able to easily replace it with the other system, which has already had a good amount of work done on it.
Capitalism, basically, allows almost total flexibility. If it can be done, someone, somewhere will try it and see if they can make money it at. A socialist system is monolithic, and will not have the variety or flexibility of a capitalist system. Therefore, over time, the capitalistic society will be more productive, as it tries more things in more ways in less time.

--"Anyone who thought that big companies were not hierarchically run,"

Excuse me? Where did you see someone say this?

--"The workers recieve their fair share of the profits,"

Define fair share.

--"have democratic control over what's happening in the company,"

How does this follow?

--"can get jobs that suit their ability

They can? What if it's to the best interest of the company to put them in a position that doesn't really fit their ability, but must be filled? If they just happen to be the best of a bad bunch, how does this suit their ability?

--" and still have all the benefits of changing company whenever they want."

Oh? But, unless they're totally worthless workers, when would it be in the companies best interest to let them leave? Don't their coworkers get something to say about this?

--"Low saving rates are the main reason, not US free trade."

Dunno about main reason, but certainly a contributing factor.

posted 06-04-99 09:16 PM ET            

Neither. I am placing the "argument" as an observation about capitalism. I am not arguing for or against capitalism by comparing it to evolution, I am arguing against the notion that capitalism has some moral framework. Capitalism is a system which tends to maximize profits via a "Natural Selection"-esque method, no more no less. The question then presents itself whether or not to adopt a system without a "moral" component, a question I have not personally addressed in this thread as of yet.

"It seems like it'd be a great argument for capitalism to me"

It's a great argument for why capitalism is successful, assuming that you have the "appropriate" definition of success.

"I'll have to bring up my free to leave comments again. If you don't like it, you're free to gather like-minded people and set up your own system."

So is it okay to deport (or otherwise cut off benefits to) someone who refuses to contribute to a socialist system, and engages in "parasitic" behavior?

"If two people have differing views on what's the good of society, it'll get argued out in commitee (or with whatever other method is used) and only one method will be used."

A communist/socialist society is no more or less capable of formulated contingency plans than any other individual or organization.

"Capitalism, basically, allows almost total flexibility. If it can be done, someone, somewhere will try it and see if they can make money it at."

Your claim is that "all possibilities are tried" in a capitalist system. However, this cannot be the case, because resources are limited. By definition, in a capitalist system, some resources are "squandered" on "bad" alternatives. Therefore, there exists some threshold of "planning ability" which can exceed the productivity of the capitalist approach. The question then becomes what this "planning ability threshold" is, and then once that is determined, the question becomes whether or not that threshold can be met by non-market means.

"A socialist system is monolithic, and will not have the variety or flexibility of a capitalist system."

I don't see how this is true definitionally. You might be able to make the claim that socialist systems tend to be monolithic, or that they tend to be inflexible, but I'm not sure that I agree that they definitely, in all cases, are.

"Therefore, over time, the capitalistic society will be more productive, as it tries more things in more ways in less time."

posted 06-05-99 12:50 PM ET            

Only in post-war times has capitalism proved it's viability in rebuilding also, not just the Soviet Unions early example. I would consider things to have stagnated since the post-war period. The distribution of wealth is becoming more unbalanced, and due to 'market forces'. Modern capitalism is maximising profit. That is, reducing output but increasing costs, despite the fact that most people in the planet have nowhere near the luxury, we, in the west, have. I know in my country, the UK, the drive is not to increase the standard of living, but to casualise the labour force. It may be 'economically' viable, but in the end, who really does benefit from such sheer short-sightedness. Not the vast majority of the planet, that is a fact.

And another point, you claim money (not directly) is all powerful. If this is the case, why aren't all the most intelligent people stockbrokers and stepping on others. Many of the most intelligent people do not go for the money. Why do people go through medical degrees when the wage for being a junior doctor (in the UK, anyway) is lower than most manual workers. So I would not call that due to a money incentive.

I believe that people only fight for money and themselves at the expense of others because they are forced into this position.

posted 06-05-99 01:05 PM ET            

This shows a basic misunderstanding about socialism. It does not mean everyone gets an equal share, nor does it suggest working under your ability. In fact, the ultimate goal of Socialism is quite the reverse: "To Each according to his needs, From Each according to his ability." Thus those in most need would recieve the most, and those with the biggest ability would contribute the most. Why should someone with a more influential and important job have to recieve more if he doesn't need it? Isn't the gratification of seeing that you help other people the greatest reward of all? Capitalists seem to think money is. I'm telling you capitalism is the Greedy's ultimate system...

"Community rights, and socialism with it, gives no consideration for the potential or the needs of the individual, and thus is gravely immoral."

Socialism: "To Each According to his needs, from each according to his ability."

Capitalism: "Do whatever you like, as long as you make money of it. I NEED MONEY! Whoops, Did The Poor Immigrant with a degree in Astrophysics have to work as a janitor? Too bad."

For the rest of your post, see above.

Spoe: "What happens in a fully socialistic society when you have, for example, too many doctors and not enough streetsweepers? Some of the doctors are told to go out and sweep street. Hardly realizing "your full potential"."

And you're saying this doesn't happen in a Capitalist Economy if there are too many doctors and too few streetsweepers? They are not "told" to go out, but the effects are just the same. This problem won't be solved by either economic system, but only by technological advances.

"Also, how does a democraticly organized company ensure fair pay better than one where workers must negotiate with management? It doesn't. What happens when sales, accounting, and shipping control a majority vote(as the would in the company I work for) and decide to give themselves raises while not to the computer programmers and technicians? How can this be prevented without going autocratic?"

This is possibly the biggest problem in a socialistic society. Greed and Corruption have felled every attempt at creating socialism so far. Lets hope it doesn't happen again.

Roland: "a) who decides what is their fair share ?
b) do they have the right to make the democratic decision "we'll compete with company b" ?
c) when they are allowed to change companies, do those companies compete with one another ?"

a) They do. Communally. Trust their morality.

b) Why Not? I think it might be a good transitional stage were first the companies are made communal, and then, eventually, the element of "competition" (Right now an important incentive) will be taken away, et voil�- Communism.

c) See above.

Wraith: "Define fair share."

According to their needs.

"How does this follow?"

Instead of the Owner deciding what happenes to the company, the Workers do, communally. It's called economic democracy, and is needed for a completely democratic society.

"Oh? But, unless they're totally worthless workers, when would it be in the companies best interest to let them leave? Don't their coworkers get something to say about this?"

posted 06-05-99 01:38 PM ET            

It is about unprecedented levels of personal freedom, sharing and elimination of power. It may seem a very difficult goal, but what does capitalism try and achieve. No long term planning. Just 'grab money and power whilst you can'.

posted 06-05-99 04:17 PM ET            

Hadn't realized I was claiming one for it If any confusion has arisen, I've been meaning better as more efficient, not as more moral.

--"whether or not to adopt a system without a "moral" component,"

I've made some mention of it. Capitalism is an economic system, not a social or political system. It doesn't need to be inherently moral, that's what the other two are for.

--"So is it okay to deport (or otherwise cut off benefits to) someone who refuses to contribute to a socialist system, and engages in "parasitic" behavior?"

IMNSHO, the answer would be yes, but I'm not a socialist, so my answer certainly isn't representative of their view on the matter. In fact, this is one of the questions some of us pro-capitalist people have been trying to get the pro-socialist people to answer.

--"A communist/socialist society is no more or less capable of formulated contingency plans than any other individual or organization."

But if they try two plans at once, won't they be in competetion with each other? The socialists posting here have made a big deal of how everyone has to cooperate in a socialist system, after all. Setting up two plans for the same thing means that they will be competing for similar, if not the same, resources, which gives those involved in them a stake at seeing the project continue.

--"Therefore, there exists some threshold of "planning ability" which can exceed the productivity of the capitalist approach. "

But here's the problem, as well. This sort of planning ability implies, for now at least, a "superior" (in skill if not social position) group of people who run everything. This level of planning also implies that everyone will be told what to do, which is something that I rather don't like.

--"You might be able to make the claim that socialist systems tend to be monolithic, or that they tend to be inflexible,"

Aye. However, so many of the pro-socialism people here make such a big deal of how anti-competition they are. Under their standards, a plan that required competetion between two or more groups would seem to not be allowed by the system, and this can certainly be a succesful method. Capitalism, on the other hand, doesn't limit itself in this manner, and is open to group cooperation when it gets the job done, so has at least one major option a socialist system wouldn't.

--"if the "monolithic, inflexible" socialist society picked the "right" answer right off the bat,"

You're assuming two big things here. One is that they are right, and the other is that this is the only situation with multiple answers. A monolithic structure may be better in the short term under some circumstances (when you can practically guarentee the correct choice), but over the long run will lose more ground than this gains.

--"Let's face it, this current system can't satisfy the most basic needs of the vast majority of the planets population."

Many of whom have the most fleeting, at most, contact with capitalism. Will you stop blaming starving people in China on capitalism unless you can bring up some proof?

--"People starve, whilst these countries grow cash-crops to sell to the west to pay their debts."

Name one country doing this.

--"The distribution of wealth is becoming more unbalanced"

Again, do you have any proof for this statement? Also, are you talking about US vs. The Rest of the World or about distribution of wealth within any particular country? Again (damnit) keep in mind that most of the countries on the low end of the spectrum are not capitalist countries.

--"And another point, you claim money (not directly) is all powerful."

Who claimed this? Money isn't all powerful. It's a symbol of value. it's a simple counter for trade. Nothing more.

--"I believe that people only fight for money and themselves at the expense of others because they are forced into this position."

And I believe that I am getting really damn tired of people thinking money is the only thing you can get as profit in a capitalist economy.
Course, it took most of the '80s for the US to get that out of its system...

--"Environmental destruction is another issue. Business continues to destroy the planet, government continues to turn a blind eye to it."

Interesting. Many comapies in the US have drastically reduced their emmisions, while you really can't walk around Mexico City for very long...
As for a blind eye, you're right, but not in the way you think. The government is blind on ecological issues cause they don't understand them at all. Witness Al Gore's fight to stamp out the internal combustion engine. What does he plan to replace it with? And his comments on "Global Warming" (he's now damn sure it exists, despite his earlier book to the contrary, which is interesting since the authors of the original study that most of this BS is based on have admitted their report is worthless).

--"In fact, the ultimate goal of Socialism is quite the reverse: "To Each according to his needs, From Each according to his ability.""

Actually, this is a rather old mistranslation. One that you socialists never seem to get right. The original was "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his labor." Your whole presentation of socialism here is based on a false premise. Your system is just as materialistic and rewards based as capitalism, but you won't acknowledge it.

--"hey are not "told" to go out, but the effects are just the same."

Yes, but the "best" (as in most efficient) doctors are the ones that are most likely to be kept as doctors. Those that go elsewhere may well end up doing something else more efficiently.

--"a) They do. Communally. Trust their morality."

Ah, the ever present "they". How, exactly, do they go about deciding, then? Psychically?

--"According to their needs."

This doesn't answer the question. Who decides what they need? If, say, I decide I need a tokamak reactor for experiments, do I get one?

--"It's called economic democracy, and is needed for a completely democratic society."

They why are you arguing for it? I though you were for a socialist society.

--"It is about unprecedented levels of personal freedom, sharing and elimination of power."

Some of us don't think that our best interest being decided by someone else counts as personal freedom. You may be right about unprecedented levels, but if so it's on the low end of the scale.

posted 06-05-99 07:31 PM ET            

Wrait: "Hadn't realized I was claiming one for it"

Watch the ego there, Wraith, you're not the only capitalist here . Although Saras hasn't been posting as much as late, he is a firm believer in capitalism as a moral system. There are others who think as he does.

"IMNSHO, the answer would be yes, but I'm not a socialist, so my answer certainly isn't representativ of their view on the matter."

This is the point at which Saras usually calls me a Nazi .

"But if they try two plans at once, won't they be in competetion with each other?"

Are the airbags in your car "competing" with your seat belt for the honor of saving you in a crash?

"This sort of planning ability implies, for now at least, a "superior" (in skill if not social position) group of people who run everything."

And capitalism implies a group of "superior" people who make more money than others. Your point? The capitalist premise is that competition weeds out the "inferior", whether it be the inferior manufacturer, the inferior baker, or what have you. Why is it surpising to you that some people would be better at planning than others? Why is it surprising to you that a Socialist state could recognize that different people had different skills, and that some were better at planning than others? Don't assume that these people need to be some sort of ruling elite that live lives of luxury, they just need to be better planners. "From each according to his ability."

"This level of planning also implies that everyone will be told what to do, which is something that I rather don't like."

Your argument was based completely on the premise that a capitalist system has inherently higher productivity than a socialist one, not on "what you don't like". Are you withdrawing your argument that capitalist systems necessarily have higher productivity than socialist ones?

Octopus: "if the "monolithic, inflexible" socialist society picked the "right" answer right off the bat,"

Wraith: "You're assuming two big things here. One is that they are right, and the other is that this is the only situation with multiple answers."

I'm assuming nothing, I'm pointing out flaws in your reasoning. Your argument was that capitalist systems are inherently more producitve becasue they "try all possibilities", or something to that effect. Since there are an infinite number of hypothetical socialist systems (even if we adopt the "rigig, monolithic" system that you say socialism demands) then at least one of them must have the right answer. In order to beat all socialist system, and say that capitalism is inherently more productive, you need to beat the most productive socialist system, i.e. the one that has all of the "possibilities" stacked in its favor.

"A monolithic structure may be better in the short term under some circumstances (when you can practically guarentee the correct choice), but over the long run will lose more ground than this gains."

We're back to the question of whether or not it is possible to construct a planning system which is more capable than the undirected market. You didn't address that question, you merely gave your opinion of its aesthetics.

It seems to me that you have not proven that capitalist systems are inherently more productive. It seems that you want to say that no planning system can be more successful than the distributed-control market system you are familiar with, but you haven't tried to do that. You have said "I don't like people to tell me what to do", but that does not go to the point you claimed to be addressing.

Out of curiosity, why do so many capitalists think that the leaders of socialist states will believe there to be a shortage of street-sweepers and ditch-diggers of crisis proportions?

Hugo: "In fact, the ultimate goal of Socialism is quite the reverse: "To Each according to his needs, From Each according to his ability.""

Wraith: "Actually, this is a rather old mistranslation. One that you socialists never seem to get right. The original was "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his labor."

posted 06-05-99 10:17 PM ET            

Looks healthy and big to me As Dogbert says, "I like it that way."

--"Are the airbags in your car "competing" with your seat belt for the honor of saving you in a crash?"

No. They're each handling different parts of the same problem, not the same part of it.
Actually, the seatbelts are working to save your life, while the airbag is trying to kill you, but that's a different discussion

--"Why is it surpising to you that some people would be better at planning than others?"

It doesn't surprise me. Some people are better at planning than others.

--"they just need to be better planners."

But here's where it gets fuzzy again. Who's deciding who's the best planner? In a captalist economy, the market forces do it. Who, exactly, does it in the case of the socialist society? This is important. A layman can't neccessarily tell which meal was prepared by the better chef, or which house was built by the better carpenter, so who's picking out the best planners?

--"Are you withdrawing your argument that capitalist systems necessarily have higher productivity than socialist ones?"

No, this is a seperate argument, one based on personal my concept of personal liberty.

--"In order to beat all socialist system,"

The argument here still requires at least one of the systems to "beat the odds" and make the correct choice something like 95% of the time. Considering current grasp of economic, political, and social trends, I'd say this is as close to impossible as you can get.
You're also supposing that this central control acts instantly. While communication speeds have increased rapidly in recent years, any structured organization (capitalist or not) has a certain level of beuracracy in it, which slows things down. Capitalism relies on the built-in market forces; the "invisible hand" of self interest. Cutting away a layer of beuracracy in the process, which always makes things more efficient.

--"Out of curiosity, why do so many capitalists think that the leaders of socialist states will believe there to be a shortage of street-sweepers and ditch-diggers of crisis proportions?"

Probably because they expect that those poor people will need someone to sweep all the political BS off the street, and somewhere to sweep it into :P
Sorry, I couldn't resist

--"Is that really true?"

As far as I can tell, it is. However, since I'm not fluent in the language I have to rely on secondary sources, but there's enough of them to satisfy me.

--"He believes in the "to each according to his needs" quote, so I don't see why it matters even if it is a mistranslation."

Which still doesn't answer who's deciding what need is, but if it is a mistranslation, it's just interesting to see so much philosophy built on a mistake

posted 06-05-99 11:19 PM ET            

So you are abandoning the notion that a capitalist system is necessarily more productive than a socialist system?

"But here's where it gets fuzzy again. Who's deciding who's the best planner?"

Fuzziness of the socialists' plans aren't the most interesting issue, the most interesting issue is this claim that you capitalists keep making that socialist systems are inherently inferior. You were trying to argue that capitalism was inherently more productive. Are you giving up? My answer to the question would be that the best planners would decide who the best planners were... You again assume rigidity. Socialists are just as capable as capitalists at recognizing talent in people who haven't been able to express it, and lack of same in people who have jobs that require it. Extensive cross-auditing and a system in which the opinions of subordinates and close attention to the success of someone's decisions could perform this function. There would be analagous problems for a start-up capitalist system in a socialist world, so I don't see why this is an especially biting criticism.

"This is important. A layman can't neccessarily tell which meal was prepared by the better chef"

Damn, Spoe can't get any mileage out of that gourmet/burger flipper thing, can he?

"You're also supposing that this central control acts instantly. While communication speeds have increased rapidly in recent years, any structured organization (capitalist or not) has a certain level of beuracracy in it, which slows things down."

posted 06-06-99 10:32 PM ET         

Your argument was based completely on the premise that a capitalist system has inherently higher productivity than a socialist one, not on "what you don't like". Are you withdrawing your argument that capitalist systems necessarily have higher productivity than socialist ones?

Uhhhh... un momento por favor. I never thought I had withdrawn my argument to capitalist superiority. I thought it always was there.

At any rate, Please, if you can't explain why socialism and capitalism are equal, then I suppose I'll have to give another example:

In large shopping malls, Best Buys, comp USAs, etc., you always seem to get crummy service compared to, say, Computer City. Those who work there are usually college/high school kids looking for a first job. They are paid by the hour, and usually don't work much when the boss isn't around. The only thing keeping them working is the threat of being fired. Most could care less about moving up the business ladder, let alone putting their heart into their job.

Now this is understandable, but those who wish to get more out of their job will really put their nose to the grind, and be noticed by the manager. These types will get raises and promotions, and make more money.

Now think if the schoolkids didn't have to worry about promotions/being fired. You'll always get the same amount, and so they'll always work very little, without their hearts in it. In Russia, a lady with whom I took up a chat with, said that during her first experience with McDonald's, was the first time someone giving her food said "Thank You."

When it comes down to it, on average there is no better way to stimulate an economy than to bait the workers with money(resources).

Trust me, I've seen every part of the "wicked" capitalist machine(except for the very top ), and I must say that from being a salesman, to owning a small business, this last statement is the TRUTH.

Now, explain away why, even with all past socialism attempts and capitalism successes, capitalism and socialism are equal in industry .

Come on, Octo, by saying that I haven't convinced you, without saying why, is pretty weak. Please, also refer to my last post for more info.

As to getting the jobs they want, this is also unique to capitalism. If someone can have a job they don't like, but make more money, this is where this comes into play. I have a friend who is a very good accountant. But he prefered working with his hands, and once he got all the money/stuff that he could from his accounting job, he became a carpenter. By working at what he loves&doing a good job at it, he makes quite a bit more than what he absolutely needs, and still enough to be comfortable(in a capitalistic sense).

Seems real simple to me, explain why it isn't correct.

Are the airbags in your car "competing" with your seat belt for the honor of saving you in a crash?

Uhhhh... hate to say this, Octo, but the seat belt and airbag are part of the same unit, or form. Is your windshield competing with your steering wheel to kill you?

Provost Harrison

It may seem a very difficult goal, but what does capitalism try and achieve. No long term planning. Just 'grab money and power whilst you can'.

Come on, what are we, savages or beasts? Capitalism is based on long term goals rewarding the workers in a fair way occording to work done.

I think that society is reaching a point, not in the past, but now, where perhaps the technological advances of communication and computers make socialism a more feasible system than capitalism. After all, one of the major constraints in a communist country of the past is communication and organisation of different sectors of industry.

Sorry to ask, but do you even have the faintest idea what you are talking about ?
Companies/stocks over the net. Being able to purchase plane tickets/anything else over the net. More private satellites then govt controlled. Communications revolve almost entirely around capitalism.

Look at the functioning of a single organism. That's probably a better example of how things should work.

Yep, you could of taken the words right out of my mouth

And another point, you claim money (not directly) is all powerful. If this is the case, why aren't all the most intelligent people stockbrokers and stepping on others. Many of the most intelligent people do not go for the money. Why do people go through medical degrees when the wage for being a junior doctor (in the UK, anyway) is lower than most manual workers.

First off, stockbrokers need clientele, so there is a limited market for them, but the "smart" people in this country(US) do own stocks. And this country has a majority of "smart" people. As to the doctors, they are in it for the money they will make, its like they're still in school. These types of statements show me that you REALLY have absolutely no idea what you are talking about .

People starve, whilst these countries grow cash-crops to sell to the west to pay their debts. That is the point I am trying to get across. This wasn't always the case in the past, but in my opinion, capitalism is causing a stifling of advancement of society.

All right, last time I reply to this crap. Do you really think I'm that stupid ?
First off, if these nations were capitalist free market systems, we would gain a LOT more from them. The US alone supplies almost all of its own agriculture, and there is no 3rd World crap here(except for the hippies )

Quite honestly, Harrison, I have answered most of your responses, and am getting sick of your misunderstanding of what you are yapping about

Hugo Rune

Do whatever you like, as long as you make money of it. I NEED MONEY! Whoops, Did The Poor Immigrant with a degree in Astrophysics have to work as a janitor? Too bad

Hmmm... WTF does this have to do with capitalism? Why would the immigrant not get a job at Lockerbie(or somewhere else)?. Why would being a janitor be more profitable? Seems to me like you're quoting socialism

To Each According to his needs, from each according to his ability

Hmmm... Real nice and all, but it seems to me you're just quoting another socialist slogan. What I was saying was that socialism puts the needs of the Community above the needs of the individual, for instance, will of the majority. Capitalism adds the very tidy, protection of the minority. A community cannot function as an individual organism, there are too many seperate wills.

Octopus
My answer to the question would be that the best planners would decide who the best planners were...

Hey, I like that answer. Make me a best planner, and I'll really get your economy going

At any rate, this does show the inherent weakness with socialism. It has no clear plan and hasen't succeeded in the past.

I would also like to point out that capitalism is an economic system ONLY. It gives no consideration for those down on their luck because it leaves these matters to other areas, namely charities/government tax deductions and whatever the govt will hand out to those who can't work. Capitalism is NOT evil.

All right, none of you socialists(except for maybe Octo ) have given any real reason why socialism is better, that hasen't been proven wrong. Neither have you proven any of my very decent facts incorrect(though Octopus has gotten close) with logical answers. Please, no more senseless, mindless crap, Harrison.

High Priest
I'm Back

posted 06-07-99 12:28 AM ET            

Interesting point of how to judge the quality of goods where 'quality' is subjective.

Ok, let's set this aside and look at the similar example I gave concerning car companies. A car designed by good engineers and built by highly skill laborers is going to run well and reliably. Certainly anybody without memory problems will agree that this car is more valuable than that produced by questionable engineers and less skilled workers that needs major repairs every couple thousand miles. Is it fair then to give both groups equal pay? Note that the reliability of a car this is not subjective, like my cook analogy; it can be measured in such statistics as percent of time working, MTBF, etc.

Harrison:
"It is about unprecedented levels of personal freedom, sharing and elimination of power. It may seem a very difficult goal, but what does capitalism try and achieve. No long term planning. Just 'grab money and power whilst you can'."

Two comments:
I) You are basically admitting that socialism requires a change in human nature to work. A change, that in my view, would require an entirely different definition of 'personal freedoms' from that in common use today.
II) The most successful capitalists are those with long term plans; the rest are flashes in the pan.

Hugo:
"And you're saying this doesn't happen in a Capitalist Economy if there are too many doctors and too few streetsweepers? They are not 'told' to go out, but the effects are just the same."

No, but unlike the socialist system(where such things are decided by the government for the good of the community) the hopeful young doctor has the personal freedom to continue to pursue medicine while accepting the possibility of less pay. He can still do what he wishes. Now, it may be said that in most cases such a person would pursue a more lucrative career under capitalism but in many cases there is more to 'profit' than money; just look at Provost Harrison's point about doctors in the UK.

"To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability."

What of those that will not give "according to his ability"? I also still have trouble with the "to each according to his needs" bit; laying aside moral concerns, I have yet to see a good explanation of why this is fair or a practical way of executing such a distribution of good(at least, not without being excessively wasteful).

-----

posted 06-07-99 07:43 PM ET            

No, I'm not. I'm saying that, no matter how lucky the socialist system is, it can not in the long run beat a capitalist one. This is, of course, presupposing that it is a lucky system and gets a lead by making the right choice every time. Since when has anyone you know made the right choice every time?

--"My answer to the question would be that the best planners would decide who the best planners were..."

But who is picking the best planners in the first place? Just cause I say I'm the best planner, doesn't make it so.
This, of course, also leaves open all sorts of nepotism and favoratism, even if it is meant. Just cause you think your brother is a great planner, doesn't make it so.

--"Socialists are just as capable as capitalists at recognizing talent in people who haven't been able to express it"

But why would they bother to express it? Capitalsim rewards such behavior; socialism just assumes it.

--"Extensive cross-auditing"

Extensive beuracracy, you mean.

--"There would be analagous problems for a start-up capitalist system in a socialist world,"

Why is that? Capitalism doesn't rely on anyone else noticing your talent and telling you what to do, it relys on you noticing your talents and deciding what you want to do.

--"Damn, Spoe can't get any mileage out of that gourmet/burger flipper thing, can he?"

I better clear things up a bit, then
I meant that an average guy wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a good meal and a great one. It takes a gourmet or another great chef to tell. The difference between the five-minute diner and the five star restuarant is rather more apparent.

--"Capitalism has plenty of "inefficiencies" slowing it down, too."

All of which are in the socialist system, but without the added burden of the beuracracy.
Also, the capitalist system provides incentives for the minimization of those problems, something the socialist system does not. With capitalism, there's a reason to go the extra mile, do more than the least you must, because you'll get more from it.

--"Capitalism does not espouse a moral code in itself."

"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another."
-- Milton Freidman

posted 06-07-99 10:34 PM ET            

A moral obligation to society... The respect and admiration of one's peers... Religious conviction... Philosophical conviction... There are others. Again we are back to the capitalist argument that the only conceivable incentive is material reward, and this is an incentive that always works. This notion has not been proven.

Octopus: "There would be analagous problems for a start-up capitalist system in a socialist world"

Wraith: "Why is that?"

I didn't say the same problems, I said analagous problems. How do you start your capitalist society if nobody else on the planet recognizes the concept of personal property? Rather difficult to buy, sell, and trade, isn't it? Oh well, since capitalism has a rocky start, it must be a bad system (If I were to use your logic).

Octo: "Capitalism has plenty of "inefficiencies" slowing it down, too."

Wraith: "All of which are in the socialist system"

Please, explain to me where and how monopolies contibute to the inefficiencies in the socialist society. They obviously hurt a capitalist one because they remove the competetion feedback mechanism. Please explain to me how the high cost of entry into certain industries would affect a system in which production was centrally planned? You were right to say that communication and coordination difficulties argue against a planned-style economy. You are wrong to say that a market economy has no problems that do not affect a planned one as well.

"Also, the capitalist system provides incentives for the minimization of those problems"

posted 06-07-99 10:55 PM ET            

The concept of "diminishing returns" is readily accepted by everyone. The marginal value of resources decreases the more of them you get. It could be argued that at some point, the marginal value of obtaining a resource is equal to the effort of actually attaining or storing that resource. At this point, there is no longer an incentive for the "greedy" to continue acquiring (indeed, one would need to be pathologically acquisitive to try). A person in this state would be satiated. Access to further resources would not be in any way beneficial, and in no way motivational. Therefore, if the total number of resources available to a society exceeded the sum total of all of the "satiation points" of the members, then the resources are "effectively limitless", since the limit exceeds that which will ever be used in reality.

So, the relationship looks roughly like this: R=S*n, where R is the total amount of resources in a society, S is the satiation point, and n is the number of people. Capitalism assumes that S > R/n in all cases (i.e. everybody wants "more than an equal share"). Indeed, capitalism implicitly assumes that S is very high (i.e. effectively infinite). Solutions available to Socialists would be to decrese S, or else have a large R and a small n. However, there is a non-trivial function relating R and n, because the productivity of those n people contributes to R.

A high R and small n situation could be arrived at by constantly moving to resource-rich areas with small numbers of people. This locust-like strategy is probably not sustainable in the long run.

The only realistic solution is to achieve a low S whille maintaining a reasonably good R to n ratio (where R/n is roughly related to productivity). A low S value can be achieved by adoption of new schools of thought (e.g. the Hive Philsophy ) or other means.

When analyzing the S value, people should not underestimate the people discount the value of resources based on future uncertainty. When people retire, they need to be confident that what they have saved will provide for them into the future, including bad times. In contemporary governments, the concept of the "social safety net" is designed to reduce the future uncertainty, thus reducing S (since you don't need to inflate it for uncertainty).

posted 06-08-99 03:29 AM ET            

"They why are you arguing for it? I though you were for a socialist society."

By economic democracy I do not mean "Anyone has the right to own capital and use it for their own means". I mean "everyone has the right to decide over the material side of their own life" or, to put it in more marxist terms, "Workers controlling the means of production".

"People starve, whilst these countries grow cash-crops to sell to the west to pay their debts."
Name one country doing this."

Tanzania, Kenya, Colombia, Indonesia, in fact any country producing Cocoa, Coffee, Sugarcane, Teak, or any other cash crop. And they get ridiculously low prices for it too.

Psychically?

No... Have you ever heard of civilised discussion? Since there's always a "Right" answer, which is best for everyone, it will be reached eventually.

High Priest: "Getting politicians involved in business can be lethal."

Politicians are the elected leaders chosen by the people. Shouldn't people have the right to decide over business? Next you'll be saying that politicians should have nothing to do with running a country, and that we should have a Fascist Dictatorship. Or a Plutocracy (Unlimited Capitalism as I see it.)

Spoe: "What of those that will not give "according to his ability"?"

Socialism doesn't work if you don't.

"I also still have trouble with the "to each according to his needs" bit; laying aside moral concerns, I have yet to see a good explanation of why this is fair or a practical way of executing such a distribution of good (at least, not without being excessively wasteful)."

posted 06-09-99 12:17 PM ET            

It's not the only conceivable incentive, nor does it appeal to all people. But it is certainly has fairly widespread appeal, and will _only_ work in a capitalist economy. People that do things out of a "duty to society" or the other mentioned motivations will still partcipate in a capitalist society. So capitalism allows for _more_ incentives to work and contribute than socialism.

Hugo:
"Socialism doesn't work if you don't"
So basically, "If only everyone would agree with me we would have a socialist paradise.". Funny, I don't see that as particularly democratic or respectful of personal freedoms.

"So you're saying that the capitalist system of 'If you're born rich or poor decides your future" is fairer?'"

Did I say that here? No. Nor is it strictly true that that is how capitalism works. There are numerous examples of poor children growing up to be rich, and even more of poor children growing up to be well-off financially(middle class and up).

posted 06-09-99 11:29 PM ET            

Sorry, Spoe, but activity that does not contribute to long-term profitability is worked against in a capitalist society. Remember my posts about "group selection" in the homosexuality and evolution thread? Same principle. If a business engages in some social activity at the expense of its profitability, it cannot expand as fast as it's non-altruistic competitor, and will therefore be at a "competitive disadvantage", which means it will have less influence on the society as a whole (because, for example, it's customers abandoned it for the competitor who was able to expand and use the economies of scale to produce cheaper products). Something which is purely socially motivated (such as, for example, anonymous charitable giving) is "bad" in a capitalist sense. However, "charity as advertising" can work, because seemingly altruistic acts can make you look "good". But, in the long run, if it doesn't contribute to your profitability, it is worked against by a capitalist system (just as in evolution: if it doesn't give your genese more "fitness" than your competitors, it is not selected for).

Philip McCauley: "What is this? Everyone else gets a line by line commentary, and all I get is a pat on the back from High Priest? I guess my arguements are just that good."

Say something worth responding to, and maybe you'll get a reply. What have you given us except the same tired, unsupported "socialism doesn't work in application"?

"Octo...if those socalists are busy oppressing me so that I can't express my opinion and start my democratic society, then obviously it won't work."

First off, stop confusing democracy and capitalism. Second, "oppression is in the eye of the beholder". Might it not be considered a form of oppression to deny someone the right to live according to a philosophy in which personal property was not allowed?

"But if you mean starting a democracy outside of those other countries, then we will have a great start!"

Okay, let's imagine the situation in which every nation on Earth is communist (in the Hugo Rune or Bishop sense). I'll be generous and say that if you can get to the moon, nobody will dispute your claim to it. Otherwise, nobody recongnizes any personal property, and any claim by you to the contrary is punishable as theft. What's your plan for this glorious capitalist state?

"All those socalist countries will be quite willing to trade for the goods that we'll produce cheaper, faster, with higher quality."

Again, unsupported. I've asked again and again for capitalists to make a supported argument for why a socialist economy must be less productive than a capitalist one. Maybe I'll have better luck with you. Why? (And if you intend to respond "it's just human nature", you ought to know that I say you need to support that, too...)

"And we'll have the added benefit of hordes of unrecognized scientists, doctors, and other intellectuals trying to escape to our country where they can both contribute and get rich."

First off, many "scientists" and "intellectuals" would greatly prefer a system in which they didn't need to compete economically. Second, the standard of living will almost certainly be lower in your "start-up" country, since you don't have enough people to be truly productive. If even the "elite" in your country do worse than in the socialist state, then the "greed" factor works against you, not for you. And again, where are these resources that you are buying and selling coming from? You need to start with a completelely service-based economy.

"Because of the benefits to the individual making the advance, our technology will advance MUCH faster than that of the socialist countries"

Because of the increased communication, pooling of effort, and sharing of resources and ideas that would otherwise be labeled "proprietary" and hoarded, the socialist countries will have superior technology. There, now we've both made completely unsupported statements about which society is better in terms of technology.

"The US led the USSR in virtually EVERY AREA of technology throughout the ENTIRE cold war."

posted 06-10-99 01:27 PM ET            

"What's your plan for this glorious capitalist state[on the moon]?"

Play along until I can get my moon guns built then threaten to wreak havoc with nice big chunks of the moon raining upon the Earth until the heathen socialists submit to the true economy of capitalism! j/k

"I've asked again and again for capitalists to make a supported argument for why a socialist economy must be less productive than a capitalist one."

In a capitalist(read competitive) society there is the pressure to be profitable. One of the best ways to do this is to be more productive with the resources you have. Note the effect of decade of government subsidy and lack of retooling in the US steel industry did 20-30 years ago. In socialism this evolutionary pressure is absent.
In the centrally planned socialist economy it would take an act of the controlling bureaucracy to institute reforms leading. Now, it has been an almost universal observation that a bureaucracy tends to become bloated, inefficient, and inertial. This would tend to make it hard to put changes into effect.
So who is more likely to be at the leading edge of productivity? The inertial bureaucracy that must study a proposal to death or the man or small group that must remain profitable(and therefore productive) and has the ability to make quick decisions?
Now, I'll use a real-world example. Name one truly socialist(not necessarily communist) country that has had consistently high productivity. Hmmm. The Soviet Union? Uh, no. Cuba? No. North Korea? Uh-uh. The PRC? Again, nope. Name a primarily capitalist country that hasn't been consistenly productive when the government hasn't subsidized industry, etc. Can't really think of any.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that this does not prove that socialism must be more inefficient than capitalism. I'll also offer the concept that 'productivity' and 'efficiency' may not be the most important way to judge a society. A sacrifice of productivity for compassion might just be proper. But I'll also say that as long as there is a mix, the society that produces the most(not necessarily the most productive; a tiny but highly productive society cannot outproduce a huge inefficient society) is most likely to prevail.

"First off, many 'scientists' and 'intellectuals' would greatly prefer a system in which they didn't need to compete economically."

Agreed. This is why many of the best corporate labs don't make their scientists compete economically that much.

"'The US led the USSR in virtually EVERY AREA of technology throughout the ENTIRE cold war.'

And this is relevant because... ?"

posted 06-10-99 08:17 PM ET            

--"and this is an incentive that always works"

It doesn't have to always work. It just has to almost always work. And historically, it has worked far better than any other incentive.

--"How do you start your capitalist society if nobody else on the planet recognizes the concept of personal property?"

Actually, that would make most of it rather easy. You wouldn't have any problem getting material (assuming socialism was working, that is) for your plan. All you'd need is some object or service that "society" in general doesn't have, which happens often enough. Then all you need is a couple more guys with ideas, and then you can trade back and forth, and you've got the start of a capitalism. If what you've been making is worth something to others, they'll eventually try to get them, and then you've got them: just insist on a capitalist trade. If it's usefull enough they will.

--"Please explain to me how the high cost of entry into certain industries would affect a system in which production was centrally planned?"

Less of them would probably be entered, since the percieved possibility of good to society has to overbalance the start up costs (in materials and man-power if you like). The only reason the USSR ever had a space program was because the politicians like it, and the politicians liked it because it gave them a lot of prestige in the world. Very few Soviets then (and not all that many Americans now) recognize that there is a benefit from a space program. In a capitalist economy the lone idealist can eventually command huge sums of money that he can spend on seemingly useless purposes that may or may not bring reward. If it doesn't pan out, he's still helped the economy by paying his workers and for material, and if it does, everyone benefits. In a socialist system, any effort that failed, thanks to group ownership, would be mere wasted resources and therefor almost no "risky" ventures will be entered.

--"what "natural" capitalistic force is preventing or minimizing the likelihood of monopolies?"

Other big companies who want their own piece of the pie

--"The OS industry is very conducive to monopolies."

No, actually, it isn't. It's partly a marketing thing, but it's a lot more than that. There's a very interesting (and long) article that talks about this (among other things) called In the Beginning was the Command Line.

--"Is the "satiation" concept universally applicable, or are there pathologically acquisitive people out there"

The whole idea of limited resources doesn't quite apply this way. The problem isn't what each individual wants to have. The real idea of limited resources is that there's only so much of everything, and every time you do something with it you can't use it for anything else. Some resources will be more in demand than others (gold vs. plutoniom, say) and each has different amounts available. There simply is not enough of everything to satisfy everyone, some one is going to have to do without or with substitutes.

--"n fact any country producing Cocoa, Coffee, Sugarcane, Teak, or any other cash crop."

I'd want to check into that, but if they were in a real capitalist economy the workers could tell the owners to go hang; strike unless they were paid and treated decently, or go work elsewhere. If the government is taking advantage of capitalism while running a totalitarian system internally, it's not capitalism's fault.

--"Since there's always a "Right" answer, which is best for everyone, it will be reached eventually."

You're kidding, right? Everyone always has different idea of what is best for everyone; they can't even all agree on what's best for themselves. As one quote puts it (paraphrased), "the only sign of a fair decision is that both sides go away angry".

--"In fact giving each according to their needs is very fair, as long as everyone co-operates."

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
-- Winston Churchill

In other words, TANSTAAFL.

--"Something which is purely socially motivated (such as, for example, anonymous charitable giving) is "bad" in a capitalist sense."

Again, you're confusing money with profit. Someone may find that giving to charity makes them feel good, and that they value that feeling more than the money, in which case they will give money to charity. It's just a trade for non-tangible profits.

--"and any claim by you to the contrary is punishable as theft."

How can you have a concept of theft if there is no such thing as private property?

--"And this is relevant because... ?"

You missed the point of my quote from my last post. Is it not worthwile to at least consider historical examples of each system, however poorly implemented everyone claims they were?

posted 06-10-99 10:04 PM ET            

Wraith, that's a pathetic argument. I know you can do better. In a capitalist system, you need to overcome that barrier multiple times, and the perceived risk is greater each time, because the startup costs are a greater percentage of the operating capital (since it is a firm doing it, not the entire society). Even if a socialist society is by nature more risk averse than any particular capitalist (which isn't necessarily the case, but for the sake of argument...) the percieved risk is smaller, so you need to argue that even the smaller percieved risk crosses the "threshold".

"The whole idea of limited resources doesn't quite apply this way."

Well, duh. I'm questioning this premise which you accept as a truism. If everybody on the planet except me died tomorrow, I would have more resources than I could every hope to consume. Resources must be compared to wants and/or desires.

"There simply is not enough of everything to satisfy everyone, some one is going to have to do without or with substitutes."

I say that this doesn't need to be the case. If everyone was satisfied with S amound of resources, and there were n people, then by definition there would be enough of everything to satisfy everyone if there were n*S resources. The question is the relationship between how much people will insist on "cosuming" and how much they produce (what I called the satiation threshold and productivity). Saying "no, no, Wraith the Capitalist said there isn't enough becuase of 'Limited Resources'" is not even an argument. At worst its mindless regurgitation, at best its a refusal to consider the possibility that your premises are flawed.

Octo: "Something which is purely socially motivated (such as, for example, anonymous charitable giving) is "bad" in a capitalist sense."

Wraith: "Again, you're confusing money with profit. Someone may find that giving to charity makes them feel good, and that they value that feeling more than the money, in which case they will give money to charity. It's just a trade for non-tangible profits."

Again, you are confusing what is "possible under the system" with "what the system encourages". Let's consider two individuals: one gives 50% of his income (anonymously) to charity, and is very happy with himself. Another guy doesn't give any to charity. When they die, the non-charitable fellow controls much more than the charitable fellow, because he has a greater proportion of resources. His heirs control more of the "means of production". His philosophy is more dominant, becuase his opinions carried more weight, since he controlled more resources. On average, the charitability of the society has gone down, because the charitable fellow doesn't have the resources to spread his charitable philsophy as well as the non-charitable one can. Yes, it is possible to be charitable in a capitalist system. Yes, it is possible for an organism to help everyone else at the expense of its own fitness. Capitalism doesn't select for charity, and evolution doesn't select for behavior which doesn't help the organism which has the trait disproportionately more than the ones that don't. The understanding works better with businesses, but it applies to individuals as well.

"How can you have a concept of theft if there is no such thing as private property?"

Theft of public property. You know, it belongs to the society, and since you are leaving your position in society, you are no longer obligated by it (required to work) nor are you eligible to partake of its benefits (e.g. the shared resources).

"Is it not worthwile to at least consider historical examples of each system, however poorly implemented everyone claims they were?"

Probably not, since neither side will be willing to agree on which factors are "fair game". How do you stand on taking credit for slavery (i.e. the buying and selling of resources, who just happened to be people in this one instance...)?

Spoe: "Now, it has been an almost universal observation that a bureaucracy tends to become bloated, inefficient, and inertial."

posted 06-10-99 10:57 PM ET            

Not really. Once one person proves that such a venture is profitable, many others will want to get in on the action. If he fails, the barrier may have to be overcome again later, but at least it's open for someone to try. In a socialism, if it fails, then why would it try again?

--"because the startup costs are a greater percentage of the operating capital"

This is where the term venture capital comes from. There are many people out there who are willing to supply a piece of start-up funding for a piece of later profits. Many of them make a business out of this sort of thing. Many large corporations do this as a sort of supplement to in-house R&D.

--"The question is the relationship between how much people will insist on "cosuming" and how much they produce"

You totally missed my point. I didn't express it very eloquently, so I'll try again.
For some resources, we can certainly produce a "suffuciency". Like food. We can certainly grow enough to feed everyone (up to a certain limit, but it's pretty far up). There's only a certain amount of food any one person needs, so it's something we can easily handle.
However, there are some resources that we simply cannot control this way. Time is one of them. No matter what humans do in the forseable future, we won't be able to grant ourselves extra time. There's always going to be a limited number of hours in the day, and if you use that time to do one thing, you are giving up the ability to do something else with it. Understand so far?
Now take this argument to more material resources. For a rather esoteric, but simple example, take Helium 3. There is a very finite amount of this on Earth, and it is very valuable to scientists, especially ones interested in nuclear fusion research. No matter what we do, there is only so much of this stuff here, and there are plenty of people who want some of it. Not from greed, from scientific interest. There simply isn't even close to enough of it for all the experiments that could be run. We currently can't change it. It is a limited resource.
And this applies to less esoteric resources as well. Take petrochemicals. There's only a limited amount of oil, coal, etc, deposits, and it's incredibly useful stuff. We'll always be able to use every bit of it we can get our hands on, and still want more. It's a limited resource. It may well regenerate in a few centuries, but that doesn't help out now.
You can't just say, "oh, but what if people weren't so greedy, then we'd have plenty of everything for everyone" because it just isn't so. Some resources are more useful than others, some are more flexible in application than others, and some are valued more for aesthitic reasons than others. You can't simply assume that all resources operate under the same generic resource rules, and all are equally valuable and that the need for them are just as easily satiated.

--"it belongs to the society, and since you are leaving your position in society,"

Who said anything about leaving? It's publicly owned right, which means it's yours, so how much do you have to take before it suddenly becomes theft? This is one of the problems of socialism that I've never seen addressed in an argument like this one.

--"How do you stand on taking credit for slavery"

I'd have to brush up on my Egyptian studies first, eh? Slavery has been around a hell of a long time, it's not an institution that can be blamed on the US, or necessarily on capitalism (although socialism is certainly open to comparisons to slavery, only with shunnings and peer pressure in place of whips).

Just so you don't think I'm trying to avoid you, I'll get to the other stuff later, when I've got time.

posted 06-11-99 01:18 AM ET            

"[Microsoft's dominance] is different from a monopoly in any normal sense of that word, because here the dominance has nothing to do with technical performance or price. The old robber-baron monopolies were monopolies because they physically controlled means of production and/or distribution. But in the software business, the means of production is hackers typing code, and the means of distribution is the Internet, and no one is claiming that Microsoft controls those.

"Here, instead, the dominance is inside the minds of people who buy software. Microsoft has power because people believe it does. This power is very real.

...

"But this is not the sort of power that fits any normal definition of the word "monopoly," and it's not amenable to a legal fix.

...

"The courts may order Microsoft to do things differently. They might even split the company up. But they can't really do anything about a mindshare monopoly,

...

"Mindshare dominance is, in other words, a really odd sort of beast, something that the framers of our antitrust laws couldn't possibly have imagined. It looks like one of these modern, wacky chaos-theory phenomena, a complexity thing, in which a whole lot of independent but connected entities (the world's computer users), making decisions on their own, according to a few simple rules of thumb, generate a large phenomenon (total domination of the market by one company) that cannot be made sense of through any kind of rational analysis. Such phenomena are fraught with concealed tipping-points and all a-tangle with bizarre feedback loops, and cannot be understood; people who try, end up (a) going crazy, (b) giving up, (c) forming crackpot theories, or (d) becoming high-paid chaos theory consultants."

Maybe I'm a lot more gifted than the author, but what he chalks up to be "bizarre, chaotic phenomena", I find to be pretty straight-forward: 1) When an OS has software and hardware support, then it becomes popular. 2) People developing software and hardware support popular OS's. Notice the positive feedback loop? Positive feedback functions "explode". In the sense of a market economy, they dominate. It is an unstable equilibrium. These types of phenomena are not unknown to science. They're not even unknown to everyday practice.

The author overlooks the obvious. Microsoft's most valuable asset isn't the Windows source code -- Microsoft's most valuable asset is its market position. Microsoft has a stranglehold on the industry. In general, it people must conform to the Windows standard, which guarantees that Microsoft sets the course for the software (and, to a lesser extent, hardware) industries. A hardware vendor probably can't survive in today's marketplace if they don't provide a reasonably bug-free and operational Windows driver. The author assumes that Microsoft is somehow "cheating" by tricking all of the hardware vendors into doing this work, when it "should" be done by the OS vendor. This isn't some crazy fluke that Microsoft has taken advantage of (even if it was at some point), this is Microsoft's business strategy. Microsoft's biggest strength is that it is strong. Microsoft dominates the industry because of its industry dominance. Microsoft can call the shots because Microsoft calls the shots. This isn't paradoxical, it is just one of the many features of capitalism as applied to the software industry.

posted 06-11-99 02:02 PM ET            

'Cash crops'. Hugo demonstrated the point quite well. These countries that you comment on, High Priest, are not capitalist in the same respect as western nations. They ARE exploited by western nations, and generally tend to have leaders that are puppets of imperialism.

What I mean is that their populations are exploited cheaply and crudely by western industry (BP in Nigeria for example, Ken Saro Wiwa, an outspoken activist against their plans, ended up killed by the Nigerian Authorities, maybe not BP itself, but I doubt they would have objected one little bit). No these are not free-market economies to the inhabitants of these countries, but a backyard for continual western exploitation. The US may be able to feed 50% of it's food supplies, but the countries that the US exploits are far less productive per acre, due to lack of technological access. Therefore less is produced per population, but rock bottom prices are paid. Western imperialism uses these areas of the world as it's backyard. This is why, for example, the west had more resources than the Soviet Union, it exploited the developing world, the vast mineral resources of Africa, to it's own ends. Rather than increasing productivity and the level of technology in these countries, the current status quo suits it, and suits it well. Only if it generates short-term profitability will the west bother introducing such programs. And also, I don't believe Africa had too many problems feeding itself in the past. Now the land is overworked, leading to desertification. Famine is now an annual event in many areas of Africa.

You will say that Western investment in Africa has brought benefits. No, not really. If it has, it has been totally peripheral to it's own ambitions. Compared to levels of standard of living in the west, it is quite pathetic.

posted 06-11-99 04:08 PM ET            

Just look at the Roman Republic! By 49 BC they were reduced to a corruption-riddled, squabbling bunch of fat rich patricians who spent most of their time shooting down people who they thought would challenge their power, or winning them over (like Pompey) until Julius Caesar marched on Rome and had himself made dictator for life! Rome did better under Emperors than it did under the Republic. Look at America today! Looks alot like the late Roman Republic, waiting for a modern-day Julius Caesar (or Palpatine, but he's not real) to come and end it.

posted 06-11-99 05:44 PM ET            

Putting aside arguments about whether the world has seen 'real' capitalist or 'real' socialist societies/economies the fundamental philosophical choice is that between individual rights and responsibilities versus those of that of society/the community.

The morality of socialism is that the rights of the many outweigh those of the individual.

The morality of capitalism/free market is that the rights of the individual are paramount.

To re-emphasize, there are various grades of implementation of these philosophies. Even �socialist� Sweden has a free-market capitalist economy. Many �socialist� countries, such as Vietnam, have restructured (I won�t say reformed ) their economies to remove price controls, permit private property etc.

posted 06-12-99 10:09 AM ET            

What is your point, Spoe?

posted 06-12-99 12:59 PM ET            

I don't see capitalism being about the rights of 'every individual', it is a system that allows the 'greedy' or the 'lucky' (not the strong) to use others as rungs in the ladder to climb to reach this 'holy grail', although it really doesn't exist. What does money get you, really, at the end of the day. Initially it gets you a good standard of living, beyond that it just means you waste more paying more for what is, essentially, the same thing, just a different label or plated in gold. What, really, is the difference.

Capitalism is not flexible. I will argue this point. Capitalism does not make sufficient contingency plans. I'm not arguing for communism here (strictly!), but you have illusions in capitalism being there for 'everyone'. Really, how many do benefit? Money is NOT everything. It is the way capitalism has orientated the values of society to their own ends.

Humans are adaptable, High Priest, and as you can see, their values DO change.

"Companies/stocks over the net. Being able to purchase plane tickets/anything else over the net. More Private satellites then govt controlled. Communications revolve almost entirely around capitalism."

Yes, companies/stocks over the internet. They have dramatically increased the instability. Now, we can have disaster at the touch of a button! . As for the second part, quite frankly, I agree that many transactions are better over the internet, and simpler. But wouldn't this be applied in a socialist system also? More private owned satellites than state-owned. Of course. Private-industry controls communication, means of production, media. Of course it has the most satellites. That really tells me nothing. In a capitalist system, communications do revolve around capitalism. Vice versa. In a socialist system, communications would revolve around socialism. So what is the point you are trying to make!? I will reiterate, fast communication makes socialism more feasible. How did the early Soviet Union communicate. Horse for christ's sake. No telecommunications, no computer. We now have lightning fast communications, transactions in the blink of an eyelid, seen under capitalism. We have the means to organise the means of production that has not been seen previously with the aid of technology. Simple communications, eg, metal from there needed here, parts from here needed there! If these were separated in the USSR, it involved the movement of documentation over VAST distances. Now, it can be logged and transferred with such speed inconceivable to the previous attempts at socialist society.

High Priest: All right, last time I reply to this crap. Do you really think I'm that stupid ? First off, if these nations were capitalist free market systems, we would gain a LOT more from them. The US alone supplies almost all of its own agriculture, and there is no 3rd World crap here(except for the hippies)

posted 06-12-99 01:26 PM ET            

Evolution akin to capitalism? Too right! But we are not separate entities, we compose a society, more akin to a multicellular organism. Our body doesn't kill the brain because it is 'not profitable on glucose'. It is organised around the whole. Yet individual cells can proliferate in this environment. The whole is more successful at acquiring energy and safety than if its monocellular counterparts.

And please, I like my freedom as much as anyone else. But we all have responsibilities, like it or not. In a capitalist system or socialist. No society would work otherwise.

And is money the main incentive?

Jobs my peers can go into - the city (stock-broker, trader, etc), high pay, etc, or research (longer hours, lower pay, etc). I've seen more evidence of people going for the latter. People are motivated by something more than money, from what I can tell. Money is an incentive, but this is very dependent upon the role of money in a society.

Also, this thing about 'unlimited resources' assumed by socialism (I can't remember who posted it). It is true that socialism would only work on a global scale, and this we have never seen. It would form an independent economic unit where the resources and means of production are coordinated. Once used, they can be recycled effectively. If money is paid out on extravagant systems by the system, wouldn't it be invariably paying itself anyway? Even if wages were paid, wouldn't it return to the system very fast (this is a materialistic way of putting it). So surely it wouldn't actually matter what the task was, the only thing that needs doing, effectively, is organising the means of production around it. This would allow society to initiate massive infrastructural investment programs, increasing the standard of living, etc. The flow of finance would not be an issue, you could say, if you are paying yourself, does it matter how much it costs?

Resources can be swiftly utilised and recycled. It is not a matter of limitless resources, it is a matter of their distribution.

Even if you did not charge for commodities like food, public transport, you will scream, but there would not be enough to go around. Give people some credit. Maybe problematic at first, but I guarantee you the novelty would wear off very fast.

I hope you try and understand what I am trying to say. Socialism is not designed on a national scale. And internationalist socialism has never been seen. But it sounds a brighter future than capitalism, going from one disaster to the next.

posted 06-14-99 03:29 AM ET            

If these countries were free-market economies, western industry wouldn't be able to plunder the loot for itself.

Fine... how does that support socialism ?

Evolution akin to capitalism? Too right! But we are not separate entities, we compose a society, more akin to a multicellular organism. Our body doesn't kill the brain because it is 'not profitable on glucose'. It is organised around the whole. Yet individual cells can proliferate in this environment. The whole is more successful at acquiring energy and safety than if its monocellular counterparts.

Again, how does this support socialism ? A free market economy is all about cooperation - specialising labor and pooling capital. You are right that the main problem of USSR style
planned economy, besides the corruption, was the inability to process information which the market can do better. But I still doubt even with new technology a planned economy would work now...

And please, I like my freedom as much as anyone else. But we all have responsibilities, like it or not. In a capitalist system or socialist. No society would work otherwise.

Of course - the question is just how are liberties and responsibilities balanced ? Seems socialism wants to stress responsibilities, and who defines those responsibilities in a socialist system ?

And is money the main incentive? Jobs my peers can go into - the city (stock-broker, trader, etc), high pay, etc, or research (longer hours, lower pay, etc). I've seen more evidence of people going for the latter. People are motivated by something more than money, from what I can tell.

Yes, just that a free market system leaves people with the choice: go for money, or go for other forms of satisfaction. Why would you want to change that ?

Money is an incentive, but this is very dependent upon the role of money in a society.

Ok, but why mess with people's choices ?

Also, this thing about 'unlimited resources' assumed by socialism (I can't remember who posted it). It is true that socialism would only work on a global scale, and this we have never seen.

As socialism is the system which looses the competition, it can only survive by killing the competition. Not a convincing argument for socialism....

If money is paid out on extravagant systems by the system, wouldn't it be invariably paying itself anyway? Even if wages were paid, wouldn't it return to the system very fast (this is a materialistic way of putting it). So surely it wouldn't actually matter what the task was, the only thing that needs doing, effectively, is organising the means of production around it. This would allow society to initiate massive infrastructural investment programs, increasing the standard of living, etc. The flow of finance would not be an issue, you could say, if you are paying yourself, does it matter how much it costs?

Paying itself ? Paying yourself ? Sorry, I don't understand anything in that para of yours...

Resources can be swiftly utilised and recycled. It is not a matter of limitless resources, it is a matter of their distribution.

If resources are limited, you have to use them efficiently. Who will be more efficient - the market or a planning agency ?

But it sounds a brighter future than capitalism, going from one disaster to the next.

How is capitalism going from one desaster to the next ? So far, the attempts to implement socialism have been the biggest desasters.

posted 06-14-99 10:06 AM ET            

Okay, so? What's the problem here? The people who want money the most are the ones most likely to have the most of it. The people who want other things are more likely to get those instead. Why do you see this as a problem? It allows every individual to go after whatever makes them happiest, rather than what someone else thinks they ought to need.

--"He completely ignores the fact of Microsoft's business model."

For starters, I'm impressed that someone actually read something I linked to
For another, he doesn't ignore it, and takes up quite a bit of his article explaining it.

--"Notice the positive feedback loop?"

The problem with Microsoft is that there are other OSes that do this sort of thing better, including hardware/software support. Microsoft has a lock on the market because it makes people believe it has a lock on the market.

--"No these are not free-market economies to the inhabitants of these countries,"

So, it's obviously the fault of capitalists rather than of the dictator of the country who's perfectly willing to exploit his population for personal material gain?
Please grant non-capitalists the right to be every bit as slimy and corrupt and scummy as you believe capitalists to be.

--"They are not, and more often than not, go hand-in-hand."

Yes, and I've used this as an argument for capitalism. Look at which country's "poor" people are best off: the US. (sarcasm)Our horrible, perverted, nasty(/sarcasm) capitalist system seems to proved pretty darn well for them, eh?
If you accept that social benefit can lead to individual benefit, why can't you accept that individual benefit can lead to social benefit?

--"I don't see capitalism being about the rights of 'every individual',"

Possibly because you don't care about the rights of any individual. As I've said before (and no doubt will have to say again), capitalism is, at heart, a barter economy. It allows the people involved in the exchange to decide on the relative worths of what's being exchanged, and not have this value forced on them by "society".

--"but you have illusions in capitalism being there for 'everyone'."

How did you get to this being the definition of flexible?

--"More private owned satellites than state-owned."

In which case it can't be much of a socialsm, can it? If people have enough private property to be able to build and launch sattelites, they certainly aren't sharing fairly with the community, eh?

--"it's exploitation, of the worst kind in these countries"

You're right, it is. The rulers in the these countries are exploiting their own people.

--"rather than those struggling at the poverty line trying to meet ends meet."

You seem to have picked up an image of hordes of unwashed, unhoused people wandering the streets and slowly starving to death on every streetcorner. I can't imagine where you picked it up. I should say (yet again) that of the "poor" people in the US, 3 out of 4 of them own a VCR for their TV. We're not talking about struggling to make ends meet, we're talking about struggling to pay for all the luxuries. I've been on minimum wage, and I was able to save up a couple thousand bucks in a short time. Someone working for Wal-mart gets stock options as a matter of course. As long as you're willing to live without every little luxury, you can build up quite a bit of cash fairly easily, which can be used to, oh, get some training for a better job.

--"Resources can be swiftly utilised and recycled. It is not a matter of limitless resources, it is a matter of their distribution."

I'll agree about the utilised part, but not the recycled part. This is largely a myth. It takes far more energy to recycle things like paper and plastic than it does to produce new. And you're assuming that everything can be resued one hundred percent, which isn't the case. Again, take petrochemicals. There's only so much of it around, and we burn it off at a rather high rate. When we've burned all the fuel oil, there isn't going to be any "recycling" that'll get it back to us, unless we're willing to wait a few thousand years for new oil beds to build up.

--"Even if you did not charge for commodities"

You're missing what the real definition of "cost" is. It doesn't matter if you don't make someone give you money for something, it still costs to produce. It costs, at the least, someone's time and effort. It also costs resources, which cannot then be used for something else. Even if you are assuming total recyclability, you can't use it for anything else while it's being used for this. It costs in side-affects, such as pollution from coal-burning power plants. And no matter what else, it costs energy. The energy of whoever made it, whatever machines they used, etc, and eventually we will run out of energy (it's a Law of Thermodynamics. Even though some people in the US have been dumb enough to try to regulate reality (pi=3), getting reality to pay attention is another issue).

posted 06-14-99 11:38 AM ET            

Cost. I see where you are coming from, Wraith, but you have missed my point. What I am trying to say that in a global socialist economy, the market can be more responsive than the 'flexibility' of capitalism. There is a flow of goods not dependent upon the flow of money. Implementation is the difficulty. If demand for something increases, industries can be resized. The recycling point was not meant to be a precise point about recycling being feasible. It was an (albeit somewhat vague) example. I'm saying that with the level of organisation, works programs not feasible under capitalism become feasible under communism. You are still thinking very market-orientated. Think of it more like a network, not like lots of independently functioning units.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to discuss this fully at the moment, but reply and I will later on when I get the chance (I have to sort out my future, unfortunately ).

posted 06-14-99 12:21 PM ET            

Ehm... is there a market at all in socialism ? Seems there are many versions around - how does that market operate ?

There is a flow of goods not dependent upon the flow of money.

Money is just the measure of goods - how does excluding it yield any advantage ?

Implementation is the difficulty. If demand for something increases, industries can be resized. The recycling point was not meant to be a precise point about recycling being feasible. It was an (albeit somewhat vague) example. I'm saying that with the level of organisation, works programs not feasible under capitalism become feasible under communism.

Well, a free market can put together a lot of resources for one goal. If it doesn't, this will most likely mean that the project is a waste of resources...

You are still thinking very market-orientated. Think of it more like a network, not like lots of independently functioning units.

posted 06-14-99 01:57 PM ET            

Money should be a measure of goods. It seems to have far more value than that in a capitalist economy - individuals having billions of pounds - now that could buy you a lot of things, an inconcievable amount. But it is something people to aim for.

Free markets can put production together for particular goals. But I am arguing that the scale of which would be bigger than we have seen so far.

I apologise for the confusion, when I referred to the market, I was referring to the supplier of goods. I am not going to be bogged down with semantics.

posted 06-15-99 03:36 AM ET            

Market = Need = Demand, then ?

I apologise for the confusion, when I referred to the market, I was referring to the supplier of goods. I am not going to be bogged down with semantics.

Now the market is the supplier ? To get out of that confusion, do you mean supply will be managed by some planning authority to meet demand ? I have genuine problems to understand what you mean there.

The flow of goods according to where they are needed, not what they cost and who can afford them, was what I was referring to, and I have said that in a previous post.

You can't escape the cost of goods; someone will end up paying those costs. By redistributing the costs, you can make goods affordable to people regardless of their contribution to the economy - the question is just what this price distortion will do to efficiency.

Money should be a measure of goods. It seems to have far more value than that in a capitalist economy - individuals having billions of pounds - now that could buy you a lot of things, an inconcievable amount. But it is something people to aim for.

So how does this change money being a measure for goods ?

Free markets can put production together for particular goals. But I am arguing that the scale of which would be bigger than we have seen so far.

Bigger is not always better... examples ?

posted 06-15-99 09:51 AM ET            

And supply and demand. It would be pointless in any economy providing anybody with anything they don't need, am I correct. You wouldn't supply sunscreen if there was never any sun now, would you? Just stating a logical fact. There does need to be responsiveness in a planned economy to demand, just like in capitalism. It's an axiom of any economic system.

What I am trying to say is that cost is not necessarily money. You need people to extract the ore, the furnaces to extract the iron, and then form it into whatever shape. But, if money is paid out to these people for the job, they buy whatever commodities with this money they need. As these commodities are supplied by the planned economy, the money returns to the starting point, namely industry. Do I make sense?

posted 06-15-99 12:10 PM ET            

Ok, the question is just: which is more responsive to such needs - a market or a planning agency ?

What I am trying to say is that cost is not necessarily money. You need people to extract the ore, the furnaces to extract the iron, and then form it into whatever shape. But, if money is paid out to these people for the job, they buy whatever commodities with this money they need. As these commodities are supplied by the planned economy, the money returns to the starting point, namely industry. Do I make sense?

And I have said that money is a measure for goods. People are in the end paid with goods; colourful peaces of paper or bytes in a bank account are a bad trade-off. Money is used to measure the cost of something in goods. A certain amount of money means you are entitled to a certain amount of goods. When the planned economy supplies them with goods, this is a lot less flexible and less responsive to individual demands than money on the market.
When the money returns to the starting point ? Don't get that part...

By works programs, I mean those that would not be feasible under capitalism, eg, vast improvement of public transport (free public transport would also be an idea).

It wouldn't be for free - you'd pay with resources (labor, capital assets). A huge transport network is feasable under capitalism, it just has to yield a return on the resources used - otherwise, it won't be done.

But should it be done ? Return is not necessary in a planned economy, but the result is in that case that the cost of the network is distributed to all participants in that economy and they get less for their resources than if they'd invest them elsewhere.

Here you would be able to reduce the amount of cars, pollution, etc. Under capitalism, there are too many vested interests (the petrochemical industry, the car industry would all use whatever power in their disposal to stop this progress).

This is a political issue; in a planned economy (if you can combine it with a democracy), all the planners and workers in car and fuel production might lobby as well to keep things as they are...
If you want to achieve that under capitalism, readjust the cost for "pollution". Then, you'll see people paying the price for it and still using cars or switching to public transport which will be offered once demand is there.

Never mind socialism being monolithic, look to your own lovely capitalism as been a major hindrance to development.

posted 06-16-99 03:12 AM ET            

And yes, I do mean that supply is quite definitely managed by gauging demand and supplying. The rules of economics do not break down, they need to be applied differently with a little more humanity. After all, economics is the study of the demands of humans with infinite demands in a world of finite resources. And this is the situation that occurs under all systems.

Why would workers lobby against the changes. Because society could redivert the labour into the manufacture of public transport infrastructure/more environmentally friendly alternatively. It would be more prepared to invest in human capital.

You are quite right, nothing is for free, but with a radical reorganisation of society, the priorities of a society would be changed.

By the way Roland, where is everyone else? We seem to be the only ones posting here now!

It's nice to have these little tete-a-tetes

I'm also glad to see I'm not alone. Pleased to see that the LO-LCR alliance in France (Trotskyist) received 5.2% of the vote. Very encouraging And you say that Socialism is dead(?)