An Image From 1867

[Druidus]

What do you think about this image?

 

[Zephyr]

Well, I suppose I can see what the artist is getting at, but I don't quite agree with it. My family was never rich, we even had to go to food banks every once in a while, but I've never felt that richer people were superior in any way.

 

[Crystallas]

I love this poster. I saw it a long time ago and its not dead accurate, and very extreme in trying to convice people capitalism is bad. But it makes a good point.

 

[Zephyr]

I love this poster. I saw it a long time ago and its not dead accurate, and very extreme in trying to convice people capitalism is bad. But it makes a good point.

You also can't ignore the great lines. "We shoot at you." Brilliant!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think it was more pertinant back then; today, around 90% of Americans (proudly) describe themselves as 'middle class'.

 

[Original Freak]

Well, I suppose I can see what the artist is getting at, but I don't quite agree with it. My family was never rich, we even had to go to food banks every once in a while, but I've never felt that richer people were superior in any way.

I don't think it means the rich are superior but that the lower class hold them up and support them.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I guess back in 1867, this is how Capitalism seemed to the uninformed Socialist. I'd hope they are a bit smarter these days.

 

[michel]

I think it was more pertinant back then; today, around 90% of Americans (proudly) describe themselves as 'middle class'.

Middle class ? how do you define that ? - I was under the impression that we live in a classless Society.

 

[Druidus]

Middle class ? how do you define that ? - I was under the impression that we live in a classless Society.

Unfortunately, we do not.

I guess back in 1867, this is how Capitalism seemed to the uninformed Socialist. I'd hope they are a bit smarter these days.

Capitalism is pretty darn close to that depiction.

I think it was more pertinant back then; today, around 90% of Americans (proudly) describe themselves as 'middle class'.

Hmm... Do not the poor matter even if they are a minority? What about in other places? The town of Iqaluit is largely one big slum. I retain the opinion that capitalism is generally bad.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Middle class ? how do you define that ? - I was under the impression that we live in a classless Society.

Socially, that's pretty much true; in the U.S. "class" is more defined by economic status than education, nobility, etc. There's something inherently 'American' about 'working class' people that we idolize over here, which is why 90% of us claim to be part of this class. Hey, don't ask me...I just live here.

Hmm... Do not the poor matter even if they are a minority?

Of course. The point is that 'the poor' do not see themselves as the under-appreciated proletariat.....if 90% of Americans describe themselves as 'middle class', that means that lots of rich people and poor people alike view themselves on par with everyone else. Poor people in America generally see their situation as something temporary--that with enough hard work and saving they can gain greater financial security. I think that this is generally true.

What about in other places? The town of Iqaluit is largely one big slum. I retain the opinion that capitalism is generally bad.

There will be poor people and slums no matter what economic system a nation adopts. My understanding is that communist nations have historically had greater divisions between the rich and the poor than we do.

 

[BUDDY]

I retain the opinion that capitalism is generally bad.

Why, Druidus?

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...There will be poor people and slums no matter what economic system a nation adopts. My understanding is that communist nations have historically had greater divisions between the rich and the poor than we do.

Excellent points all, and I have to spread Karma around before Frubaling you again, but I wanted to emphasize on this one.

Socialism keeps the vast majority of the people poor and under the control of the government while Capitalism gives people the economic freedom to have more control over their own lives. I'll take Capitalism with it's flaws and excesses any day.

 

[Crystallas]

Capitalism is generally bad. Weak ballances, unstability. You tell a person "Welcome to life, you can relax when you die" to me thats just a poor example for humanity. You really have to work hard even if you dont want a lot. Thats why its not ballanced.

I dont think that we should be socialists... for some odd reason people think this is the only other alternative. We just need to ballance more things and give people more financial security if they decide they want to do nothing, and they dont want to spend what they do have. Kinda seems like every business and institution out there wants to grab everyones remaining money... it shouldnt be like that.

 

[Dreamwolf]

I think capatalism has its faults yes but it also has strong points. For instance it is easier to get ahead in the business world in a capatalist society but also I think I would ultimatly chose a socialist environment. I guess you just have to work with the place you were born I dont think we chose it but it was chosen for us for a reason. Hope that makes at least a fraction of sense.

Blessings!

 

[ayani]

i love "we fool you" and "we shoot at you".

it's a generalization, but it's a humerous one.

 

[Druidus]

Socialism keeps the vast majority of the people poor and under the control of the government while Capitalism gives people the economic freedom to have more control over their own lives. I'll take Capitalism with it's flaws and excesses any day.

It seems you have a poor grasp of socialism. Perhaps it's because I am a libertarian socialist, but I don't think that's what socialism is. In fact, one of the truest socialisms that ever existed pulled in more capital than before the collectivisation.

We just need to ballance more things and give people more financial security if they decide they want to do nothing, and they dont want to spend what they do have.

Which is kind of socialist thinking.

Really though, I believe in the saying: "From each, according to ability, to each, according to need."

 

[Druidus]

Other critics argue that inequality may be necessary but that the distribution of wealth and earnings is unfair, dysfunctional, or immoral in capitalism. In the capitalist economies, the distributions of earnings and, especially, of wealth are very concentrated and skewed to the right. In the US, the shares of earnings and wealth of the households in the top 1 percent of the corresponding distributions are 15 percent and 30 percent, respectively

• The capitalists gather their wealth by exploiting the workers. A worker is not paid the entire produce of his labor, as the employer retains a portion as profit. Profiting in this way tends to further enrich those with capital while not significantly enhancing the material well-being of workers. This perpetuates concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.
• Wealth and unequal distribution can create social problems (such as higher crime rates). These problems affect both poor and rich.
• Government interference in markets can be skewed to benefit the wealthy. In particular, wealthy people have the financial means and incentives to influence or corrupt government officials and to lobby for favourable legislation.
• Many people have little wealth left over after living expenses, so they can't make it grow quickly.
• Persistent long-term inequality of wealth undermines the motivation of the poor to improve their stance.
• Wealthy people save relatively more than poor people. Hence some believe that an unequal distribution of wealth undermines an economy's mass buying power, effectively leading to lower aggregate sales and wealth production in the future. Economists, however, argue that saving is also necessary in an economy, since it provides the means for investment into new technologies and processes.
• Wealth is defined and judged incorrectly, in many different ways. In particular, people may attach value to things for seemingly irrational reasons (sentimental value). Some may also value spiritual development more than material wealth.
• The wealthy may not put their wealth to productive use. For example, they may buy land just to deny access to it to others, for personal or environmental reasons. Other critics of capitalism, however, would ask whether or not capitalistic production narrowly-defined is a good thing, especially if it is seen as damaging the environment, and such an action of denial may be seen as the lesser of two evils.

As in the realm of ideology, there is no single consensus on what it means for a particular economic system to be "socialist". However, all socialists agree that a socialist economy must be run for the benefit of the vast majority of the people rather than for a small aristocratic, plutocratic, or capitalist class. In the mid-nineteenth century, when socialism first arose, many political ideologies of the day were frank in supporting the interests of elite classes. Today, in a world where many countries offer a broader electoral franchise, such open support for the wealthy would be the equivalent of political suicide. Therefore, most ideologies claim to support the greatest good for the greatest number, something that was once advocated only by socialists. Still, even today, socialism stands out by being particularly forthright in advocating direct pursuit of working class interests, even at the expense of what other ideologies consider the legitimate property rights of the wealthy classes.

www.wikipedia.org

I think a lot of people don't actually know what socialism is.

 

[BUDDY]

The problem here is that socialism gives a blanket statement that personal wealth is bad. I do not believe that. Especially when you consider that the majority of those that are considered wealthy, are those who have worked hard to create that wealth. Usually it is through creation of a business that employs workers. Without those who wish to create wealth by employing others, there would be lower employment overall. What incentive would there be for anyone to work hard and create opportunities for themselves and their families, when a socialist governement will put limits on how much wealth a person can obtain? What incentive would there be for the individual worker to work harder than his colleagues, and try to move up within a company, when that person would be hindered by beauracratic controls? It's like saying, no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to exceed X amount of personal income. An economic system built around a foundation of income equality for everyone has never worked well. An economic system built around economic equality of opportunity, works pretty well.

 

[Druidus]

The problem here is that socialism gives a blanket statement that personal wealth is bad. I do not believe that. Especially when you consider that the majority of those that are considered wealthy, are those who have worked hard to create that wealth. Usually it is through creation of a business that employs workers. Without those who wish to create wealth by employing others, there would be lower employment overall. What incentive would there be for anyone to work hard and create opportunities for themselves and their families, when a socialist governement will put limits on how much wealth a person can obtain? What incentive would there be for the individual worker to work harder than his colleagues, and try to move up within a company, when that person would be hindered by beauracratic controls? It's like saying, no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to exceed X amount of personal income. An economic system built around a foundation of income equality for everyone has never worked well. An economic system built around economic equality of opportunity, works pretty well.

Equality of opportunity my ***.

You still display a fundamental lack of understanding towards socialism. The government does not put a limit on personal wealth. You get what you need, not necessarily what you want (there's a lot of things I want right now but would never waste money on). For instance, food is a necessity. Water is a necessity. Clothing, housing, heating, these are necessities. A hummer is not a necessity. Neither is a big screen tv, or a top of the line stereo. Why should you have that and not others? Because you work harder? That is a falsity.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How would you classify the EU system. as it is something of a hybrid.
Perhaps Capatilism with concience.
More to the point What would Jesus and the early Christian church advocate.

Terry