Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
Name a job where you make no money. And I have never had a CEO tell me how to do my job, nor do I know anyone who has.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Communism/Socialism v. Capitalism - which one is better really?
- Thread starter nnmartin
- Start date
Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
So, again, why are they so important?
Sorry I'm fast responding, I meant "would you like a job and make money or would you like the CEO to do it all and make no money"
Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
I would love to see a CEO work for their worth, in fact, I would pay them on top of not making anything.
The final reason CEOs make so much money is simply because they have contracts.
I change my mind, they're not important at all. But at least they're not taking any of our earned money.
Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
The Capital from capitalsim comes from the manufactured good made by line labor. How are they not taking money from them?
They are making money off them, but not taking money from them.
We don't need the CEO at all, and still have Capitalism.
Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
How is making money off of someone not taking money from them? The top dawgs aren't manufacturing, so all of their money comes from the line labors labor. There are marketing and publications and admin and human resources, etc., but without the manufactured goods, they would not be needed. So who is really important?
I agree with your statement about CEOs. I still feel that a comination of Socialism and Capitalism would be best, but out of the two, I say Socialism is better.
In a pet show, a dog earns a treat for doing a trick, and you get paid by the producers of the pet show. You are not taking any of his treat, his treat is what he earned, and the owner earns his own thing.
The doctors keeping us alive are more important than the garbage men.
The teachers more important than the bus drivers.
etc
Why is Socialism better? You would be paying for someone who decides not to work, and trust me, there'll be a bunch of those.
Who do you combine Socialism and Capitalism when they're exact opposites?
Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
There are no absolute opposites.
And where do you get the idea that everybody gets paid, even if they don't work. Please provide some reference. I have stated that if no work is done, then no pay multiple times...
I don't know where I'd find the references since I've gotten told they support that by many Socialists themselves, some that exist on the forum right now, others on facebook.
I'm sure Socialists can believe that if no work is done they don't get paid, but not many Socialists will agree to that.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Question: Do you consider Norway to be a socialist country?
Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
I think where Capitalist supporters spew on Socialism is that they believe just what you've stated: Everybody, even if they don't lift a finger, gets paid. I am 100% against that. I would love to see a system that creates accountability for anyone getting any assistance, tempered with rationality.
I do like parts of Capitalism too, but on a whole, it creates great gaps and inequality, and is extremely easy to manipulate if you are in the top tier, and extremely difficult to get out of the bottom tier without assistance. But, again, there needs to be accountability for assistance, and regulations on rampant inequality and manipulation.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
This is too simplistic IMO, I think capitalism is good with some socialism ,you can't have a completely capitalistic society I don't think it would really work. On the other hand too much Socialism is also problematic, and can hinder economic growth/quality of life.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's my opinion. There needs to be a balance struck where the benefits of both systems work.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Nice to see you read my post.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
Will a CEO save your life when you need emergency treatment?
Who do you take your child to when they are sick?
Are you really sure that CEO's are more important?
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
You're approaching this at a very strange angle.
What person would elect to not work if their viability relies on it? Sounds to me this person is either mentally or emotionally scarred.
I've met plenty of people who are extremely shy; they can't properly function in society without some large psychological help. Some only leave their rooms/homes once a month, if that, and even they still desire to be useful.
Capitalism creates such destitute employment for the majority that we lose sight of the fact most humans aren't hell-bent on doing nothing with their lives, and those who are usually suffer from some mental illness, aware that they are lost. My vision of socialism is not one where you can lounge around at the expense of another, but rather a system where work is no longer all about monotonous drudgery, employees and consumers have a direct say in production, and a wealth distribution exists such that extreme disparities in power, government, and ownership don't exist. Peons no longer have to work under the thumb of billion dollar organizations who can select workers like a human gets to pick a dog from kennel; they can, with some experience, properly negotiate their conditions. And hard work is properly rewarded for those who want to work harder.
Out of interest, how many people do you define as lazy yet believe they deserve a lot more than what they currently possess?
Last edited:
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
yes, and of course the very system relies on a pool of surplus labour - ie: the unemployed.
It needs this to keep the wages down and profits of the owners up.
So in reality, a certain percentage of people will be permanently unemployed regardless of how many job applications they send off and however keen and willing to work they may be.
With Socialism, a nation could much easier attain full employment.
It needs this to keep the wages down and profits of the owners up.
So in reality, a certain percentage of people will be permanently unemployed regardless of how many job applications they send off and however keen and willing to work they may be.
With Socialism, a nation could much easier attain full employment.