The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered

[PureX]

Question do you think socialism should try to control culture or simply be a product of it?

Indoctrination is a part of culture. It's how a culture establishes and maintains itself. The question is not if it should happen, as it wll inevitably happen. The question is what will be it's goal when it does happen? Will that goal be the increased well being of all? Or will it be the increased well-being of a few at the expense of everyone else? A healthy, free, and prosperous society? Or a sick, oppressive, and horribly lopsided one?

 

[Nakosis]

No, I mean social ownership.

So, the means of production is produced by my, the worker's labor. Since I don't get to own what I produce, how am I compensated for my labor?

I believe you can achieve that through the gradual implementation of socialism and socialist policies.

Socialist policies?
Meaning that what I produced through my labor gets slowly taken from me and distributed to the community?

We do. The free market doesn't care, because the free market only really registers those with the capital to influence it. The poor can't do that.

Yes, the poor destabilize capitalism. So the existence of poor people do not benefit the capitalist. So they have as much reason as anyone to eliminate poverty.

And yet, our forms of production get more and more efficient and more and more excessive, but the prices don't come down. In fact, in most countries, inflation vastly exceeds increasing wages. Because the value of the product is not determined by its utility, but by its worth in generating profits.

Inflation is a product of the government interfering with the free market.
Value is determine by the individual in capitalism. You get to decide how much a product is worth to you.
Except when the government interferes with the free market and artificially drives up the value of that product.

That's not the fault of capitalism. It's the fault of the government interfering with the free market in the name of stabilizing the economy.

OTOH, I'm not sure how you determine value by utility or who decides the value of utility.

 

[Nakosis]

Indoctrination is a part of culture. It's how a culture establishes and maintains itself. The question is not if it should happen, as it wll inevitably happen. The question is what will be it's goal when it does happen? Will that goal be the increased well being of all? Or will it be the increased well-being of a few at the expense of everyone else? A healthy, free, and prosperous society? Or a sick, oppressive, and horribly lopsided one?

Yes but I don't believe anyone knows what the out come of any specific indoctrination will be. There or simple too many variables in the form of what folks take to valuing. So you can't really stand or push any particular ideology on the conviction that it is the best. It may be exactly the one that leads to that sick, oppressive and a horribly lopsided society.

Right now, I see capitalism as allowing the individual greater freedom to pursue their interests. Certainly it needs to be better at this though. Capitalism needs to promote policy that allows for greater inclusion. So everyone gets to enjoy the same freedom to pursue their own interests.

What in your opinion would be the benefits of socialism?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, the means of production is produced by my, the worker's labor. Since I don't get to own what I produce, how am I compensated for my labor?



Socialist policies?
Meaning that what I produced through my labor gets slowly taken from me and distributed to the community?



Yes, the poor destabilize capitalism. So the existence of poor people do not benefit the capitalist. So they have as much reason as anyone to eliminate poverty.



Inflation is a product of the government interfering with the free market.
Value is determine by the individual in capitalism. You get to decide how much a product is worth to you.
Except when the government interferes with the free market and artificially drives up the value of that product.

That's not the fault of capitalism. It's the fault of the government interfering with the free market in the name of stabilizing the economy.

OTOH, I'm not sure how you determine value by utility or who decides the value of utility.

Well, in the end it is about different versions of fair and how we deal with the problem of luck in variations of nature and nurture.

 

[Nakosis]

What is it you want me to clarify?
Human rights and minority rights comes first as the most important, but that won't work without democracy. Then comes socialism, but that is me.
So if a society meets human rights, minority rights and democracy then that is good. Now if the people then want to go socialism fine with me.
So socialism is secondary to the culture of rights and democracy.

What do you think socialism adds that capitalism doesn't?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes but I don't believe anyone knows what the out come of any specific indoctrination will be. There or simple too many variables in the form of what folks take to valuing. So you can't really stand or push any particular ideology on the conviction that it is the best. It may be exactly the one that leads to that sick, oppressive and a horribly lopsided society.

Right now, I see capitalism as allowing the individual greater freedom to pursue their interests. Certainly it needs to be better at this though. Capitalism needs to promote policy that allows for greater inclusion. So everyone gets to enjoy the same freedom to pursue their own interests.

What in your opinion would be the benefits of socialism?

See above.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you think socialism adds that capitalism doesn't?

It doesn't add anything. It has a different understanding of fair.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, in the end it is about different versions of fair and how we deal with the problem of luck in variations of nature and nurture.

Sure there is a limit on how fair we can make the world but here is my idea of fairness. You deciding what you value and the freedom to pursue it without interference from me and you granting me the same.

It doesn't matter to me what your station is in life and it shouldn't matter to you what my station is in life. As long as we both have the freedom to pursue, from whatever our starting point, that which interests us.

What is you idea of fair?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure there is a limit on how fair we can make the world but here is my idea of fairness. You deciding what you value and the freedom to pursue it without interference from me and you granting me the same.

It doesn't matter to me what your station is in life and it shouldn't matter to you what my station is in life. As long as we both have the freedom to pursue, from whatever our starting point, that which interests us.

What is you idea of fair?

Well, I can't work. I have this mental disorder. The system tried and found that I didn't fake it. I can't work. What comes next?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I can't work. I have this mental disorder. The system tried and found that I didn't fake it. I can't work. What comes next?

Soylent Green?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Soylent Green?

No, bad draw of luck as to nature and nurture. It happens.

 

[metis]

The standard capitalist refrain is that "if the employees don't like working there, they can quit."

And when I hear or read that, my response is "If employers don't like the working conditions, they can quit". Without the workers, the capitalist system would collapse except for some Ma & Pa places.

 

[metis]

Just a reminder that it was capitalism and competition between nations that led to the slave trade.

I'm not anti-capitalism, but it needs to be checked and regulated or serious problems will undoubtedly result.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just a reminder that it was capitalism and competition between nations that led to the slave trade.

I'm not anti-capitalism, but it needs to be checked and regulated or serious problems will undoubtedly result.

Well, the Empire idea, the idea of rationalism and the idea of God also played a role.

 

[Revoltingest]

And when I hear or read that, my response is "If employers don't like the working conditions, they can quit".

I recall some companies in my area shuttering
because union demands were excessive.
Cheaper to go out of business, & put capital to
use elsewhere than operate for free or at a loss.

I know you can't see this post, but it had to be said.

 

[PureX]

Yes but I don't believe anyone knows what the out come of any specific indoctrination will be.

Oh, I don't think it's that difficult. The doctrine of "every man for himself" would be pretty easy to extrapolate. That's why it's so often dressed up as "freedom", or as "natural law".

There or simple too many variables in the form of what folks take to valuing.

Actually, most people value pretty much the same things in life: peace, relative prosperity and equity, and to avoid unnecessary suffering. The problem is that there are always a few among us that want everything they can get, and when they get it, it still isn't going to be enough. And they don't care what anyone else wants or who else suffers from the lack.

So you can't really stand or push any particular ideology on the conviction that it is the best.

Sure we can. It's whichever ideology serves the most people in the best way. And the only ones among us that will object are those few that want it all, and will not rest until they get as much of it as they can take. Money, power, pleasure, control, ... everything.

It may be exactly the one that leads to that sick, oppressive and a horribly lopsided society.

We all know what leads to it. Greed, selfishness, hedonism, indifference to the suffering or desires of others.

Right now, I see capitalism as allowing the individual greater freedom to pursue their interests.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain false. The only interest being served by capitalism is the maximization the profit returned on the capital invested, to the capital investor. Everyone else involved in the commercial enterprise is there to serve that goal. And it doesn't matter at all what their interests are. Because the capital investor is in control, and he/she determines the course and purpose of the endeavor. And that is to serve his own needs and desires.

Certainly it needs to be better at this though. Capitalism needs to promote policy that allows for greater inclusion.

But that's not capitalism. By definition, capitalism is all and only about maintaining the power of money to capture more money. It doesn't care who has the money. Or how they got it. It simply gives whomever it is control over whatever enterprise they chose to invest it in. And that includes control over everyone else that's involved in or effected by whatever they've invested it in.

So everyone gets to enjoy the same freedom to pursue their own interests.

In fact, almost no one ever gets to pursue their interests. As they are spending all their time and energy helping the rich get richer, just to try ad enable their own survival. And even that is getting harder to do as the wealth continues to pile up in the hands of people that can't ever get enough of it, and that don't care who suffers as a result.

What in your opinion would be the benefits of socialism?

Socialism takes sole control of commercial enterprise away from the capital investor and shares it among all those involved and effected by it allowing them to protect themselves from capitalism's unremitting greed, and insert their own needs and desires into the commercial endeavor. Imagine a world where instead of our being inundated 24-7 by an endless barrage of commercial advertising pushing a mountain of useless material crap on us intended to keep us all feeding the bottomless greed of the capitalist's money pump we call "the economy" that we instead only produce the materials and services that work well, and last long, and make our lives better. And we can do all that working 20 hours a week instead of 50 because that's all it takes when we eliminate all the corporate duplication and warfare. And then we all really do have the time and energy to pursue those personal interests you're talking about.

If we can build machines to travel through outer space, I'm sure we could design a blueprint for commercial enterprise that gives everyone involved some say in how and when that enterprise is to be carried out. The investor will still gain a return on his investment, but the workers will become partners and gain some of the profits, too. While the consumers and the community will also have some say in how and what business is being conducted in their midst so as to protect their well-being, as well. There is nothing impossible about any of this. All it takes is that we stop worshipping and excusing our unmitigated greed, and start applying some common decency and common sense to the way we conduct our production and commerce.

The free markets of the "wild west" are gone, and they are not going to return. And to be honest, they weren't that great for most people, anyway. It's long past time we grew the **** up and set up a methodology for conducting business that serves and protects everyone involved, and without all the fighting and clawing at each other to gain the means of our survival. Like we're a bunch of dumb animals.

 

[Kfox]

No, they don't own the MEANS to create the food. Once the food is theirs, it's theirs. But the farm that it comes from is neither owned by them nor does it belong to private owners.


The difference would be that the money used to buy the food from a private owner... goes to the private owner. Depending on the socialist system, either food has been decommodified - in which case the food is free - or the food is allocated to them by some authority, such as a local government, and paid for via taxes.

Okay. It seems the difference between this market socialism that you speak of and a market economic system like in the USA is that the means of production for business owners like Jim and Jane are given to them by the tax payers for free, and under the system in the USA they are required to buy from another business.
So what’s the advantage of Jim and Jane getting their produce from the Government as opposed to getting it from another business like Tyson foods inc.? If Tyson foods provides lousy service, raise their prices, always running out of product etc. Jim and Jane can go somewhere else so Tyson foods has a reason to remain fair in their treatment of their customers. But the Government does not! the government has a monopoly on the whole system; Jim and Jane has no choice but to deal with the Government to get their means of production. So what are the advantages that you see for market socialism vs a market economic system?

 

[PureX]

Okay. It seems the difference between this market socialism that you speak of and a market economic system like in the USA is that the means of production for business owners like Jim and Jane are given to them by the tax payers for free, and under the system in the USA they are required to buy from another business.
So what’s the advantage of Jim and Jane getting their produce from the Government as opposed to getting it from another business like Tyson foods inc.? If Tyson foods provides lousy service, raise their prices, always running out of product etc. Jim and Jane can go somewhere else so Tyson foods has a reason to remain fair in their treatment of their customers. But the Government does not! the government has a monopoly on the whole system; Jim and Jane has no choice but to deal with the Government to get their means of production. So what are the advantages that you see for market socialism vs a market economic system?

All the capitalist food producers are controlled by their capital investors, and those investors all want to get as much money as possible in exchange for as little product as possible. So switching from one producer to another isn't going to change that result. And the buyers have to eat to live, so they cannot simply refuse to buy when the sellers price-gouge them (it's a captive market). So all the sellers will demand as high a price as they can get for as little product as they can give in return, and the seller cannot refuse to pay this price because they have to buy the food to live. Thus, the whole market, because it's a captive market, becomes a unified monopoly even though there are still many different businesses selling food. They are all unified by their greed motive.

And this is exactly why we are constantly having to pay as much as we can afford for everything we need to live. Because it's as much as we can afford to pay that is determining the price of everything the capitalists sell. And in our modern inter-dependent societies, that's a lot of markets. All but the luxury markets, in fact. The days of "free market competition" are long past.

 

[Nakosis]

Oh, I don't think it's that difficult. The doctrine of "every man for himself" would be pretty easy to extrapolate. That's why it's so often dressed up as "freedom", or as "natural law".

Ok, but that is not capitalism.

Actually, most people value pretty much the same things in life: peace, relative prosperity and equity, and to avoid unnecessary suffering. The problem is that there are always a few among us that want everything they can get, and when they get it, it still isn't going to be enough. And they don't care what anyone else wants or who else suffers from the lack.

Those few exist regardless of the economic system.

Sure we can. It's whichever ideology serves the most people in the best way. And the only ones among us that will object are those few that want it all, and will not rest until they get as much of it as they can take. Money, power, pleasure, control, ... everything.

These folks are not beneficial to any system, especially capitalism.

We all know what leads to it. Greed, selfishness, hedonism, indifference to the suffering or desires of others.

We've see socialism lead to this. Capitalism on the other hand has provided welfare, public education, public housing, numerous charitable organizations.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain false. The only interest being served by capitalism is the maximization the profit returned on the capital invested, to the capital investor. Everyone else involved in the commercial enterprise is there to serve that goal. And it doesn't matter at all what their interests are. Because the capital investor is in control, and he/she determines the course and purpose of the endeavor. And that is to serve his own needs and desires.

If that were true, capitalism would have destroyed itself long ago. Instead every western nation has stood with capitalism because the people of those nations understand its benefits.

But that's not capitalism. By definition, capitalism is all and only about maintaining the power of money to capture more money. It doesn't care who has the money. Or how they got it. It simply gives whomever it is control over whatever enterprise they chose to invest it in. And that includes control over everyone else that's involved in or effected by whatever they've invested it in.

Another myth created by socialism. Capitalism is a system of mutual self interest and private ownership. Nothing else. Not the bogeyman of socialist mythology.

In fact, almost no one ever gets to pursue their interests. As they are spending all their time and energy helping the rich get richer, just to try ad enable their own survival. And even that is getting harder to do as the wealth continues to pile up in the hands of people that can't ever get enough of it, and that don't care who suffers as a result.

Another obvious lie. Many have become wealthy from their own efforts in the capitalist system.

Socialism takes sole control of commercial enterprise away from the capital investor and shares it among all those involved and effected by it allowing them to protect themselves from capitalism's unremitting greed, and insert their own needs and desires into the commercial endeavor. Imagine a world where instead of our being inundated 24-7 by an endless barrage of commercial advertising pushing a mountain of useless material crap on us intended to keep us all feeding the bottomless greed of the capitalist's money pump we call "the economy" that we instead only produce the materials and services that work well, and last long, and make our lives better. And we can do all that working 20 hours a week instead of 50 because that's all it takes when we eliminate all the corporate duplication and warfare. And then we all really do have the time and energy to pursue those personal interests you're talking about.

If this fantasy of socialism were possible, which it is not, by trying to put everyone in control you end up putting no one in control. You simply have created anarchy and you've done nothing to deal with greed.

If we can build machines to travel through outer space, I'm sure we could design a blueprint for commercial enterprise that gives everyone involved some say in how and when that enterprise is to be carried out. The investor will still gain a return on his investment, but the workers will become partners and gain some of the profits, too. While the consumers and the community will also have some say in how and what business is being conducted in their midst so as to protect their well-being, as well. There is nothing impossible about any of this. All it takes is that we stop worshipping and excusing our unmitigated greed, and start applying some common decency and common sense to the way we conduct our production and commerce.

That system already exists. It is called capitalism. The problem is that socialist believe the myth created by Marx instead of understanding the reality of the system.

The free markets of the "wild west" are gone, and they are not going to return. And to be honest, they weren't that great for most people, anyway. It's long past time we grew the **** up and set up a methodology for conducting business that serves and protects everyone involved, and without all the fighting and clawing at each other to gain the means of our survival. Like we're a bunch of dumb animals.

The free markets are still here, simply regulated for better or worse by various governments. The methodology that serves and protects everyone is capitalism which you would understand if you could see past the mythology of socialism.

 

[Nakosis]

And when I hear or read that, my response is "If employers don't like the working conditions, they can quit". Without the workers, the capitalist system would collapse except for some Ma & Pa places.

Yes it happen to me at one company. The person in charge of the plant was the son of the owner of the company. The son had no idea how to run the business or deal with people. I came on as a manager and started to turn around many of the morale problems the company was facing but the son was just too much. He harassed female workers, he criticized everyone. I finally have enough and quit even though the HR manager begged me to stay. Two months after I left they closed the plant down and the son had to go back to his daddy.

Whenever I interviewed for a job after that I interviewed the company as well to determine if it was a place that met my standards. If it didn't, I kept looking.

Unfortunately that doesn't always happen. Enough folks don't know how to value themselves and assume they have to bow to the needs of the employer. Enough that the company keeps straggling along.

If more folks understood the situation like you do, we'd all be better off.