"The Right is way worse than the Left!!!"

[Debater Slayer]

There you go with another straw man.
I don't claim guarantees....only that capitalist
countries can turn out well, but socialist (ie,
no capitalism) countries never do.

It appears that you're saying countries with
capitalism are similar in economic & social
liberty to countries without capitalism,
considering domestic & foreign effects.
Let's explore this with with real world examples.....
Which do you think are the best capitalist countries?
Which do you think are the best socialist (non-capitalist) countries?

We've been over this before in multiple threads, so I don't think there's much point in pursuing it again here. Every time you're offered an example of socialism benefiting a country, you seem to either label the given country capitalist or dismiss the example because you believe it doesn't match a very specific and limited definition from a dictionary.

Socialist influence is one of the cornerstones of modern Europe, including its most prosperous states such as France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden. All of them borrow elements from capitalism too, but they don't employ it in the same destructive manner as the US. And even then, some countries with socialist influence like France and the UK have exploited other countries for resources in order to sustain their profit and heavy consumerism. They retain major flaws from capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

We've been over this before in multiple threads...

And yet, you still continue with straw men.
I've noticed that you interact with me based upon
mistaken impressions, rather than the actual text
of my posts. Read carefully. Stick with that.
This will save us both time & aggravation.

BTW, socialist countries also exploited other
countries, brutally. Heinous acts outside of
the home country can happen in any economic
system. So that's an uncromulent argument
against capitalism....a double standard, eh.

Foreign policy is the province of government.
I favor a government that behaves well in
other countries....whether capitalist or socialist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Words have definitions.

Yeah, and yet the Capitalism of Robert Nozick (ultra minarchist Capitalist) varies from the Capitalism of Friedman Milton (who has had vastly more political influence than Nozick), and then there's the reality of the mixed models nearly every nation to claim capitalism or communism have operated under. Those are not Adam Smith's Capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, and yet the Capitalism of Robert Nozick varies from the Capitalism of Friedman Milton (who has had vastly more political influence than Nozick), and then there's the reality of the mixed models nearly every nation to claim capitalism or communism have operated under. Those are not Adam Smith's Capitalism.

Name dropping adds nothing to discussion.
Capitalism has a very basic definition.
It allows for taxation, regulation, social services,
public roads, justice systems, etc.
Many different systems can comport with it, eg,
what you call "democratic socialism", which is
really capitalism with extensive social services.
It's still capitalism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Name dropping adds nothing to discussion.

It actually does because those are the names of people who have wrote about the subject and defined the concept.

Capitalism has a very basic definition.
It allows for taxation, regulation, social services,
public roads, justice systems, etc.

According to Nozick and some others all of that is a no. The state can legitimately do nothing more than enforce contracts and property ownership in their eyes and the Invisible Hand of God of the Market will correct and reward and punish accordingly all on its own.

 

[Revoltingest]

It actually does because those are the names of people who have wrote about the subject and defined the concept.

What's the relevance to names without
mentioning their views? I think you're
trying to impress me with your erudition.

According to Nozick and some others all of that is a no. The state can legitimately do nothing more than enforce contracts and property ownership in their eyes and the Invisible Hand of God of the Market will correct and reward and punish accordingly all on its own.

That is one man's personal preference.
Under capitalism's definition, government
can do less & even much more, eg, free
government provided health care, free
public education.
BTW, under socialism's definition, there's
nothing requiring health care, education,
trials, or anything we value.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is one man's personal preference.
Under capitalism's definition, government
can do less & even much more, eg, free
government provided health care, free
public education.

Again, that depends. Friedman would agree on some of that, though with a condition that it be weighed against the country's GDP (a model he proposed as a basic for determining how much the State should spend) and the other expenses of the Nation.
Or, we can look at America and England where American Conservatives see state-paid healthcare for all as an egregious overstep of the State while English Conservatives like Thatcher and Johnson promoted and supported it. That's because in America and everywhere else sees Libertarianism differently and much like communism there are different sorts of capitalism (but everyone's a mutt, anyways).

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, that depends....

....upon what the society & government do.

Too many lefties argue that capitalism is solely
a bare bones predatory version of it's definition.
They they argue that socialism is their dream
of what it could theoretically be, all unicorns &
rainbows.
I'll deal with what actually happens in the real
world, & call it what best comports with standard
definitions.

 

[1137]

You're putting words in my mouth that weren't (and aren't) there. I'm well aware that good/bad are entirely arbitrary, subjective, human projections onto a fundamentally amoral reality.

I'm also well aware that humans can't escape moralizing on the whole, and that when something directly threatens the wellbeing of the people on a monumental scale, it's not inappropriate to call that out for what it is - a problem, bad, evil, what have you. Problems abound, but on balance, there's not even any question that team red has descended to a level that they've earned the moniker "Death Party" from me. Hence the blatant false equivalency of the OP and me calling that out for what it is - nonsense.



More putting words in my mouth that weren't (and aren't) there, but if in your universe I'm somehow all of the women on planet earth, well... cool, I guess? Kind of creepy, but cool?



Yet more putting words in my mouth that weren't (and aren't) there. Or is this some weird continuation of the fact you believe I'm the only woman on the planet? Am I also the only organism on the planet? Are you from Mercury?

Yes Q, by pointing out women aren't everyone I'm saying you're the only person on the planet. Just more behavior identical to the conservatives, even avoiding the entire point. Thank you. Tomatoe tomatoe.

 

[Stevicus]

Memes but no answer, eh.
I counter with....

Well, I've answered it before, and we've discussed it at length in previous threads - until we get to the point where it becomes pointless, and we agree to disagree. You already know what I'm going to say, and I already know what you're going to say.

Besides, in reality, the system I would support would probably be more Keynesian in its scope, which wouldn't be total socialism, but it could rein in and tame capitalism to be more beneficial to the people.

The only other part of the discussions we've had along these lines is about Russian history, particularly during the Soviet period and the Cold War, but that's not really pertinent to the topic in this thread. It's not a subject I care to delve into in this thread, though it would be necessary to attempt to answer your question.

It's not that I've ever actually "praised" the Soviet Union, but I do find the fall of the Romanov Dynasty and the revolutionary period in Russia to be quite a fascinating lesson from history.

Overall, there have been recurring patterns one can discern in history which lead me to this conclusion: If there's a society where a few people at the top have most of the wealth and power, and if they deliberately choose to treat the rest of the population like crap, then the rest of the population will be resentful and will likely choose to resist and revolt.

It is my supposition that there never would have been any socialist revolutions in Russia or China if the previous governments of those countries had behaved more responsibly, amicably, fairly, and decently towards their own people. Moreover, the culture and character of their governments were apathetic, weak, and ineffective.

In other words, they were incompetent nincompoops, making it possible for the socialists to overthrow them and take power.

It's because of this that I would tell the capitalists and the politicians who worship them: Stop being incompetent nincompoops. Stop treating the rest of the population like crap. Be kind to people.

Maybe if they did that, people wouldn't become angry, and they probably wouldn't be lured over to the evil dark side of socialism. Socialism doesn't just happen because a few rancid intellectuals decide to meet in a coffeehouse. It's usually because capitalists make it all too easy to rile up a resentful populace.

So, it seems the best way for capitalists to protect themselves from socialists is not advocate policies which make it easy for socialists to gain more popular support.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Too many lefties argue that capitalism is solely
a bare bones predatory version of it's definition.
They they argue that socialism is their dream
of what it could theoretically be, all unicorns &
rainbows.

And those sorts bring to mind a certain lewd gesture.

I'll deal with what actually happens in the real
world, & call it what best comports with standard
definitions.

What happens in the real world is a mixed. The presence of money makes all the countries claiming to be Communist inherently does mean by Marxist standards they have a lot of work to do in order to making money obsolete and doing away with it. Roddenberry's vision of the future on Earth is closer to Marx in that regard, but even that's still a farcry from actual Marxism with the presence of a state and existing hierarchies.
And also in the real world both systems have needed reforms. Russia was working on them. Capitalism of the past was extremely exploitative, allowed slavery, and in a handful of examples a company did grow to be it's own quasi-state. But with Capitalism no one has pulled the plug on it and reforms continue.

 

[Revoltingest]

Besides, in reality, the system I would support would probably be more Keynesian in its scope, which wouldn't be total socialism, but it could rein in and tame capitalism to be more beneficial to the people.

Keynesianism is very much part of capitalism.
It's a popular option.

The only other part of the discussions we've had along these lines is about Russian history, particularly during the Soviet period and the Cold War, but that's not really pertinent to the topic in this thread. It's not a subject I care to delve into in this thread, though it would be necessary to attempt to answer your question.

Your contention that things improved when
Russian adopted socialism would be irrelevant
if shown true. The old system of serfs was awful.
The socialist system was awful. This doesn't
make socialism better than capitalism.

It's not that I've ever actually "praised" the Soviet Union, but I do find the fall of the Romanov Dynasty and the revolutionary period in Russia to be quite a fascinating lesson from history.

You use the Soviet system as an argument
for socialism being better than capitalism.
To call this "praise" is reasonable.

 

[Revoltingest]

And those sorts bring to mind a certain lewd gesture.

I like those.
Especially that one.
So expressive.

 

[Yerda]

Capitalism:
An economic system which allows free economic
association, including raising capital for a business,
hiring workers, buying materials, & selling goods &
services. Owners & workers respect each other,
act fairly, & pursue social & economic success.

Sounds like a good idea on paper.

 

[Stevicus]

Keynesianism is very much part of capitalism.
It's a popular option.

Reagan was critical of it. I don't see that it's that popular, otherwise our government would implement Keynesian policies (such as price controls). An equitable system of price controls would resolve a great many problems facing our economy. Housing, healthcare, and energy costs (just to name a few) could be drastically reduced and give great relief to the people.

Your contention that things improved when
Russian adopted socialism would be irrelevant
if shown true. The old system of serfs was awful.
The socialist system was awful. This doesn't
make socialism better than capitalism.

Why would it be irrelevant? As long as there's marked improvement, then it proves the point that socialism improves societies where it is implemented. Of course you can always argue that, in your opinion, "it's not good enough," but you can't deny or refute the basic point.

You use the Soviet system as an argument
for socialism being better than capitalism.

No, my argument is that socialism improved the system they had before. If they showed improvement, then they showed improvement. Why are you so afraid to acknowledge that?

To call this "praise" is reasonable.

Only from a McCarthyite/Bircher point of view, among whom red-baiting is a popular tactic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sounds like a good idea on paper.

That's the beauty of paper.
We can imagine anything, & that it works.

 

[Revoltingest]

Reagan was critical of it.

There are many possible things that can be
implemented while still conforming to the
definition of capitalism.
Reagan liked some. He disliked others.
I like some, & dislike others.
The trick is to steer capitalism in the best way.
The same could be said of socialism too.

I don't see that it's that popular, otherwise our government would implement Keynesian policies (such as price controls).

Both parties love the deficit spending part of it.
I'd prefer that it be used sparingly....just for
emergencies like WW1 & WW2.

An equitable system of price controls would resolve a great many problems facing our economy.

And introduce new problems. Nixon (the socialist
who hated communism) tried that back in the day.
What a mess.
Jimmy Carter tried it too with gasoline.
Another fine mess.

Housing, healthcare, and energy costs (just to name a few) could be drastically reduced and give great relief to the people.

Oh, you command economy types....never cognizant
of the unanticipated consequences. There's been much
research done on rent control. It's worth your looking into.

Why would it be irrelevant?

Because it's not a comprehensive comparison of
results from capitalist & socialist systems. Moreover,
you don't even address capitalism, just Russian serfdom.

As long as there's marked improvement, then it proves the point that socialism improves societies where it is implemented.

Even if it were shown true (which you've not done),
it would show only 1 case of socialism being better
than serfdom.
But you use that argument in a way that's irrelevant
to what I've been saying, ie....
1) Capitalism has potential for social & economic liberty.
(Note that it's not a "guarantee" as one poster keeps
straw manning about.)
2) But socialism (ie, no capitalism) has always shown
loss of both liberties.

Remember the precise wording of #1 & #2 next time
you argue against capitalism.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes Q, by pointing out women aren't everyone ...

"Women" - which isn't what you actually said. Please communicate what you actually mean and say what you actually mean. Or don't bother - it's not like what you claimed held water either way. It probably makes sense that in order to paint false equivalency amongst diverse groups of people you have replace what people actually say with different words, so... have fun with the creativity of that I suppose. I was just doing that right back at you, because why the hell not?

 

[1137]

"Women" - which isn't what you actually said. Please communicate what you actually mean and say what you actually mean. Or don't bother - it's not like what you claimed held water either way. It probably makes sense that in order to paint false equivalency amongst diverse groups of people you have replace what people actually say with different words, so... have fun with the creativity of that I suppose. I was just doing that right back at you, because why the hell not?

Lol still not addressing a thing at all. I accept you concession, bodily autonomy for all!

 

[Stevicus]

There are many possible things that can be
implemented while still conforming to the
definition of capitalism.
Reagan liked some. He disliked others.
I like some. I dislike others.
The trick is to steer capitalism in the best way.
The same could be said of socialism too.

Why not take the best from both systems and jettison the rest?

Both parties love the deficit spending part of it.

You can't blame that on socialists.

And introduce new problems. Nixon (the
socialist who hated communism) tried that
back in the day. What a mess.

A far bigger mess was when oil prices were quadrupled.

Price controls helped to boost production during WW2, turning America into the greatest industrial powerhouse ever conceived. If FDR let the capitalists run things, we'd all be speaking Japanese today.

Oh, you command economy types....never
cognizant of the unanticipated consequences.
There's been much research done on rent
control. It's worth your looking into.

Oh yes, I've checked into it. Basically, it upsets wealthy people who lament that they can't gouge people and satisfy their incessant greedy urges. So, their instinct is to do whatever they can to try to sabotage it and make that aforementioned "mess" you spoke of. But make no mistake, it's not the price controls which create the mess; it's the capitalists refusing to cooperate which causes the mess.

The worst thing a socialist can ever do to them is tell them that they're equal to the "peasants" they look down upon. Their entire reason for being ostensibly lies within a feeling of superiority over others, and they see socialism as robbing them of that boost to their ego.

Because it's not a comprehensive comparison
of results from capitalist & socialist systems.
Moreover, you don't even address capitalism,
just serfdom.

Actually, serfdom ended in Russia in 1861 (even before the U.S. ended slavery). After that, they were nominally "capitalist" inasmuch as they still operated within the world system as it was back in the 19th century. They were subject to the same basic trends and ideological patterns affecting the rest of Europe, even if they were several decades behind industrially.

Even if it were shown true (which you've not done),

Of course I have shown it to be true. Simply telling you the results and Russia's performance in WW1 versus WW2 would show remarkable improvement. A country that can win wars is better off than a country that can't. That's all I have to do to show you that it's true, and yet, you still deny it? Where is your support for such a view? What is your reasoning here?

it would show only 1 case of socialism being better
than serfdom.

Russia didn't have serfdom since 1861.

Again, the argument is this (read my lips): Socialism improves societies better than what they had before.

Note that I never said that it was "as good as" or "better" than the U.S. economy. My only point regarding that has been that the U.S. economy might appear better, but not because of capitalism or any systemic cause. It's more due to circumstances of history which existed outside of any considerations of an abstract system.

But you use that argument in a way that's irrelevant
to what I've been saying, ie....
Capitalism has potential for social & economic liberty.
(Note that it's not a "guarantee" as one poster keeps
straw manning about.) But socialism (ie, no capitalism)
has never shown loss of both liberties.

Social liberty has never been at issue for socialists. Socialism has generally been far more progressive when it comes to social liberty. Economic liberty is what's at issue, and my only point of contention here is that, if you want economic liberty, it should be economic liberty for all. Equality. Social and economic justice. These are the things that socialists support.

Ultimately, all socialists really want is for working people to be given a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. I can't see what's wrong with that principle.

The only real point of contention that I can see is who gets to decide what is fair. Who gets to decide how much a person's labor is worth or how much a product is worth (or how much a CEO's labor is worth)? Who is in the best position to do that? Is it the State, whose very existence is based upon serving the interests of all the people as a collective whole? Or is the capitalists, whose very existence is based upon selfish greed and wanting to keep as much for themselves while providing as little as possible?