Sure can’t, though one can make a distinction between essential government services (defense, judiciary, etc) and wealth redistribution
- Status
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Which government does not engage in wealth redistribution?
As I said, I can’t think of one. Even America’s properly instituted constitutional government, with strict limits to the enumerated powers, does mandate the provision of an attorney to a person who cannot afford one at taxpayer expense.
Jon
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Sorry, I misread your reply the first time. Government does not really exist without at least some redistribution.
It should be limited, and targeted in the way our constitution does. For example, the reason a lawyer is provided a taxpayer expense is because of the threat of restriction of rights and liberty.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Capitalism can never end world poverty. It ensures that exploited countries remain destitute while first world companies exploit them for their natural resources. Take a look at Nigeria, an oil rich country that should by the logic of any capitalist be wealthy, but instead just has its resources plundered by companies like Shell while around half the population live in poverty and armed militants run rampant. Capitalism has no interest in improving the lives of people in these exploited countries while it has a consumer base in the first world, currently they’re just a good source of natural resources to be plundered, or perhaps a good source of cheap labour. While capitalism exists there will always be oppressed nations and oppressor nations. The only way to end this relationship would be to end capitalism.
Poverty hasn’t decreased significantly in recent years. In countries like China it may have done, but globally much of the reporting of decreased poverty in the past few years comes from playing around with the definition of poverty by organisations such as the World Bank. The fact is that capitalism enforces artificial scarcity as the rules of the capitalist market dictate that more goods cannot be produced than the market can consume. If capitalism were to be abolished we would find that we easily have the productive capability to fulfill all of the world’s needs. The problem is that capitalism is terrible at effectively distributing resources, not that we don’t have the means to produce enough resources.
Poverty hasn’t decreased significantly in recent years. In countries like China it may have done, but globally much of the reporting of decreased poverty in the past few years comes from playing around with the definition of poverty by organisations such as the World Bank. The fact is that capitalism enforces artificial scarcity as the rules of the capitalist market dictate that more goods cannot be produced than the market can consume. If capitalism were to be abolished we would find that we easily have the productive capability to fulfill all of the world’s needs. The problem is that capitalism is terrible at effectively distributing resources, not that we don’t have the means to produce enough resources.
The nation’s most oppressed in my lifetime, in central and Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America have been socialist nations. And it was that way before my birth, in the same places.
There has never been a successful socialist state, because socialist leaders have no interest in the improvement of the lives of their servants.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
When will there be a presidential candidate that will promote brotherly love, like Pope Francis? Such a candidate would easily win the election. Whether capitalistic or socialistic, humanitarianism would flourish!
Right now, especially in America, competition is everywhere, and it promotes aggression. We need to become cooperative to promote brotherly love!
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
It doesn’t make sense to say that socialism can exist in isolation. These states were degenerated workers’ states where power became concentrated in a bureaucracy that became necessary for their survival. Socialism must become an international phenomenon. In the same way that capitalism requires expansion into international markets in order to find an increasingly growing consumer base for what is produced, socialism must spread internationally to succeed. This is what makes socialism better than capitalism - capitalism requires infinite market growth, something that cannot exist. Socialism cannot exist with a backwards economy in isolation, but it can survive fine on its own once it has sufficient means of production and only requires enough growth to provide for the existing population.
A lot of exploitation and degradation of our fellow man is based on economics. Why treat people well when to abuse them and to pay them little grants you profits? If slave children mining for raw materials in the Congo grants Apple so much profit, why should they oppose it? The only way to end this abuse of people is to end capitalism, and along with it the profit motive in production.
I think we can promote brotherly love within a capitalist society. In fact, the history of socialist societies over the last 100 years has demonstrated anything but brotherly love. Cooperating does not mean government control of the means of production
I would love to see a candidate that exemplifies the fine qualities of Pope Francis, though perhaps not some of the political solutions he may favor.
Socialism shouldn’t exist at all. But that said, whether it be to USSR or its slave states in central and eastern Europe, China under Mao, the socialist regimes in Africa (long after the decline of colonialism), or the fascist states in Germany, Italy and elsewhere, socialism always devolves into tyranny. It has to in order to force property owners to either give up their property or comply with government dictates.
I think the Soviet empire is a very good example of what socialism looks likes when it “spreads” internationally.
I disagree with the first statement, the idea that economic growth is finite. It isn’t. The pie can and should continue to grow.
Socialism is a backwards economy! It is backwards because it fails to recognize the motivation that drives people to better their lives, for themselves and their children. It fails to recognize that this motivation has the impact of improving the lives of others around them.
A business started in a garage, on the back of a bar napkin, in the mind of a young inventor, grows because of the possibility of a better life, financially, for the founder, but it also means the hiring of others to make that idea grow and prosper. “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” undermines that motivation.
Socialist countries don’t invent things because their is no reward for it. The old saying is true; capitalism is an unequal distributor of wealth, while socialism is an equal distributor of poverty - except for the ruling class.
What kind of government operates the Congo? Is it a free market capitalist country, based on republican self-rule, where individual rights are guaranteed? Or is it a socialist tyranny? And how corrupt is that government? The “kissing cousin” of socialism is crony capitalism.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
I had to cut your replies to fit everything in, sorry.
African countries like Burkina Faso became socialist because of the way capitalism messed them up. Burkina Faso held massive debts to western countries, and had suffered extensive damage at the hands of colonialism.
Fascism is capitalist. It stems from the crisis of capitalism, and swoops in to preserve it when liberal democracy no longer can. Mussolini even referred to it as being corporatist- it leaves the means of production in private hands, although they are subservient to (and protected by) the state. Coca-Cola was sold in Nazi Germany, and there were plenty of Nazi businessmen who made money in the country before and during the war. Everyone knows that Hugo Boss was involved in the production of Nazi uniforms, for example.
You mention the use of violence in seizing property, but private property is an inherently violent thing. What legitimizes my ownership of a factory over the workers? Violence, or the threat of it. If they don’t acknowledge my ownership I send the police or army in to attack or arrest them.
As I said, the degeneration of the USSR was due to the fact that the revolution failed to spread internationally, so what you had was a backwards economy existing in isolation that was totally unequipped to provide materially for the needs of the people. The internal social antagonisms that grew out of this lack of material things along with the threat from foreign countries meant that the country relied on a small set of specialists which had power consolidate around them. This is shown not just in things like the terrors that existed, but in how the Stalinist bureaucracy in the 1930s undid a lot of the revolutionary reforms of things like family life (which was almost totally divorced from the state) and education. These reforms did not leave the family or the education system able to cope with nation-state building, but had the state withered away as it would have done after international revolution the composition of education and the family would have only become more radical, not more conservative as it actually did.
African countries like Burkina Faso became socialist because of the way capitalism messed them up. Burkina Faso held massive debts to western countries, and had suffered extensive damage at the hands of colonialism.
Fascism is capitalist. It stems from the crisis of capitalism, and swoops in to preserve it when liberal democracy no longer can. Mussolini even referred to it as being corporatist- it leaves the means of production in private hands, although they are subservient to (and protected by) the state. Coca-Cola was sold in Nazi Germany, and there were plenty of Nazi businessmen who made money in the country before and during the war. Everyone knows that Hugo Boss was involved in the production of Nazi uniforms, for example.
You mention the use of violence in seizing property, but private property is an inherently violent thing. What legitimizes my ownership of a factory over the workers? Violence, or the threat of it. If they don’t acknowledge my ownership I send the police or army in to attack or arrest them.
If a country doesn’t abolish private property but just makes capitalists follow certain guidelines then it isn’t socialist. Socialism necessitates the abolition of capital/private property and wage labour. It is an economy where the means of production are owned by everyone in common.
But it didn’t spread internationally.
But markets constantly become over-saturated with goods that it can’t buy back. That’s the main problem with capitalism - the purchasing power of the market will always eventually fall below the supply of goods that exist. This lowers the price of commodities and cuts into profits, meaning that workers have to be fired, which means there is even less purchasing power in the market. This crisis of overproduction can be postponed with things like credit which artificially increases the purchasing power of the market, but it’s ultimately inevitable. Capitalism is just a series of crisis after crisis, and socialism will come from these crises.
Most people under capitalism don’t work to better themselves, they work jobs they hate to maintain their lifestyle and stay alive. Under socialism/communism there would be no distinction between productive labour and leisure time - people would not be confined to one job and could choose to work whatever they want whenever they want.
Well firstly the “socialist” countries that have existed did manage to invent things. Secondly, the private sector is incredibly uninventive because generally there isn’t any money to be made from taking risks and investing in new technology. Even Bill Gates has acknowledged this. Of course I don’t want to deny the relationship between the state and private property under capitalism, but clearly it isn’t the case that innovation comes from some kind of “pure” free market capitalism.
Companies like Congo and Nigeria are the best examples of capitalism at work. In the Congo you find slave children mining metals for Apple products, while in Nigeria huge American companies like Shell decimate the country for its oil supplies and leave the locals fighting among themselves. In theory, according to the capitalists, Nigeria should be a very wealthy country considering its natural resources. Capitalism relies on this kind of imperialism which drives millions into poverty. Yes, their governments are corrupt and ineffectual, but this is the result of western capitalist economies destroying their country and not the reason for it. They are completely at the mercy of western economies.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Socialism does not mean government control of the means of production. It would be possible for the state to own the economy entirely and it still be capitalism, provided the relationship between wage labour and capital remain intact. The point of socialism is to destroy this relationship.
Socialism definition: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
In fact, socialism is precisely what say it is not. Socialism is the ownership or at the least dictatorial government control of the means of production. If the government controls the means of production, that is socialism. The Nazis, for example, were socialists even though they, ostensibly, allowed private ownership. The control of the means of production was tyrannical.
Communists simply exclude private ownership. Either way, it isn’t capitalism.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
It’s not the economic system that is at fault, but the roots of the economic system: The lack of brotherly love, intense competitiveness, and materialism. Is it any wonder that we have such high crime and poverty rates? Socialism would surely fail with these social ills. To say that socialism has been tried and failed, well of course it will fail until we eliminate the root causes of the evils that plague our nation.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
Okay, but understand that if this is what you’re against then I agree with you, and also understand that you aren’t arguing against me, or Marx, or any actual existing socialist but instead a totally fabricated conception of what a socialist is.
I mean I think it’s dorky and often unproductive to chuck these terms around, but this is a prime example of a strawman argument. You’re defining socialism as something horrendous without listening to the actual positions of socialists, criticising that horrendous fabrication and then saying “Haha, checkmate commies!”
Your point doesn’t even make sense. If socialism isn’t what it claims to be, and what socialists advocate is not actually socialism, then socialists aren’t socialists so presumably you don’t actually disagree with self-identified socialists. You don’t disagree with what any socialist is advocating, you just come up with your own definition of the term so you can avoid actually thinking critically about their ideas.
Also maybe you didn’t see but I replied to a lot more of what you originally wrote.
No problem.
The degeneration of the Soviet Union was due to facts that are inherent in socialism, regardless of its political underpinning. Socialism attempts to eliminate self motivation. Human beings, for good or for ill, have a desire to improve their situation. Some may call it greed, but the fact is the profit motive is a powerful force in improving the overall prosperity of a society. This is why the great inventions come from cultures that recognize the right to keep what one has earned.
Your scenario also fails to recognize another truth: humans who have access to unbridled power will use it. You can blame Stalin all you want, but Stalin did what human beings are inclined to do. The American framers recognized this truth (power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely), and did everything they could to minimize the possibilities -separation of powers, enumerated powers, federalism, etc.
Okay, I don’t understand. Why would a country use an economic system that encourages poverty in order to solve poverty?
Fascism is socialism. No fascist state allowed for free enterprise. It ostensibly allowed for private ownership of companies when it suited them, and as long as the company did exactly what it was told, but that isn’t capitalism. That is socialism - government control and/or ownership of the means of production. There were plenty of businesses in NAZI Germany because it served the needs of the government, and had they not produced what the government required of them, they would have lost their property (and probably life ). The fact the Coco-Cola was sold in NAZI Germany didn’t make it a capitalist country.
If the owner bought it, it is his. Workers enter in a contractual arrangement to exchange their labor in return for compensation. Once both parties complete their end, the contract is complete. There is no implied right to ownership of the company simply because one works for it. The idea that simply because I am hired to word some place gives me ownership rights is nonsense. If you want to own a business, you buy one.
On this we can agree…to a point. Government’s role can be an assurance that the workplace is safe for those hired to work there, that the product produced is safe for the consumer who purchases it, etc., yet even these government roles can be abused.
To the greatest extent possible, government should be kept out of the way.
Okay, I think that is what I’ve been saying, except that authoritarian government regulation over the means of production effectively renders private ownership moot, and therefore has the impact of socialism.
Of course it did. From central Europe, to the Baltics, to near the Middle East, Southeast Asia, parts of Africa and central America, socialism spread internationally like a plague. Thank God it never spread over the entire Earth.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
He is still listed as the richest man with $75 billion, so not sure what he has given away yet.
Are you under the mistaken impression that socialism ends the natural swings in economics? All socialism does is make the upswings very low, and the recessions even more devastating. Look at the two Germany’s coming out of the fall of Soviet socialist tyranny. Which Germany would you have wanted to live in: essentially capitalist west, or socialist east? The greatest wealth, even for the poorest, exists in a capitalist nation.
Oh, please. We’ve heard this pitch for decades. Again, look at the two Germany’s. The German people voted with their feet, and the socialists had to build a wall to keep their people in. Even communist China has recognized over the last two decades that socialism doesn’t work. People in the United States are not confined to one job. People change jobs all the time. But in a socialist state, you’re either working for the government directly, or indirectly.
Compared to capitalist countries, socialist states are worse than stagnant. Advances in medicine, agriculture, technology, almost always come out of the profit motive. This is why it is false to claim that socialism is more compassionate.
It almost completely comes from free markets. From the Wright brothers, Gates himself, Ford, you name it! Even government relies on the inventiveness of marketplace. Shark Tank, for what its worth, is a small example of this.
Government doesn’t create wealth. It doesn’t create capital. And it isn’t compassionate. Socialist governments are the cause of their own economic malaise, and blaming others for it just doesn’t wash.
The reason Nigeria is not a rich nation is because it has corrupt government, not because of Shell. Look at Venezuela. Citco is basically government owned ( Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.) - I think we can agree that the people there are not living a better life under a socialist paradise. Corrupt government goes arm in arm with socialism.
If Nigeria is being harmed by Shell, then it is likely a result of crony capitalism, a close relative of socialism.
- Status