LOL at Capitalist logic

[Stizzel]

And now you're talking to yourself

[DuracellBunny]

I grew up on welfare and I now employ over 1000 college graduates. How did I accomplish that? I got myself a couple of PhDs and worked 80 hours a week.

People who only work 40 hours a week and complain at even that, need to STFU about other people having more money than them.

If you want something, go out and earn it, instead of crying until somebody gives you stuff.

[BrocepCurls]

In other threads he talks about there being no leaders or "management," that people are basically all on the same level and can govern themselves. Full utopian potato.

Nope, leaders and managers are elected (if they wish) by the workers. If the leaders suck and treat everyone like ****, they can elect someone else. It's bottom up system that keeps power ultimately in the hands of the many, rather than top down authoritarianism in the hands of a few. Worker cooperatives are very much a real thing.

[Stizzel]

I grew up on welfare and I now employ over 1000 college graduates. How did I accomplish that? I got myself a couple of PhDs and worked 80 hours a week.

People who only work 40 hours a week and complain at even that, need to STFU about other people having more money than them.

If you want something, go out and earn it, instead of crying until somebody gives you stuff.

Fellow former welfare brah. I now pay more to the federal government than I pay for my house. And apparently if I complain about how my money is wasted then I must be a neo nazi racist

[SnowEh]

Shouldn't be my job to teach you basic economics, but since you asked - socialism is an economy based around worker ownership and control over the means of production, totally in contrast with capitalism. Social democracy /"welfare capitalism" is a capitalist economy that has high taxation and extensive government services that try and provide safety nets and improve opportunity for those at the bottom (eg. Bernie Sandals, Nordic countries, etc - what you're talking about).



That was basically the textbook definition of capitalism - private ownership of the means of production, an ownership title which indeed is enforced by the state. The capitalist class is a numerically small dominant class, the rest of humanity are wage labourers working for the capitalist class. Nothing other than a basic description of the economy we live in. Is this going to be like the last thread where you talked big then ducked out?

No one here ducks from you. We've all made lengthy posts about why we think you're wrong. Sorry I don't follow a thread 2/47 waiting for your response. But I guess in a way I am ducking you cause when you start using these definitions there is no reason to respond. Couldn't even think of a post you'd make that I haven't already gave an answer for.

[SnowEh]

Shouldn't be my job to teach you basic economics, but since you asked - socialism is an economy based around worker ownership and control over the means of production, totally in contrast with capitalism. Social democracy /"welfare capitalism" is a capitalist economy that has high taxation and extensive government services that try and provide safety nets and improve opportunity for those at the bottom (eg. Bernie Sandals, Nordic countries, etc - what you're talking about).



That was basically the textbook definition of capitalism - private ownership of the means of production, an ownership title which indeed is enforced by the state. The capitalist class is a numerically small dominant class, the rest of humanity are wage labourers working for the capitalist class. Nothing other than a basic description of the economy we live in. Is this going to be like the last thread where you talked big then ducked out?

No one here ducks from you. We've all made lengthy posts about why you're wrong. Sorry I don't follow a thread 2/47 waiting for your response. But I guess in a way I am ducking you cause when you start using these definitions there is no reason to respond. Couldn't even think of a post you'd make that I haven't already gave an answer for.

[wesleysh21]

Sadly it's impossible to create an institution that doesn't want to protect itself. PBS = plutocrat's broadcasting station. NPR = national plutocrat's radio. Planned Parenthood opposes universal medicare on the basis that it would lower the profit of the people it employs, despite universal medicare being the best thing possible for the health of women and men.

tldr, we're fukked

Andrew Wilkow talks about this concept all of the time. No matter how noble the original purpose of an organization, ultimately its main mission will become its own survival. So you will inevitably see "mission creep" if they start to "solve" whatever problem they were made to "solve." Until some things they are involved with have little to do with their original core mission.

[biggestmuff]

What percentage of your dental clients are provided your services free of charge, pro bono?

[BrocepCurls]

If you want something, go out and earn it, instead of crying until somebody gives you stuff.

-Points out potato logic in OP
-Capitalists come in and repeat said potato logic

It's what I expected, but still funny. Under capitalism, a small owning class is "given stuff" through the labour of billions of other people. Capitalists aren't sharp enough to realise this and will continue to deride economic systems where people are "given stuff", not realising that is pretty much the modus operandi of our current system. That was the entire point of the OP, so you did super good with that response

No one here ducks from you. We've all made lengthy posts about why you're wrong. Sorry I don't follow a thread 2/47 waiting for your response. But I guess in a way I am ducking you cause when you start using these definitions there is no reason to respond. Couldn't even think of a post you'd make that I haven't already gave an answer for.

Private ownership and control of capital/the means of production is the textbook definition of a capitalist economy, which is universally agreed upon. Here's a definition from the Mises wiki if you're still skeptical:

https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Capitalism

Have you never opened an econ textbook? What are you even doing here?

[wesleysh21]

Nope, leaders and managers are elected (if they wish) by the workers. If the leaders suck and treat everyone like ****, they can elect someone else. It's bottom up system that keeps power ultimately in the hands of the many, rather than top down authoritarianism in the hands of a few. Worker cooperatives are very much a real thing.

So I'm assuming you are already a part of one.

[BrocepCurls]

So I'm assuming you are already a part of one.

I work for the NHS so no

Nice logical fallacy though

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[DuracellBunny]

I'm an ideologue

Everybody has the chance to start a business and succeed. If people are unwilling or incapable, that's their problem. People are not born equal; some are born taller, more intelligent, more driven, better athletes, better artists etc. Some will succeed and some will fail; that's life.

Equal opportunity includes the opportunity to fail, go bankrupt and starve. Equality of outcome is never going to happen.

You earn more than the average national wage. Do you donate everything over the average wage to charity?

[BrocepCurls]

Everybody has the chance to start a business and succeed. If people are unwilling or incapable, that's their problem. People are not born equal; some are born taller, more intelligent, more driven, better athletes, better artists etc. Some will succeed and some will fail; that's life.

Equal opportunity includes the opportunity to fail, go bankrupt and starve. Equality of outcome is never going to happen.

More random statements that have nothing to do with anything at all. Equality of outcome, average wages, none of these have any relation to what I am saying.

Under capitalism, most of humanity are resigned to sell their labour power to an owning class in exchange for a wage which lets them survive. Everyone cannot become a businessman even if they wanted to or had the skills to, because capitalism by definition requires a giant underclass of wage labourers to function. Most of the value they create through their hard work does NOT go to them, it goes to a few people at the top

Just as how under Feudalism, the majority of society had to be peasants/serfs who worked on their Lord's land, in order for the system to function, and their hard work mostly benefited the Lords.

The same thinking that led people to think "hmm Feudalism is a bit of a ****ty deal for the majority of humanity", led people to say "Capitalism is still a pretty ****ty deal for the majority of humanity". Under a system where the workers owned and control our industries, they (who are the majority of humanity remember) would get a comparatively much better deal in terms of compensation, autonomy over their work, etc. Don't think you're quite following.

[DuracellBunny]

Don't think you're quite following.

I follow fine. Do you earn more money than your receptionist, cleaner etc? Unless you are a one man band, you have people reporting to you that earn less than you do. Do you give them some of your salary so that all of your salaries are the same? No, ofc you don't. Why not? Because you like having that money and you believe that you deserve that money (otherwise you would give it away).

That is where your construct falls down. There will always be people that want more than others and are willing to give more to get more. The system you espouse assumes that everybody is a clone that is happy to be the same as everybody else, but that flies in the face of the evidence of our entire human history.

You talk about theoretical constructs that do not survive contact with the real world. Why is capitalism so prevalent? As a system, capitalism most closely matches the psychological profile of the greatest number of people.

Whether you call them CEOs, monarchs or politburo members, there will always be "haves". Humans are the apex predator, they didn't evolve as members of a herd, which is what you would need for the system you extoll.

[Dave22reborn]

So would individuals such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg be where they are today under Communism?

[BrocepCurls]

I follow fine. Do you earn more money than your receptionist, cleaner etc? Unless you are a one man band, you have people reporting to you that earn less than you do. Do you give them some of your salary so that all of your salaries are the same? No, ofc you don't. Why not? Because you like having that money and you believe that you deserve that money (otherwise you would give it away).

That is where your construct falls down. There will always be people that want more than others and are willing to give more to get more. The system you espouse assumes that everybody is a clone that is happy to be the same as everybody else, but that flies in the face of the evidence of our entire human history.

You talk about theoretical constructs that do not survive contact with the real world. Why is capitalism so prevalent? As a system, capitalism most closely matches the psychological profile of the greatest number of people.

Whether you call them CEOs, monarchs or politburo members, there will always be "haves". Humans are the apex predator, they didn't evolve as members of a herd, which is what you would need for the system you extoll.

Again, socialism has nothing to do with "everyone earning the same wage". It's about opposing one dominant class profiting exclusively from the labour of the billions in an underclass. You quite clearly are not following what has been said.

[BrocepCurls]

So would individuals such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg be where they are today under Communism?

Here's an interesting article from Forbes looking at what Apple might look like if they were run under a cooperative structure:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cameron.../#5e7a37132dee

No, the Jobs and Zucks and Gates would certainly not be as cartoonishly wealthy under an economy comprised of co-operatives. The workers, who are of course the masses, would however fare much better in a cooperative structure than they do under our current system where what they get paid is a small fraction of the value they create for the enterprise.

The real and worrying question is though, as a lowly paid government employee, why you are worshipping corporate multibillionaires and getting concerned at the horror that they might not be worth $80 billion under a non-capitalist economy?

[DuracellBunny]

Again, socialism has nothing to do with "everyone earning the same wage". It's about opposing one dominant class profiting exclusively from the labour of the billions in an underclass. You quite clearly are not following what has been said.

I can follow what a mere dentist says just fine. The problem is that you are deluded. You have reached a certain point in life and hit a brick wall. Because you cannot progress further, you want to bring everybody down to your level of mediocrity by taking away what you could never obtain due to lack of ability.

[YesiEvenLiftBro]

Everybody has the chance to start a business and succeed. If people are unwilling or incapable, that's their problem. People are not born equal; some are born taller, more intelligent, more driven, better athletes, better artists etc. Some will succeed and some will fail; that's life.

Equal opportunity includes the opportunity to fail, go bankrupt and starve. Equality of outcome is never going to happen.

You earn more than the average national wage. Do you donate everything over the average wage to charity?

I believe this is at the philosophical root of disagreement in this discussion assuming the discussion is between people who at least vaguely understand the same reference points for what constitutes what people are actually talking about (many see a term such as ''capitalism'' and ''socialism'' and have a different construct of what that term implies and have trouble articulating their own reference, only to assume others share their reference).

When you boil it down, it mostly comes to this in my opinion, do you even care if there is economic equity in our society, is this intrinsically useful or not?

Some may look at economic equity and say, hey look, when I want people to have things such as food/shelter/healthcare/education/utilities/infrastructure provided universally to suit basic needs, what that does is improves the quality of life for all of us. We are not equal, but we move as a society as fast as our slowest people. Following this logic, working to improve life for people in general improves life for me. If everyone as a whole is less sick, I am less likely to become sick because there is less sickness in general. If everyone is able to receive education, than there is more chance for articulated reasoning and problem solving in our society in general, leading to more conscientious decisions in our society in general that lead to greater advancements predicated upon previous conceptions, rather than extraordinarily flawed thinking based on false conceptions perpetuated by ignorance. If we meet peoples basic needs as a group, we will have less poverty, less riff raff and less crime in general giving us an opportunity to be more productive with a better standard of living in general.

These beliefs seem to covary.

Alternately, some may look at economic equity and say, hey look, it is inefficient to provide people with their basic needs, as a society we can accelerate faster if individuals who are more competent acquire more resources than others, because they have demonstrated they have a higher aptitude to efficiently allocate those resources. When you attempt to apply egalitarian ideas to economics, you simply take away from this efficiency which slows down progress among the most efficient, this is parasitic in nature. We are not all equal, but our society only advances when the fastest are moving as fast as possible. Following this logic, allowing and encouraging efficient exploitation through economic incentive is the ultimate way to organize and elevate competence which will ultimately lead to better productivity. If the hypercompetent members of society are more productive, rather than less productive our society simply will improve as a result of their production in general. The success of the most successful will spread like a contagion through society and anything that impedes this production in anyway, is counter productive to improving society.

Both see the same problem, they just believe it can be addressed in different ways, I am not convinced that either is objectively wrong or right, but the solution that would be most helpful is likely rather situational and far more nuanced then one covaried philosophical stance or another.

Take for instance the 2nd stance, I think they are right to a certain point, where production eventually reaches an apex in growth and stops applying it's benefits to the general well being of society when it reaches ridiculous levels. Trying to re-distribute all the incentive the most productive have is only going to cripple that production, but rewarding the production past a certain point offers diminishing returns that simply result in a giant surplus of value that is not adding to society but rather compounding and concentrating into a small segment of productive people. Eventually this can become so concentrated that it no longer incentivizes production but rather deincentivizes production because some may see themselves as having so much wealth that they could never possibly have any reason for want and more of that wealth is arbitrary so the incentive is gone. Then you just end up with massive wealth inequality, an unproductive wealthy class who used to be productive when it meant something, but now they can simply exist in comfortable decadence until societal entropy takes effect through their lack of contribution since they can simply live off of previously acquired wealth. Once this point is reached, you just end up with the society not being accelerated by those moving the fastest, while simultaneously having no safety net in place from preventing the slowest from complete inertia.

On the other hand, if you go to the complete end of the first line of reasoning, and you simply go down a path of trying to work towards a general quality of life in an egalitarian sense, this not only can deincentivize the most hypercompetent to an extent and slow economic growth assuming equity is more prevalent. It also can lead down a slippery slope where egalitarianism becomes a banner for which people rally behind to an extreme to the point it in of it's self becomes counter productive. Where everyone ends up equal, but equally poor because there is no disparity to encourage production since we are hardwired to attain status which is higher relative to those around us. (people in America won't be satisfied because they are more rich than those in lets say, Africa, but they will feel a sense of accomplishment if they are lets say, the richest on the block).

I think there has to be some sort of nuance with either of these lines of reason, where the most helpful approach applicable has to be applied dependent on the political landscape, it's like trading growth for general quality of life, but without a good economic baseline you can not have that quality of life and with no effort towards improving quality of life, at a certain point that growth becomes stagnant and you are surrounded by poverty. It is sort of like a balancing act where either extreme can result in tyranny, either tyranny of government from the zealous quest for more equity, or tyranny from the plutocratic class resulting from all power and resources being consolidated and concentrated in the hands of a few people, if they so choose to use that power and those resources for self benefit, eventually you end up with a political system that only works for them applying what ever policy they want from outside of politics, doing the same thing as the other end of the spectrum but for a different motivation. Both have potential to become warped and corrupted, but in different ways.

[BrocepCurls]

I can follow what a mere dentist says just fine. The problem is that you are deluded.

You obviously can't, because you're throwing out random phrases like "equality of outcome" and "equal wages" that did not logically follow from anything that's been said ITT. You're coming up with random strawmen based on some vague misconception of what left-wing ideology is, and then having an argument with things that no one ever said.

[MiscInformed]

What a chit thread this is. Here's the actual difference.

Capitalist: I believe in equality of economic opportunity.

Socialist: That's unfair! I believe in equality of economic outcome!!

Capitalist: bertstare.jpg

[p100]

Not a very good argument OP.

Capitalism overall rewards productive work.
Socialism equally rewards productive work and lack of work.

You can't have a functioning society if everyone is rewarded equally. If there is no incentive to innovate, build, and work then nobody will work. Point out all the flaws you want. At the end of the day socialism has so many flaws it has never produced a functioning society.

[InstantLoser]

[xXGHOST23Xx]

I think socialism can work in theory, but it doesnt account for human psyche. Humans are naturally greedy, selfish, and have a hunger for power. so when you place the well being or opportunity of success of millions in the hands of a powerful few, it leads to corruption because of human psyche. Even right off the top of my head, bernie sanders is all about socialism, yet the he owns multiple homes, is an alleged millionaire (correct me if im wrong about socialism or bernie). At least with capitalism, that power is spread out a bit more.

[PowersKenny]

Shouldn't be my job to teach you basic economics, but since you asked - socialism is an economy based around worker ownership and control over the means of production, totally in contrast with capitalism. Social democracy /"welfare capitalism" is a capitalist economy that has high taxation and extensive government services that try and provide safety nets and improve opportunity for those at the bottom (eg. Bernie Sandals, Nordic countries, etc - what you're talking about).



That was basically the textbook definition of capitalism - private ownership of the means of production, an ownership title which indeed is enforced by the state. The capitalist class is a numerically small dominant class, the rest of humanity are wage labourers working for the capitalist class. Nothing other than a basic description of the economy we live in. Is this going to be like the last thread where you talked big then ducked out?

" Bernie Sandals". Bless u *******

[wesleysh21]

I can follow what a mere dentist says just fine. The problem is that you are deluded. You have reached a certain point in life and hit a brick wall. Because you cannot progress further, you want to bring everybody down to your level of mediocrity by taking away what you could never obtain due to lack of ability.

He has a theory, but he's unwilling to go out and practice that theory. That's the reality of most people. They are armchair quarterbacks who don't have the balls or ability to go out and play the position themselves. They just want to sit in the cheap seats and rattle off their thoughts of what someone else should be doing.

[BrocepCurls]

Not a very good argument OP.

Capitalism rewards work.
Socialism rewards work, or lack of work, equally.

You can't have a functioning society if everyone is rewarded equally. If there is no incentive to innovate, build, and work then nobody will work. Point out all the flaws you want. At the end of the day socialism has so many flaws it has never produced a functioning society.

You're exemplifying the exact logic that I pointed out in the OP.

Capitalism does not reward work, not in any proportional sense anyway. Under capitalism, what do the majority of humans do? Work for a wage. What is a wage? Compensation in exchange for labour, compensation which is only a fraction of the actual value created from that labour. So under a capitalist economic structure, the majority of humanity are not being rewarded sufficiently for the work they do. They receive what is relatively speaking, a pittance. That's the entire reason socialism exists - the desire for an economic system where the majority of humanity is properly compensated for the work they do without an owning class skiving most of it off. Capitalism is the only system where someone can sit and be rewarded from the labour of billions of other people.

I know the OP was tongue in cheek, but you're about the 6th poster to come in here and repeat near word-for-word the exact same potato logic I pointed out in the first place.

[xXGHOST23Xx]

You're exemplifying the exact logic that I pointed out in the OP.

Capitalism does not reward work, not in any proportional sense anyway. Under capitalism, what do the majority of humans do? Work for a wage. What is a wage? Compensation in exchange for labour, compensation which is only a fraction of the actual value created from that labour. So under a capitalist economic structure, the majority of humanity are not being rewarded sufficiently for the work they do. They receive what is relatively speaking, a pittance. That's the entire reason socialism exists - the desire for an economic system where the majority of humanity is properly compensated for the work they do without an owning class skiving most of it off. Capitalism is the only system where someone can sit and be rewarded from the labour of billions of other people.

I know the OP was tongue in cheek, but you're about the 6th poster to come in here and repeat the exact same potato logic I pointed out in the first place.

Capitalism does not reward MINDLESS work. Can you argue that capitalism does not reward innovation (ie tech) and PhD's (ie doctors). It rewards learning and progression of society on a larger scale, not worker bees.

[wesleysh21]

I think socialism can work in theory, but it doesnt account for human psyche. Humans are naturally greedy, selfish, and have a hunger for power. so when you place the well being or opportunity of success of millions in the hands of a powerful few, it leads to corruption because of human psyche. Even right off the top of my head, bernie sanders is all about socialism, yet the he owns multiple homes, is an alleged millionaire (correct me if im wrong about socialism or bernie). At least with capitalism, that power is spread out a bit more.

It doesn't matter what system you have, there will always be a "ruling class." Moving from Capitalism to socialism simply shifts who's in charge.

[cashinout]

You're exemplifying the exact logic that I pointed out in the OP.

Capitalism does not reward work, not in any proportional sense anyway. Under capitalism, what do the majority of humans do? Work for a wage. What is a wage? Compensation in exchange for labour, compensation which is only a fraction of the actual value created from that labour. So under a capitalist economic structure, the majority of humanity are not being rewarded sufficiently for the work they do. They receive what is relatively speaking, a pittance. That's the entire reason socialism exists - the desire for an economic system where the majority of humanity is properly compensated for the work they do without an owning class skiving most of it off. Capitalism is the only system where someone can sit and be rewarded from the labour of billions of other people.

I know the OP was tongue in cheek, but you're about the 6th poster to come in here and repeat near word-for-word the exact same potato logic I pointed out in the first place.

it may not reward work, but it rewards risk/time investment

under socialism you can spend the next 20yrs of your life working on a breakthrough tool for dentistry only to earn off of it as much as the guy who puts it inside a box

if that's what you want to do, you are already free to do it under capitalism, which is where the freedom aspect of capitalism comes in and the coercion aspect of socialism makes itself clear

under capitalism, you are free to create a worker owned company, under socialism you are not free to create a privately owned company