World Republic

Uniting All People!
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Seriously

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Seriously   Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:52 pm

What is it about Capitalism that you capitalism-apologists like?

1.
CoolKidX wrote:
Well everyone can get rich, yay?


But I don\'t necessarily like it, I mostly think its the best thing we can have right now(well the best, things can always get better but after so many ages of capitalism its nearly impossible to be a good functional country with a alot of welfare), though it may be fucked up I don\'t really see another thing then capitalism that would work. While staying at a high HDI.

So workers now, will have a high chance to get a regular ass life, just don\'t have to be rich, but not poor aswell, then live their life.[/quote

_________________


Last edited by Zealot_Kommunizma on Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
alexCCCP-RUS-54321
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 728
Join date : 2007-12-22
Age : 107
Location : Canada/Russia/World

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:48 am

money, money, money, MONAY!!!!!!
i like the money that I get from lying to the citizens with unmoral advertisements so that I can't get all the money and so that my neighbours can live on the street while i bathe in rattlesnake venim (good for the skin)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Tyrlop
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1853
Join date : 2008-06-01

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:23 am

maybe its just so simple that everyone can understand it, but that ought to be a bad argument for it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:26 am

Well socialism is pretty simple too Tyrlop in fact simpler than capitalism.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:30 am

Well everyone can get rich, yay?


But I don't necessarily like it, I mostly think its the best thing we can have right now(well the best, things can always get better but after so many ages of capitalism its nearly impossible to be a good functional country with a alot of welfare), though it may be fucked up I don't really see another thing then capitalism that would work. While staying at a high HDI.

So yeah we need some changes here and there that mostly differs from country, cuz a ultimate free market would be shit I mean look at the 1800's and early 1900's, when the workers really suffered. Now, becuz of some left wing-ish parties in some countries(like most in Europe) things got better, workers got more wage, more free time, less working time a week etc etc.
So workers now, will have a high chance to get a regular ass life, just don't have to be rich, but not poor aswell, then live their life.

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
alexCCCP-RUS-54321
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 728
Join date : 2007-12-22
Age : 107
Location : Canada/Russia/World

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:40 am

CoolKidX wrote:
Well everyone can get rich, yay?
The thing is, everyone cant get rich. (OMG, there is control+z in Google Chrome, it is so AWESOME) Only a handful of people get rich. in socialism, everyone works together- not only one person benefits. Everyone benefits. If everyone worked harder, it would get better for everybody.

(freg i can't type today- headache)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:52 am

CoolKidX wrote:
Well everyone can get rich, yay?

I'm taking this as the reason for which you (or for which you think other apologists of capitalism) like capitalism.

In that case:

1) Not true. The capitalists (bourgeoisie) will necessarily be richer than the workers.
2) In socialism, on the other hand, everyone can be rich in proportion to his/her productivity.

I won't go into details because I want to wait until more apologists of capitalism reply. I plan to make a list of reasons for which some may support capitalism.

CKX wrote:

But I don't necessarily like it, I mostly think its the best thing we can have right now(well the best, things can always get better but after so many ages of capitalism its nearly impossible to be a good functional country with a alot of welfare), though it may be fucked up I don't really see another thing then capitalism that would work. While staying at a high HDI.

1. Why do you think this is the best we can have so far?
2. Why do you think other things, for example, socialism wouldn't work?
3. Define HDI. Do not explain me what the acronym stands for, explain me the concept of "Human Development Index", what it's based on and how it is scientifically viable.

CKX wrote:

So workers now, will have a high chance to get a regular ass life, just don't have to be rich, but not poor aswell, then live their life.

I'll be gathering arguments and reasons behind the apologism of capitalism and then, when there's a good enough amount engage in their rebuttal.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:55 am

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:
The thing is, everyone cant get rich. (OMG, there is control+z in Google Chrome, it is so AWESOME) Only a handful of people get rich. in socialism, everyone works together- not only one person benefits. Everyone benefits. If everyone worked harder, it would get better for everybody.

(freg i can't type today- headache)

If someone invents something it could make you very rich, if you make art it could make you very rich, if you begin a business you can get very rich etc.

But they have risks, you can not get rich and even get poor, the invest you make(for example beginning a business) can be a bad investment and then you can go bankrupt. Capitalism is all about these risks.

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
alexCCCP-RUS-54321
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 728
Join date : 2007-12-22
Age : 107
Location : Canada/Russia/World

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:59 am

CoolKidX wrote:
alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:
The thing is, everyone cant get rich. (OMG, there is control+z in Google Chrome, it is so AWESOME) Only a handful of people get rich. in socialism, everyone works together- not only one person benefits. Everyone benefits. If everyone worked harder, it would get better for everybody.

(freg i can't type today- headache)

If someone invents something it could make you very rich, if you make art it could make you very rich, if you begin a business you can get very rich etc.

But they have risks, you can not get rich and even get poor, the invest you make(for example beginning a business) can be a bad investment and then you can go bankrupt. Capitalism is all about these risks.
Capitilism is about being slaved to some fat man with a fat wallet.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:02 am

CoolKidX wrote:


If someone invents something it could make you very rich, if you make art it could make you very rich, if you begin a business you can get very rich etc.

But that doesn't mean everyone can. Capitalism will ensure that just a minority is rich. And, certainly, most of those who are rich give absolutely nothing to society - all they do is owning means of production.

Else, in capitalism you can't get rich without said wealth being extracted from the labor of a group of individuals.

CKX wrote:

But they have risks, you can not get rich and even get poor, the invest you make(for example beginning a business) can be a bad investment and then you can go bankrupt. Capitalism is all about these risks.

So capitalism is adventurocracy? Why should desirable economics be about risks? Where does this risk come from? Who is entitled to determine ownership and why?

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
alexCCCP-RUS-54321
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 728
Join date : 2007-12-22
Age : 107
Location : Canada/Russia/World

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:07 am

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
CoolKidX wrote:


If someone invents something it could make you very rich, if you make art it could make you very rich, if you begin a business you can get very rich etc.

But that doesn't mean everyone can. Capitalism will ensure that just a minority is rich. And, certainly, most of those who are rich give absolutely nothing to society - all they do is owning means of production.
This reminded me of Bill Gates. He has like 40 billion dollars in his account, and he does nothing with it. You might say he helps people in Africa,but really, if he actually wanted to help them and not just save money through taxes, he would give more money. He has 40 billion, which he doesn't give to anybdoy, which could be used to help people.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:25 am

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:


But that doesn't mean everyone can. Capitalism will ensure that just a minority is rich. And, certainly, most of those who are rich give absolutely nothing to society - all they do is owning means of production.
Yes I forgot to say that if everyone is rich then money would be worthless and stuff, but everyone still has the chance to get rich, the chance.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
Else, in capitalism you can't get rich without said wealth being extracted from the labor of a group of individuals.
That depends on what your getting rich on, by making art alone, you still can get very rich for example. Or if you invent something alone and then sell the idea to a company(which is gonna make it with the help off workers yes but the original guy with the idea doesn't get rich of that, only by selling his idea, for example).


Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
So capitalism is adventurocracy? Why should desirable economics be about risks? Where does this risk come from? Who is entitled to determine ownership and why?
A what?
Well becuz everyone then has the chance to get rich but also to lose something. And a desirable economic would be if anyone was rich and the workers were robots. Or I don't know.
The risk come's from? How do you mean?
Who is entitled? Well the original maker of it, or writer, or anything. And if he dies he can choose, to who he is gonna pass it on, for example family.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:
This reminded me of Bill Gates. He has like 40 billion dollars in his account, and he does nothing with it. You might say he helps people in Africa,but really, if he actually wanted to help them and not just save money through taxes, he would give more money. He has 40 billion, which he doesn't give to anybdoy, which could be used to help people.
Oh what's this? The Bill und Melinda Gates Foundation? Whuutttt.

And the man is free to whatever he wants to do with that money, its called freedom.

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
alexCCCP-RUS-54321
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 728
Join date : 2007-12-22
Age : 107
Location : Canada/Russia/World

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:36 am

CoolKidX wrote:
Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:


But that doesn't mean everyone can. Capitalism will ensure that just a minority is rich. And, certainly, most of those who are rich give absolutely nothing to society - all they do is owning means of production.
Yes I forgot to say that if everyone is rich then money would be worthless and stuff, but everyone still has the chance to get rich, the chance.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
Else, in capitalism you can't get rich without said wealth being extracted from the labor of a group of individuals.
That depends on what your getting rich on, by making art alone, you still can get very rich for example. Or if you invent something alone and then sell the idea to a company(which is gonna make it with the help off workers yes but the original guy with the idea doesn't get rich of that, only by selling his idea, for example).


Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
So capitalism is adventurocracy? Why should desirable economics be about risks? Where does this risk come from? Who is entitled to determine ownership and why?
A what?
Well becuz everyone then has the chance to get rich but also to lose something. And a desirable economic would be if anyone was rich and the workers were robots. Or I don't know.
The risk come's from? How do you mean?
Who is entitled? Well the original maker of it, or writer, or anything. And if he dies he can choose, to who he is gonna pass it on, for example family.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:
This reminded me of Bill Gates. He has like 40 billion dollars in his account, and he does nothing with it. You might say he helps people in Africa,but really, if he actually wanted to help them and not just save money through taxes, he would give more money. He has 40 billion, which he doesn't give to anybdoy, which could be used to help people.
Oh what's this? The Bill und Melinda Gates Foundation? Whuutttt.

And the man is free to whatever he wants to do with that money, its called freedom.
Bill Gates only gives money to Africa because he can save on Taxes while improving his image. And just because its legal, doesn't mean its moral or ethical.

Capitilsm has turned people into grredy pigs. I can walk outside and like spit cuz I swallowed a bug and someone might sue me for spitting in front of their house for money, people will steal others ideas for money, etc. I can't even go outside without being afraid that someone might sue me or whatever. See what capitalism has done?

Why does one person have to benefit? Let people make art- but why should they only benefit?

In socialism, everyone can live very well too. The differnce is, EVERYONE can live good.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CoolKidX
Chairman of the Supreme Council


Posts : 4639
Join date : 2008-02-14
Location : Netherlands

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:52 am

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:
Bill Gates only gives money to Africa because he can save on Taxes while improving his image. And just because its legal, doesn't mean its moral or ethical.
I just gave you a link that says that Bill Gates also gives money to other things outside of Africa, yet still in poor countries. Anyways, I didn't say it should be moral or ethcial, and taxes go into parts, if you have over 1 billion, it won't be a diffrence if you have 2 or 40 billion, you get the same tax rate on it. Cuz its over a certain amount anyways, and when you increase on every amount, at a certain point you gonna get 100%.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:
Capitilsm has turned people into grredy pigs. I can walk outside and like spit cuz I swallowed a bug and someone might sue me for spitting in front of their house for money, people will steal others ideas for money, etc. I can't even go outside without being afraid that someone might sue me or whatever. See what capitalism has done?
People won't sue a kid who is younger then 16 I'd think, and the sueing for money is more common in the US, but the law we have in Holland is pretty good, the law in the US for sueing is that the lawyers who are sueing don't have to be paid till they win. In Holland you gotta pay them(mostly per hour) when you sue or defend. So you will always lose money, so if you try to sue, and lose, you lost some money, so it isnt as easy to gain money from dumb sueing like in the US.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:
Why does one person have to benefit? Let people make art- but why should they only benefit?
Cuz they made it.

_________________
"Fuck gotta invade Ukraine" -- Vladimir Putin
Back to top Go down
View user profile
alexCCCP-RUS-54321
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 728
Join date : 2007-12-22
Age : 107
Location : Canada/Russia/World

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:00 am

CoolKidX wrote:
alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:
Bill Gates only gives money to Africa because he can save on Taxes while improving his image. And just because its legal, doesn't mean its moral or ethical.
I just gave you a link that says that Bill Gates also gives money to other things outside of Africa, yet still in poor countries. Anyways, I didn't say it should be moral or ethcial, and taxes go into parts, if you have over 1 billion, it won't be a diffrence if you have 2 or 40 billion, you get the same tax rate on it. Cuz its over a certain amount anyways, and when you increase on every amount, at a certain point you gonna get 100%.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:
Capitilsm has turned people into grredy pigs. I can walk outside and like spit cuz I swallowed a bug and someone might sue me for spitting in front of their house for money, people will steal others ideas for money, etc. I can't even go outside without being afraid that someone might sue me or whatever. See what capitalism has done?
People won't sue a kid who is younger then 16 I'd think, and the sueing for money is more common in the US, but the law we have in Holland is pretty good, the law in the US for sueing is that the lawyers who are sueing don't have to be paid till they win. In Holland you gotta pay them(mostly per hour) when you sue or defend. So you will always lose money, so if you try to sue, and lose, you lost some money, so it isnt as easy to gain money from dumb sueing like in the US.

alexCCCP-RUS-54321 wrote:
Why does one person have to benefit? Let people make art- but why should they only benefit?
Cuz they made it.
I didn't notice it was a link- I thought you just wanted to make it stand out. The same thing still applies. He has lots of money, but he doesn't use it. he's greedy, and is only doing that stuff to improve his image.

People will sue for very stupid things, trust me- just for money. And here to, lots of times you have to pay the lawyer hourly.

They haven't always made it- lots of times they just steal or buy it from other companies. For example, MS-DOS is just QDOS, but MS bought it for 50 grand and changed its name, cuz BILL Gates already had money. Yea, sure , it used to be easier to start a business, but now it mostly monopolistic and for lots, of people, its a downward spiral of debt.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:03 am

CoolKidX wrote:

Yes I forgot to say that if everyone is rich then money would be worthless and stuff, but everyone still has the chance to get rich, the chance.

Not really. Some are literally born rich and others can just dream about becoming rich.

CoolKidX wrote:

That depends on what your getting rich on, by making art alone, you still can get very rich for example. Or if you invent something alone and then sell the idea to a company(which is gonna make it with the help off workers yes but the original guy with the idea doesn't get rich of that, only by selling his idea, for example).

Massive amounts of value are not created by single individuals unless what was created either has massive value for a group of workers or for someone who has a group of workers working for him making that someone able to divert the value acquired from the workers into that creation. If you invent something and sell it to a company, automatically the wealth that comes from that company was extracted from a group of workers. If you invent somethig and start a company that provides said invention, it will be the work of the workers what will make you rich. If you become an artist and manage to sell a work of art of yours to a tycoon or a statesman, the wealth paid by them to you came from a a group of workers. If you create art, for example music, at least within the current economic framework you require to have your art distributed by a record house being the work of that record house's workers what makes you rich and not even as an owner of your production but as a worker of that record house. If you win the lottery, all that value is paid to you by the lottery company which in turn got it from people that, like you, bought the tickets an action that was enabled by a certain amount of workers working for that lottery company at least by producing and distributing the tickets.


CKX wrote:

A what?

And adventurocracy, the reign of the adventurers (who have the chance to be adventurous).

CKX wrote:

Well becuz everyone then has the chance to get rich but also to lose something.

As I said earlier, nope, not everyone has the chance to become rich. Some are born rich and have far greater chances to advance and much less risks to suffer than someone who is born within extreme poverty.

Else, it is impossible to become rich all by yourself as I explained above. You require lots of people to at least indirectly provide you with that wealth.

CKX wrote:

And a desirable economic would be if anyone was rich and the workers were robots. Or I don't know.

In other words technocratic communism? I honestly would hate such a system as I believe work is essential to humans. But that's another thing. I asked you why you believed that a "risk based economy", as you seem to describe capitalism, is desirable at all.

CKX wrote:

The risk come's from? How do you mean?
Yeah, where do these risks come from? What causes them?

CKX wrote:

Who is entitled? Well the original maker of it, or writer, or anything. And if he dies he can choose, to who he is gonna pass it on, for example family.

Define "original maker". Do you mean inventor? If so what about, for example, things that are not invented like land and natural resources reserves? And how does the inventor determine the ownership?

Also CKX, I would appreciate if you answered to my other questions please.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Tyrong Kojy
Member of the Supreme Council


Posts : 2142
Join date : 2008-04-11
Age : 29
Location : Canada

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:26 am

Personally I think capitalism speeds human development much faster.

_________________
"Jenaveve took everything from me.
My friends,
My family,
Everything!
Her ambitions to dominate the universe are terrifying,
Evil beyond imagining.
I,
Tyrong Kojy,
The one whose power even the creator fears,
Will stop her.
Even if I have to destroy the universe to do it!"
Tyrong Kojy/Jenaveve by Nicholas Rivest
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:26 am

Tyrong Kojy wrote:
Personally I think capitalism speeds human development much faster.

Than what by comparison?

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Tyrong Kojy
Member of the Supreme Council


Posts : 2142
Join date : 2008-04-11
Age : 29
Location : Canada

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:35 am

In communism there's less incentive to invent, to move forward. I'm not saying it would stop, simply that it moves at a slower pace than if people are incentivised.

_________________
"Jenaveve took everything from me.
My friends,
My family,
Everything!
Her ambitions to dominate the universe are terrifying,
Evil beyond imagining.
I,
Tyrong Kojy,
The one whose power even the creator fears,
Will stop her.
Even if I have to destroy the universe to do it!"
Tyrong Kojy/Jenaveve by Nicholas Rivest
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:28 pm

Tyrong Kojy wrote:
In communism there's less incentive to invent, to move forward.
Why?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I'm not saying it would stop, simply that it moves at a slower pace than if people are incentivised.

You're implying that there's no incentive in communism. Define "incentive" and explain why you believe there's no incentive in communism.

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
Tyrlop
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1853
Join date : 2008-06-01

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 3:03 pm

Tyrong Kojy wrote:
In communism there's less incentive to invent, to move forward. I'm not saying it would stop, simply that it moves at a slower pace than if people are incentivised.
capitalism is about companies fighting each other, state capitalism its just one company(i think you're refering to it) take for example all the medical companies out there, trying to find cures for different illnesses, they are running a race on their own. One company is trying to find the cure for AIDS for example, they already have some clues, researches, theories, analysis's. all the other companies are also trying to find the cure, but because this is a race, it means only one of them is going to win, and not only that, they rather want to win then to find the cure, This means that they have to avoid the opposing companies in winning. The only legal way you can avoid that is to keep your information for yourself, this means extremely slow progress, since its almost impossible for one crew of scientists to find such a cure in a decent time period.
If instead those companies had worked together with all their information shared, they would have already made a cure for cancer, aids, and every single big and controversial illness.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:
In communism there's less incentive to invent
According to what? again i think you are refering to USSR and its state-capitalism.
In that case you are extremely wrong, take a look at all this stuff that was invented in the USSR, im almost sure that zealot knows alot about this, for example the invention of the diod light
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Tyrong Kojy
Member of the Supreme Council


Posts : 2142
Join date : 2008-04-11
Age : 29
Location : Canada

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:52 pm

Indeed I was mostly referring to the uSSR, and if you look at the progress of oth the USSR compared to say, America, America was far more advanced. When I say incentive, I mean what Tyr described, though not nesesarilly in the same vein. As I've said before, I'd much prefer a socialised capitalistic system. It allows unpareleled comfort potential, while making sure none fal through the cracks that exist in capitalism while allowing great innovation in art, science, and cultural advancements.

_________________
"Jenaveve took everything from me.
My friends,
My family,
Everything!
Her ambitions to dominate the universe are terrifying,
Evil beyond imagining.
I,
Tyrong Kojy,
The one whose power even the creator fears,
Will stop her.
Even if I have to destroy the universe to do it!"
Tyrong Kojy/Jenaveve by Nicholas Rivest
Back to top Go down
View user profile
alexCCCP-RUS-54321
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 728
Join date : 2007-12-22
Age : 107
Location : Canada/Russia/World

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:26 pm

Tyrong, there still would be an incentive to invent things. For example, I would want to invent things that would make life easier for people and so that EVERYONE will benefit, not just me (profit) and the ones that can afford. If you're saying that money is the only motivator for people to invent things, I think we're gonna have to bomb.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Zealot_Kommunizma
Hero of the World Republic


Posts : 5413
Join date : 2007-12-06
Age : 28
Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:37 pm

Tyrlop wrote:
The only legal way you can avoid that is to keep your information for yourself, this means extremely slow progress, since its almost impossible for one crew of scientists to find such a cure in a decent time period.
If instead those companies had worked together with all their information shared, they would have already made a cure for cancer, aids, and every single big and controversial illness.

Do not forget Tyrlop that in capitalism there's also another objective: keeping the business afloat. That is, if your business depends on the existance of a problem you better keep that problem or not solve it completely. And if there's no choice, take your time in solving it. It's a paliative based-economy instead of a solution-based one which is also a reason for which capitalism is not sustainable - the ojective is not to suffice needs but to reach the greatest amount of consumption possible, in some cases, through the creation of unexistant needs.

Going back to what Tyrlop said, if history has shown us something is that the more information and progress is concealed the slower progress is. During the middle ages the church harnessed as much knowledge as possible, concealed it from the populace and prosecuted thinkers while doing all possible to destroy their work. This continued even after the middle ages although to a much lesser extent.

With the advent of capitalism, knowledge is still harnessed if not by a single group which searches its destruction, by certain groups or individuals which search to exploit the collective for their own advancement, and as much of it is concealed from the populace, at least for periods of time, slowing down a progress that would be much faster if difusion of knowledge was more widespread and knowledge was accesible to everyone while its objective, instead of being the personal advancement of an individual or small group of individuals at the expense of a larger group and even the entire community, was to actually solve a problem faced by the community or suffice the needs of this community.

Logically, if research was not profit-oriented and there existed no proxies between the researching workers and the rest of the workers (investors and in general owners of the companies) the whole of the value of the research would go to the entire group of rsearchers and every single researcher would have the chance to determine the rules by which the community of researchers is to exchange the fruits of their research with the non-researching workers on whom the material well-being of the researches depends while the research, instead of being a race of researchers against researchers where information is concealed from one another, it would be all the researchers working together to come up with a result, a result that will be exchanged with the rest of the community for a value determined by the entire researchers' community and that will be distributed among researchers according to rules set by researchers.
That sounds like far more of an incentive to me than a salary determined by a directing board.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:
Indeed I was mostly referring to the uSSR,
I clearly read you wrote "communism". USSR was state capitalism.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

and if you look at the progress of oth the USSR compared to say, America, America was far more advanced.


In which senses? In military technology, for example, there were several fields in which the USSR was more advanced. In regards to industrial output there were also several fields in which USSR had a larger output, implying thus industrial superiority in those fields.
In regards to consumer products, the USSR never focused its attention on that sphere of economy.

Either way, I would suggest not to go further into analysing USSR's economy and comparing it to America as they were two different versions of capitalism and as such do not serve to compare capitalism to a different economic system.

So again, why do you think there's less incentive within communism? And in comparison to what do you think capitalism provides a faster pace for human development?


Tyrong Kojy wrote:
It allows unpareleled comfort potential, while making sure none fal through the cracks that exist in capitalism while allowing great innovation in art, science, and cultural advancements.

How is communism unable to provide for these?

_________________


Last edited by Zealot_Kommunizma on Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://unitedrevleftfront.forumotion.com/
WeiWuWei
World Republic Party Member


Posts : 624
Join date : 2008-04-14
Age : 40

PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:34 pm

I don't understand why the argument for Capitalism is, somehow, the argument against "Socialism," insofar as the Soviet Union is being referred to here as a "Socialist" country

What elements of the Soviet economy were Socialistic? Did the workers own the means of production? No? Oh, well then it didn't have a Socialist economy. It's genuinely that simple.

There is, actually, a difference between Collectivism and Socialism. Socialism is a form of Collectivism, to be fair, but it is very specific. The Soviet Union and the PRC under Mao collectivized agriculture and other industries, but those industries were owned by the State - not the workers!

Oh, but you say that these were "workers' states"? Then why were the workers continually beaten down?

I don't accept this kind of argumentation. Intellectual honesty and integrity is required here.

---

By the by, inequality is an essential product of market economies. It's not so much that inequality is malevolently impelled upon the people, though; it just sort of happens. I don't understand the idea that Capitalism advances "all people" when, clearly, it fundamentally relies on a type of labor dynamic where some people are on top and some are on bottom.

You can cry foul all you want about those inequalities under Capitalism, and I'd support you in doing so. But don't try to argue that they can be abolished under Capitalism, or that they don't exist, or that they're somehow the fault of the workers, because that would all be untrue.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://worldrepublic.forumotion.com/groupcp.forum?g=11
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Seriously   Today at 10:39 am

Back to top Go down
 
Seriously
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
World Republic :: Capitol of the World Republic :: Red Square-
Jump to: