Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The practicality of capitalism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The following is a response I delivered to various inane comments about capitalism made on a leftist forum.

--------------------------------------------

Well look at what privatisation does to the workers of Pakistan http://www.ptudc.org/Anyway I never met a rightwinger who could show that freetrade made more than a handfull of people rich- Teis

Mass firings - sacificial for profits, Workers - serivice of others, Workers - Commodity of employers. Hey isnt that capitalism.- comrade neonate
being a communist isn't fashionable anymore, it is sooooooo not cool 

let's be a cappie en exploit others.............- Pingu

The above comments make abundantly clear the limited research this board’s members have done into to the theories they claim to follow and those they claim detest. For the benefit of those who have been hoodwinked into following socialism I have but together a brief piece on the practical implications of capitalism.

Private ownership encourages economic efficiency and competition while ensuring that entrepreneurs have a right to the profits generated by their own efforts. Consequently entrepreneurs are given an incentive to search for better ways of meeting consumer needs. Be it by the introduction of new products, the development of more efficient means of production, higher quality after-sale services, or through more competent management than competitors.

Contrast this to the environment under a command economy. Enterprises, that are state-owned, have little or no inducement to control costs and maintain efficiency because there is no way they can go out of business. The abolition of private ownership eliminates the incentive for individuals to search for new ways of serving consumer needs and results in an absence of dynamism and innovation.

Even the armchair communists that infest this site should know that innovation and entrepreneurship are the primary engines of growth. By innovation I mean new products, new processes, new strategies, new management practices and new organizations. It is obvious that to sustain economic growth, the business environment must be conducive to these factors. So, what kind of system best encourages innovation? Capitalism. To reinforce what I said above, under a free market economy any individual who has an idea is free to begin a business and make money out of it, just as an existing business is free to improve operations through innovation. Depending on their level of success, the individual entrepreneur and the established business can each reap rewards in the form of high profits. Herein lie the enormous incentives created in capitalist economies to embrace innovation.

In circumstances where all means of production are owned by the state, as in a command economy, incentive to innovation is removed because it is the state, rather than the individual, that receives all gains. This lack of economic freedom and incentive for innovation was the prime cause for the economic stagnation that occurred throughout the Marxist states of Eastern Europe and even some of the mixed economies of the west. Observe that those nations with the greatest level of economic freedom (Hong Kong, Singapore, the United States etc.) also rank among the highest in terms of economic growth.

The assertion that global capitalism is detrimental to the poor of the world is another common fallacy. By lowering tariffs on imports, producers of poorer nations have access to lucrative markets in the west that would otherwise be denied to them. Similarly, western businesses have the freedom to move firms off shore, giving jobs to citizens in nations with a lack of domestic producers. Observe that in 1970 South Korea and Ghana had an equal GDP. South Korea recognised trade as a positive-sum game, concentred its resources on the production of goods that they produced most efficiently, engaged in trade to acquire those goods that they did not produce, and allowed “sweatshops” to be set up by foreign companies. Now South Korea has the 12th largest economy in the world while Ghana, who committed itself to “Pan-African socialism”, is in the same stagnant swamp that it started off in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The following is a response I delivered to various inane comments about capitalism made on a leftist forum.

I once joined a forum populated mostly by leftists. I learned fast.

These people are breathtakingly irrational and well beyond the reach of reason.

You would do better to read Socialism by Ludwig Von Mises which shows that socialism cannot work plus Liberalism which shows how capitalism does work.

All the posts you quote from are thoroughly Marxist and nihilist in nature. They do not want to show how socialism works, after all Karl Marx never showed how it would work, they just want to bash capitalism. They are the true essence of anti-capitalism.

Any posts you put on their forum are an exercise in beating the air.

Better to try and spread the word by talking to people and writing letters to your newspaper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism may be good for the select few who can not only innovate and come up with these new products, but also have access to the capital required to commence production. Unfortunately, this is just a small percentage of those who can actually come up with these great ideas.

Capitalism makes it possible for someone with a great idea to be run out of business because of this freely competitive market, not because their innovations are of any less value to the public than their competitors, but because larger corporations have a larger budget for marketing and promotions allowing them to effectively bankrupt these other companies. And why, you ask, would they do this? The answer is simply money. Some may say, "these larger businesses are offering customers more economical options, so why wouldn't they deserve to be on top?" Though not always the case, often times companies will lower prices long enough to bankrupt another company, then raise their rates and continue to gauge the general public. Their top priority is not the customer, not even their employee, but primarily their own pocketbook. Capitalism breeds greed and selfishness, not to mention corruption and scandal (Enron, Bre-X, etc) which I won't even get into.

So, apparently Capitalism is good for the impoverished? Tell me, what's the point of having off-shore production in sweatshops (Which by the way is not a positive for South Koreans, their economy may have been boosted, but the workers involved in production aren't seeing any of this growth with their meager wages and horrible working conditions, nor are they happy) when the poor in your own country are without jobs. Offshore production may have made it possible to lower production costs but it also takes jobs away from the people who are consuming these products at home.

This notion of happiness brings me to the marxist states. Communism may have its flaws, but when all was said and done and these states switched to democracy, suicide rates were never higher. Yes, there is more opportunity for growth in a capilist economy, but what's the point when the vast majority is left unhappy. And as far as there being no incentive to control costs, I find that to be a very individualistic view of socialism. If you look at it in terms of production costs affecting everyone in the state, it seems more reasonable that there would be more emphasis on controlling these costs than if it were to only affect the owners of a private company. And Yes, if you look at the history of communism, this is obviously not what has occurred, but I refuse to believe that human beings don't possess the ability to cooperate on such a large scale. Capitalism by contrast seems to be accepting our flaws as humans rather than trying to overcome the adversity we're faced with.

I'm not saying capitalism is evil nor am I saying that anyone who experiences any form of success under a capitalist economy is inherently greedy and corrupt, but the way that this form of government and economy is structured makes it so easy to be selfish and esoteric.

Is it that hard to imagine living in a society where everything one creates benefits everyone else? Imagine everyone contributing their ideas, strategies, etc into the same forum. We as a species could advance far beyond what we are now, keeping our ideas under lock and key from others. Maybe I'm a dreamer and the human condition can't allow for implementing this form of selflessness, but hey, wouldn't it be great if the world could live in harmony rather than always striving to better one's counterpart?

You may say I'm a dreamer/But I'm not the only one/I hope someday you will join us/And the world will live as one

        -John Lennon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Capitalism may be good for the select few <Snip>

Capitalism breeds greed and selfishness, not to mention corruption and scandal (Enron, Bre-X, etc) which I won't even get into. 

So, apparently Capitalism is good for the impoverished?  Tell me, what's the point of having off-shore production in sweatshops (Which by the way is not a positive for South Koreans, their economy may have been boosted, but the workers involved in production aren't seeing any of this growth with their meager wages and horrible working conditions, nor are they happy) when the poor in your own country are without jobs.  Offshore production may have made it possible to lower production costs but it also takes jobs away from the people who are consuming these products at home. 

This notion of happiness brings me to the marxist states.  Communism may have its flaws, but when all was said and done and these states switched to democracy, suicide rates were never higher.  Yes, there is more opportunity for growth in a capilist economy, but what's the point when the vast majority is left unhappy.  And as far as there being no incentive to control costs, I find that to be a very individualistic view of socialism.  If you look at it in terms of production costs affecting everyone in the state, it seems more reasonable that there would be more emphasis on controlling these costs than if it were to only affect the owners of a private company.  And Yes, if you look at the history of communism, this is obviously not what has occurred, but I refuse to believe that human beings don't possess the ability to cooperate on such a large scale.  Capitalism by contrast seems to be accepting our flaws as humans rather than trying to overcome the adversity we're faced with.

I'm not saying capitalism is evil nor am I saying that anyone who experiences any form of success under a capitalist economy is inherently greedy and corrupt, but the way that this form of government and economy is structured makes it so easy to be selfish and esoteric. 

Is it that hard to imagine living in a society where everything one creates benefits everyone else?  Imagine everyone contributing their ideas, strategies, etc into the same forum.  We as a species could advance far beyond what we are now, keeping our ideas under lock and key from others.  Maybe I'm a dreamer and the human condition can't allow for implementing this form of selflessness, but hey, wouldn't it be great if the world could live in harmony rather than always striving to better one's counterpart? 

Your entire post is Marxist.

The businesses you mentioned were the recipients of government interevention which, by definition, is INTERVENTIONIST AND NOT CAPITALIST.

Historically businesses have been quite willing to call for and accept government regulations in return for certain favours.

Sh*t on Karl Marx's stupid ideas taht business is capitalist.

Oh and communism's main fault is that millions of people either starved to death or were executed by all the dictatorships.

And Hitler was a socialist as well. Not a capitalist.

And selfishness is a virtue. Selflessness is a sin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"And Hitler was a socialist as well. Not a capitalist. "

perhaps some more recent examples would help:

Iraq(pre liberation): Baathism=Socialism

North Korea=Socialist,

etc etc.

on a lark,static, why dont you run a correlation equation comparing the number of nationalized industries etc with the number of HR abuses, and ask why such a correlation might exist?

PS, I think your tag is particularly appropriate for an advocate of a system which is sure to lead to the preservation of the status quo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it that hard to imagine living in a society where everything one creates benefits everyone else? Imagine everyone contributing their ideas, strategies, etc into the same forum. We as a species could advance far beyond what we are now, keeping our ideas under lock and key from others. Maybe I'm a dreamer and the human condition can't allow for implementing this form of selflessness, but hey, wouldn't it be great if the world could live in harmony rather than always striving to better one's counterpart?

Using your analogy...

Say I get paid to post in your "forum" no matter what, what reason would I have to post anything of value to society?

Chances are I wouldn't contribute intellectually to the forum at all.

Then what happens, the Forum administater would have to take a gun to my head and FORCE me to post something of value. Now you know if you fail you will get punished by FORCE, so you will not take any risks and chances are the forum would stagnate and offer nothing new to the readers.

Now you mean to tell me an atmosphere like this is better then one where people are free to make mistakes and learn from them, where people are free to prosper because of their own productivity?

[It's "paid" not "payed", dammit! -- GreedyCap]

Edited by GreedyCapitalist
Link to post
Share on other sites
Say I get paid to post in your "forum" no matter what, what reason would I have to post anything of value to society?

Chances are I wouldn't contribute intellectually to the forum at all.

Then what happens, the Forum administater would have to take a gun to my head and FORCE me to post something of value.

First of all, how many people go to work everyday in our society making minimum wage and contribute intellectually. Chances are very few.

Second, you're taking a capitalist view of socialism thinking, "Me getting paid is all that matters" which isn't the case at all in a socialist society. You're working towards the good of everyone and if you can't wrap your head around that, then you are the one who makes socialism fail. If you're living in a socialist society with a capitalist mindset, nothing's going to get accomplished, so what you say about you not contributing intellectually is based around your own selfishness, not a tenet of socialism at all.

Third, you're thinking in the realm of having the job of posting on my forum for money rather than for the passion of creating ideas. In a socialist society, you would choose your job for what you love and the greater good, not for the money, so you would not have the job of posting on my forum. And there are even examples of this in our society now. Teachers educating our next generation, police officers keeping the peace, hell, even the starving artists who have chosen their passion over working minimum wage every day for no purpose. Even the US military embodies socialist doctrines. They all get paid the same shit wages and put the greater good above their own lives and the irony of the whole thing is that the US administration sends them off to combat threats to Capitalism?

Now taking your analogy, you would be paid the same in the military to go into war and decide to hide in the trenches rather than shoot any of your enemies, so by the same token, you wouldn't contribute. What about the greater good of the other soldiers in your company and the nation that you're supposedly defending? You not contributing is a flaw inherent in yourself, not in the system.

Finally, having an administrator put a gun to your head never entered into what I said, you're thinking historically and I don't pretend to promote communism's historical practices. No one's forcing you to do anything in this hypothetical situation and if you choose not to put forth any effort as long as you get paid, you're a drain on society now, let alone in a socialist state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your saying the system can't work but then you say it could if this imaginary group of people that don't have a shred of selfishness in them existed and they all for no reason just wanted to innovate and create new ideas for the shear love of it.

Innovation comes from the necessity in ones own life.

[it's "paid" not "payed", dammit! -- GreedyCap]

No need to curse;)

Spelling has never been one of my strengths, as you can tell. Also yes I know I really should run it through a spell checker before posting.

Even the US military embodies socialist doctrines. They all get paid the same shit wages and put the greater good above their own lives and the irony of the whole thing is that the US administration sends them off to combat threats to Capitalism?

George Bush never said he sent them to defend Capitalism, he is to Socialist for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll play.

First of all, how many people go to work everyday in our society making minimum wage and contribute intellectually. Chances are very few.
Have you considered that they earn so little because they choose not to "contribute intellectually?" But as a Marxist, you don’t believe in such a thing as working with one’s mind, do you?

Second, you're taking a capitalist view of socialism thinking, "Me getting paid is all that matters" which isn't the case at all in a socialist society. You're working towards the good of everyone and if you can't wrap your head around that, then you are the one who makes socialism fail.

Who is “everyone”? Why don’t you come over and clean my house – I’m part of “everyone” too. Values cannot be given to “everyone” – they can only be given by one individual to another – and before they can be given, they must be created. The only choice is whether values are exchanged by mutual agreement to mutual benefit, or stolen from Paula to pay Paul.

“It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there's someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.” -Ayn Rand

If you're living in a socialist society with a capitalist mindset, nothing's going to get accomplished, so what you say about you not contributing intellectually is based around your own selfishness, not a tenet of socialism at all.

Then how do you explain the fact that capitalist societies based on selfishness are the wealthiest, most productive, and happiest nations of the world, while the altruistic socialist regimes are starving slave pits that only produce weapons, mass murder, and misery?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then how do you explain the fact that capitalist societies based on selfishness are the wealthiest, most productive, and happiest nations of the world, while the altruistic socialist regimes are starving slave pits that only produce weapons, mass murder, and misery?

Communist states have been run by highly authoritarian leaders in the past (i.e.- Russia... 1917-1991)... The arguement at hand is not how "communism" failed in the past.... but how "socialist" ideas can, in some cases, be more equality-based when implemented than many capitalist ideas.

There is a fine line between Marx's socialism and communist regimes....

here's some info to help educate you on this subject....

http://www.usd.edu/honors/HWB/hwb_l/comvssoc.htm

Edited by GreedyCapitalist
Link to post
Share on other sites
as I understand it the research on happiness does not reflect this. (in fact it shows an inverse relationship)  do you have a link?

Freedom makes people miserable? Which study shows that?

Exhibit A: the ratio of people leaving from Cuba/USSR/North Korea/China vs the people leaving for those countries.

Exhibit B: Existentialism

Exhibit C: Read any Soviet novels lately?

The penalty from attempting to escape in the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea was/is death – or worse. Why do you think that is? Why do you think people still risk their lives (and the lives of their relatives!) to escape? Why do you think my family left everything and everyone we knew to escape from the USSR? Or if those don’t count, why do so many poor and middle class immigrants escape the socialism of Europe, India, China, and Latin America to come to America? Why are so many of them brilliantly successful here after a lifetime of poverty?

Link to post
Share on other sites
"socialist" ideas can, in some cases, be more equality-based when implemented than many capitalist ideas

I agree – socialism makes everyone equal –equally miserable. If that was not your point, I still haven’t heard anything but arbitrary assertions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree – socialism makes everyone equal –equally miserable.  If that was not your point, I still haven’t heard anything but arbitrary assertions.

At least back you opinion up when stating it... this contributes nothing, but an uneducated opinion...

All I was doing was clarifying what Static had written... nothing else

Link to post
Share on other sites

Static,

Their top priority is not the customer, not even their employee, but primarily their own pocketbook.
I stated a number of times in my initial post that profits were the primary motivator behind prompting businesses into innovation (profits that would not exist under a socialist system.) Precisely why entrepreneurs create new products at lower prices is a complete irrelevancy; all that matters is that they do it. If you knew anything you know that this is one of the central tenets of capitalism.

"Every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of society as great as he can. He generally neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it...He intends only his own gain, and he is, in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good" – Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

Capitalism breeds greed and selfishness

It is greed and selfishness that breeds capitalism, son.

Tell me, what's the point of having off-shore production in sweatshops when the poor in your own country are without jobs.
It is cheaper. I thought this would have been obvious. The savings in labour costs allows businesses to decrease the prices at which they sell their goods, thereby increasing their competitiveness within the industry.

So, apparently Capitalism is good for the impoverished?

"Sweatshops" were the steeping stones upon which nations like South Korea, Singapore and Honk Kong used in order to reach the levels of economic growth that they have. They offer workers in developing countries a rare source for economic opportunities. The conditions in these foreign owned factories are poor (although not as bad as state and domestically owned ones) but in order to have poor working conditions you need work; something sweatshops have provided.

Which by the way is not a positive for South Koreans, their economy may have been boosted, but the workers involved in production aren't seeing any of this growth with their meager wages and horrible working conditions, nor are they happy
Do you have any evidence to support this absurd assertion? Since 1970 South Korea's GNP has risen from $260 per capita to $8, 600 per capita, the income per person has risen by 6.6 per cent, it's share in international trade has risen from 0.04 per cent to 2.5 per cent and its primary export has switched from wigs to cars. The benefits this has had on the "average" people of South Korea is exemplified by the fact that motor vehicle registration has increased 19.8 times between 1980 and 1998, from 527,729 to 10.5 million. Yet, somehow, you have concluded that South Koreans are no better off.

Sources for statistics:

Global Business Today, Charles Hill

Open World, Philippe Legrain

Is it that hard to imagine living in a society where everything one creates benefits everyone else? Imagine everyone contributing their ideas, strategies, etc into the same forum. We as a species could advance far beyond what we are now, keeping our ideas under lock and key from others.

Ultimately what you are instructing me to imagine is a world where individual rights are subordinated to the will of the "group", where all nations are transformed into a giant collective, and where man is turned into a sacrificial animal with no purpose but the service of others. No Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Freedom makes people miserable? Which study shows that?
It doesnt necessarilly follow from a correlational relationship that freedom is the cause of unhappiness. (It could be for instance that people feel "guilty" for being "materialistic" etc)

"Exhibit A: the ratio of people leaving from Cuba/USSR/North Korea/China vs the people leaving for those countries."

I am reffering to research regarding countries with other than economic freedoms, but some socialist policies (mostly across the pond)

Or if those don’t count, why do so many poor and middle class immigrants escape the socialism of Europe, India, China, and Latin America to come to America?
the question for me isn't "why are they coming here". The question is do they find what they searched for?

"Why are so many of them brilliantly successful here after a lifetime of poverty? "

Why they are financially successfull seems abundantly clear. What is not as clear to me is what is going on that people are not happy about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a good example of what happens when commies are allowed to post here. We get the same old bromides about exploitation and sweat shops etc. thrown at us again and again, ad nauseam. We address and refute their points, but they don't listen. They just go on talking about greed, the impoverished, the minimum wage, and the rest of it, for ever and ever.

Face it, folks: These people won't think. They act like talking automatons on Energizer batteries. They produce output but accept no input. They are not here to study Objectivism; they are here to disrupt our forum. They are not motivated by a desire to live; they are motivated by a wish to make life miserable. They have no value to offer us and they don't believe in trading value for value in the first place.

They are the kind of person who would volunteer to serve Saddam as a "human shield." They are the ilk that will take to the streets waving hammer-and-sickle flags and puke for peace. They are the brothers-in-soul of the Nazi officers who found pleasure in torturing and murdering innocent Jews. They are the kindred spirits of the Dark-Age figures who declared women witches and had them burned alive. They are the kind who would have the word "I" disappear from our language and tear out the tongue of and incinerate anyone who dared to mention it.

What are we doing talking to them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
George Bush never said he sent them to defend Capitalism, he is to Socialist for that.
I have to chime in on a few posts here. It's too much.

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the — the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003

"[A]s you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 28, 2003

Not the words of a socialist, friend.

Your saying the system can't work but then you say it could if this imaginary group of people that don't have a shred of selfishness in them existed and they all for no reason just wanted to innovate and create new ideas for the shear love of it.

Innovation comes from the necessity in ones own life.

Are you saying that researchers, scholars and academics are in it for the money? In my many years of working at a university I have yet to meet a single case to prove your point. And if such a case does exist, s/he is in the most infinitesimal of minorities.

And if you're saying the innovation comes from elsewhere (corporations), I highly doubt that the R&D folks go to work every day dispising their jobs, and only come home happy on that glorious Thursday when the cheque is in the mailbox.

But on the other hand, the above quote is correct, but not in the context in which you wrote it. Innovation comes from the necessity of the individual to fulfill their sense of self-worth. People innovate because it satisfies their own selfish need for satisfaction. Maybe it satisfies their need to serve the greater good, to share what they have learned with others. If I discovered a cure for cancer and told nobody, I probably wouldn't feel very good about myself.

I think Static was arguing that people have passions, and are willing to follow them despite the potential financial consequences. But at the same time, these innovators are being as selfish as one would expect of a human being. Their work fulfills this need or desire within, this inherant goal make a difference in the world.

To be selfish and to be selfless are two sides of the same coin.

The way I see it, if you don't want to contribute and "post to the forum" (be an astronaut, artist, teacher, academic or contribute in any other way to society) and care only about the money, then you can be selfish work at some menial job. Think about it: You're getting paid the same as those "poor bastards" who have chosen to pursue their dreams...you just don't have to work as hard for it.

dpb

Link to post
Share on other sites

the question for me isn't "why are they coming here". The question is do they find what they searched for?

Why they are financially successfull seems abundantly clear. What is not as clear to me is what is going on that people are not happy about it.

Old Geezer, I like your comments.

I'd just like to add that there are a LOT of people from other countries who come here and are treated like garbage. It's staggering that someone can immigrate to the US or Canada with a masters or PHD and end up working in retail, or some other job that, suffice to say, doesn't exploit their abilities. Think about it...these are successful individuals who came here for some purpose...to escape their own country's oppressive policies...to find the proverbial 'american dream'....who knows. But are they happy?

Now what is the likelihood that someone living a lifetime of poverty will be "brilliantly successful" here when someone with a PHD can barely support his or her family? I agree with Old Geezer when he implies that "successful" and "happy" are terms that can't just be tossed around without being qualified.

dpb

Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>

Face it, folks: These people won't think. They act like talking automatons on Energizer batteries. They produce output but accept no input. They are not here to study Objectivism; they are here to disrupt our forum. They are not motivated by a desire to live; they are motivated by a wish to make life miserable. They have no value to offer us and they don't believe in trading value for value in the first place.

They are the kind of person who would volunteer to serve Saddam as a "human shield." They are the ilk that will take to the streets waving hammer-and-sickle flags and puke for peace. They are the brothers-in-soul of the Nazi officers who found pleasure in torturing and murdering innocent Jews. They are the kindred spirits of the Dark-Age figures who declared women witches and had them burned alive. They are the kind who would have the word "I" disappear from our language and tear out the tongue of and incinerate anyone who dared to mention it.

What are we doing talking to them?

Last post, then I'm back to my thesis work.

You're comparing the individuals on this forum, those who are promoting freedom of thought and expression(all of us), with those who have specifically worked to destroy those ideals. Racists, nazis, communist terrorists, murderers and totalitarian dictators have ideals that differ greatly from those described in socialist thought. And the way I see it, that is what we are promoting...not socialism itslelf, but the idea of THOUGHT, of questioning the issues that are so often accepted at face value in our society.

You're missing the point of this forum. This is a place where ideas can be freely exchanged...where ideas can be challenged, agruments made and rebutted. Why are you talking to "them"? Because you can. Because the fact that this forum exists is a credit to the freedom that you claim to support, and yet you have so porely defended. "We" are not here to disrupt "your" forum...it wouldn't exist without us.

I've followed this thread, and was just waiting for someone to jump on this bandwagon of last resort. Your post is off-topic, offensive name-calling that serves no purpose. You fail to put forth any intelligent ideas or make anything even close to a cogent argument.

I suggest you open your eyes and take a look around, and then look at yourself. Ask yourself: What ideals am I promoting when I try and close this open dialogue? What do I accomplish by scaring away those who are willing to take a contradictory opinion?

I am neither nazi, murder, communist, recist, terrorist nor totalitarian dictator, I assure you. I'm one of "these people" who express thought, and take advantage of the freedom that we are so lucky to afford. More than the exchange of "value for value", I believe in the concept of trading ideas for ideas, something which, based on your last post, you obviously do not.

Cheers,

dpb

Link to post
Share on other sites
[

<Snip>  You're working towards the good of everyone and if you can't wrap your head around that, then you are the one who makes socialism fail. <Snip>

Socialism must fail, no matter what variant is practiced, because of it's totalitarain nature.

This is true of National Socialism in Germany, Soviet Socialism in Russia and Mussolini's policy of Corporativism in Italy which is identical to the theory of guild socialism advocated by the British Labour party at that time. In practice, however, Mussolini found that this theory was unrealisable and plumped for the economic policy practiced by Generals Ludendorff and Von Hindenburg a few years before which was known as German Socialism albeit in an abortive version. It was fully practiced later by Adolf Hitler.

Under fascism or German socialism, the means of production is privately owned but controlled by the state while under Russian or Marxist Socialism, the state owns and controls the means of production. The differences between the two are technical and not essential.

As Mises pointed out, and he was never refuted, Socialism must fail because it makes economic calculation impossible. it eliminates the market and the prices that accompany the market. This leaves no possibility of economic calculation as the prices are what allow economic transactions and exchanges of value to take place.

The flat out EVIL premise stated by the socialists here is that any individual has no right to exist for their won sake but is expected to serve all of society. This turns all of society into parasites.

It poses the question : If all of society is expected to sacrificie for the good of society how is anyone to benefit?

And who, more importantly, is to collect the sacrifices?

Obviously noone can benefit and a dictator is the collector.

We have already seen why socialism must fail practically.

The philosophical reason for socialism's total and guaranteed failure is that the means of production, at root, is not machines or capital but the human mind and a mind cannot be nationalized or, to use the correct term, stolen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...