Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[Inspector]

The society is the relationship between the people. I think the tangible way such as using Gun to force you to do is not the only social element that will force you to do what you don’t want to do.

Marxist,

The rest of your post, which I do not quote, is beside the point. You are equating circumstances with the initiation of force.

Perhaps due to circumstances you don't like your job. You do not have the moral right to use force (i.e. point a gun at someone) to MAKE them give you a job you like. This is the theory of socialism: some people get to point guns and tell other people what to do.

You can cover it up with pretty words all you like. I can see through all that.

You say that "the society is the relationship between the people." This is true. In socialism, the people point guns at each other (by proxy of the government) and deal with each other by violence. In Capitalism, people deal with each other only on a voluntary basis, trading value for value. Nobody FORCES anyone else to do anything.

Which system is the one of benevolence; of brother love? Is it the one with people pointing guns and forcing each other (Socialism), or is it the one where men deal with each other by trade and never by violence (Capitalism)?

Socialism is the government pointing guns at people. Capitalism is when the government is forbidden, by law, from doing so.

Socialism is, therefore completely evil.

[Lathanar]

my major is foreign trade, but there is little job related to it or there are more people whose major is also foreign trade.then I have to not work in the foreign trade field in capitalism society. And in capitalism society, no private company would like to spend their money to training you and you have no support from the socity and you have no enough money and you can’t get money from other path such as loan, so you have no power to select another major needed by the market.

If you love making widgets and made a ton of them and no one wanted a widget, is it society that would force you to close your plant and make something else? Or is it the fact that you can't force your love for widgets on other people?

[fatdogs12]

yes, I have to work for food naturally. But is it necessary for me to work in a bad place when I have more ability to have a decent job. Why I can’t find such job? It is because that there is no need for this job in human resource or labour market or any other social factors such as the lack of money(when you need to go to other place to find the job by bus and the like) and the social discrimination and so on. The free market economic system is consist of the market. Does market have unsocial nature. In socialism society(it is established on the basis of the highly developed production capability) and the planned economy will place you in the right station according to your ability (af course the ability is developed according to the society’s need and your interest in a planned way)now ,my major is foreign trade, but there is little job related to it or there are more people whose major is also foreign trade.then I have to not work in the foreign trade field in capitalism society. And in capitalism society, no private company would like to spend their money to training you and you have no support from the socity and you have no enough money and you can’t get money from other path such as loan, so you have no power to select another major needed by the market.other man doesn’t mean the society.

The society is the relationship between the people. I think the tangible way such as using Gun to force you to do is not the only social element that will force you to do what you don’t want to do.there are variety of the untangible force in our society that would effect us. maybe you would say that its nature is the same as the nature(food and the like) but the society is built by all of us, then what we can do to improve it or to remove the unreasonable "reality" which is built by some of us.

First of all there are two problems here. Lets say you have a Socialist government just the way you suggest. What if they put you in a job based on societies need that you don't like? What if you want to just work a low paying job and live in a not very good place just because you want to use all your free time to paint or do some other creative activity?

If society puts you in a job you don't want that is force. To me that would be really bad, wouldn't you hate that? In the United States your options are totally open. If you don't like working a low grade job you can in just 2 years get a college degree that will allow you to a ton of other things.

My girlfriend is a good example, she came to the United States from India when she was 22, she was completely alone and spoke very little english. Yet dispite that she was able to get 3 jobs and go to college at the same time. After college she got out and just worked 1 job for rougly 12 dollars an hour. Through hard work she has been promoted time and time again to the point where she makes over 85,000usd with bonuses a year.

Now she has a lifestyle that would simply be impossible under even the most ideal socialist society. Do you know why? Because a socialist society can not ever reach the productive capacity that a capitalistic one can. The reason is because of things like central planning. If you think about central planning, just taking farms for instance. How can a central planner tell hundreds of thousands of farmers what they should plant, what plants will work well on thier soil, what new technology could make them more efficient?

In a capitalistic society the farmer is driven by his desire to profit so what does he do? He seeks out the most productive farming techniques he can. Therefore more food is produced every time someone finds a more efficent way to do things. A socialist society has no reason to try to become more efficent other than the ruling party being kicked out. Even then it's not possible. How would you know how many people should work on new farming techniques? How would you even know it's nessasary?

With a capitalistic society everything takes care of itself. In the 1960's the United States produced 66% of the world's goods!!! That's 66%! And guess what? We only had 6% of the world's population at that time. No kidding, that is how much more productive the United States is than ever other country. If you took the productive capacity of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY on earth back in the 1960's, (which would be 94% of the earth's population) you would still not equal the productive capacity of just the few 6% of capitalists.

As a result the United States is rich and it's a great place to live. There is oppotunity for anyone who wants to work hard and think properly!

[Bold Standard]

But is it necessary for me to work in a bad place when I have more ability to have a decent job.

I know that there are still major economic problems in China now (despite the fact that it is doing much better than it was before 1990, when it was more consistently socialistic). But the problems are because China is still communist. There is still a lot of central planning. Every time your government does something to (allegedly) "help" the workers, by strengthening controls and government powers in certain areas, it makes things worse. It keeps everyone in bondage. It stops people from becoming successful, because being successful makes people independent-- which makes them a political liability for any totalitarian regime. Independent, successful people don't want to be slaves. It is in the interest of any dictatorship or despotic regime to make sure most people are not independent and successful.

The irony is that you are blaming capitalism for your poor working conditions, when it is socialism that prevents them from improving. I bet you wouldn't have any problems finding a better job in Hong Kong. They have a much freer economy, and the Chinese central planners have more or less left them alone. So, economically, they're doing much better than China-- even though everyone is afraid that the Chinese government will intervene and ruin everything at any moment, they haven't really done that so far. Based on what I've heard from people who have been there, anyone can find a good job there. The reason why seems obvious-- capitalism works, and communism doesn't, because capitalism is only moral system, which upholds individual rights, and communism is morally corrupt, because it violates individual rights, for the good of "society" which means-- for the good of those who have pull (are favored by the government).

In a capitalist system, if there is a demand for some type of work, and the demand isn't being met, there is a simple solution. You start your own business. If you're really fulfilling a need which is important to society, then you'll be very successful. You'll be doing what you love, and making lots of money. That's how capitalism works.

Edited June 22, 2006 by Bold Standard

[marxist]

Socialism on a national scale could be government/force instituted. Or it could be a huge voluntary cooperative that people chose to participate in or not. Unlikely perhaps, but not necessarily forced.

i can't agree you more!

[marxist]

Marxist,

The rest of your post, which I do not quote, is beside the point. You are equating circumstances with the initiation of force.

yes, somewhat i am equating circumstances with the initiation of force. as to the natural circumstances, we try our best to improve it. why can't we improve the social circumstances.

Perhaps due to circumstances you don't like your job. You do not have the moral right to use force (i.e. point a gun at someone) to MAKE them give you a job you like. This is the theory of socialism: some people get to point guns and tell other people what to do.

we are all living in capitalism. i am living in the undeveloped capitalism society like yours 70years ago and now you are living in the developed capitalism country(maybe there are some socialism factors in your country as Bold Standard said it is mixed economy). your freedom doesn't only depend on your social system but also your society's"production capability" and the improvement of the science and technology and so on. socialism does't mean the government get to point guns and tell us what to do but it will arrange us to do something according to our ability.

You can cover it up with pretty words all you like. I can see through all that.

i think there are not the pretty words, of course now i like the capitalism in USA not in China.Now i think there are no necessary conditions for us to set up a socialism society in the world especially in china.we have to select the capitalism

You say that "the society is the relationship between the people." This is true. In socialism, the people point guns at each other (by proxy of the government) and deal with each other by violence. In Capitalism, people deal with each other only on a voluntary basis, trading value for value. Nobody FORCES anyone else to do anything.

Which system is the one of benevolence; of brother love? Is it the one with people pointing guns and forcing each other (Socialism), or is it the one where men deal with each other by trade and never by violence (Capitalism)?

Now i would say the USA's system not the China's is the one of benevolence; of brother love

Socialism is the government pointing guns at people. Capitalism is when the government is forbidden, by law, from doing so.

Socialism is, therefore completely evil.

maybe we have different pointview there.

Edited June 26, 2006 by marxist

[IAmMetaphysical]

Maybe??

[marxist]

If you love making widgets and made a ton of them and no one wanted a widget, is it society that would force you to close your plant and make something else? Or is it the fact that you can't force your love for widgets on other people?

if no one wanted a widget, i wouldn't make a ton of them at the beginning accordling to the socialism principle. in capitalism i made a ton of them, after that i found no one want a widget and i have to close my plant and make something else or go bankrupt.

Edited June 26, 2006 by marxist

[Felix]

in capitalism i made a ton of them, after that i found no one want a widget and i have to close my plant and make something else or go bankrupt.

In capitalism you would never make a ton of a product at once if you didn't know whether it would sell for the very reason that it would make you bankrupt. Instead you test with a small amount to see if it works. And if it doesn't, you've lost money and stop producing it. And so in the end you produce things that people want.

You've also neglected the fact that if you produced a ton of widgets that do sell, you'd become rich for your efforts in capitalism whereas you would just get same as everyone else in socialism.

if no one wanted a widget, i wouldn't make a ton of them at the beginning accordling to the socialism principle.

Can you explain this to me?

1) What is this principle?

2) How does it lead to the production of what people actually want?

[marxist]

First of all there are two problems here. Lets say you have a Socialist government just the way you suggest. What if they put you in a job based on societies need that you don't like? What if you want to just work a low paying job and live in a not very good place just because you want to use all your free time to paint or do some other creative activity?

in socialism society,they will put me in a job according to my ability and interest. if you want to use all your free time to paint or do some other creative activity, you can do it and work a low paying job and live in a not very good place according to the socialism principle.

If society puts you in a job you don't want that is force. To me that would be really bad, wouldn't you hate that? In the United States your options are totally open. If you don't like working a low grade job you can in just 2 years get a college degree that will allow you to a ton of other things.

yes, it is United States not China or India. Now in china you can't find a decent job even if you got the bachelor degree or master's (degree). when you are in university, you can't change your major freely.we'v spent much money in having high education while we have no money to be in another 2 years get a college degree that will allow you to a ton of other things when we found our major doesn't meet the need of the market.

My girlfriend is a good example, she came to the United States from India when she was 22, she was completely alone and spoke very little english. Yet dispite that she was able to get 3 jobs and go to college at the same time. After college she got out and just worked 1 job for rougly 12 dollars an hour. Through hard work she has been promoted time and time again to the point where she makes over 85,000usd with bonuses a year.

Now she has a lifestyle that would simply be impossible under even the most ideal socialist society. Do you know why? Because a socialist society can not ever reach the productive capacity that a capitalistic one can. The reason is because of things like central planning. If you think about central planning, just taking farms for instance. How can a central planner tell hundreds of thousands of farmers what they should plant, what plants will work well on thier soil, what new technology could make them more efficient?

i would say she is lucky. it is still USA not China or India. i think there is also no central planning in india. does india perform very good like the USA. it is difficulty for me to answer the question about how to carry out central planning but i think the market economy doesn't perform very well as well.

In a capitalistic society the farmer is driven by his desire to profit so what does he do? He seeks out the most productive farming techniques he can. Therefore more food is produced every time someone finds a more efficent way to do things. A socialist society has no reason to try to become more efficent other than the ruling party being kicked out. Even then it's not possible. How would you know how many people should work on new farming techniques? How would you even know it's nessasary?

can you tell me how a company works. i think there are "central planning" to decide what products should be made. can you conside a country to be a company?

With a capitalistic society everything takes care of itself. In the 1960's the United States produced 66% of the world's goods!!! That's 66%! And guess what? We only had 6% of the world's population at that time. No kidding, that is how much more productive the United States is than ever other country. If you took the productive capacity of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY on earth back in the 1960's, (which would be 94% of the earth's population) you would still not equal the productive capacity of just the few 6% of capitalists.

it depends on the "production capability" not the capitalism system as the other country are in the same system at that time (the Soviet Union etc.the they are state capitalism)

As a result the United States is rich and it's a great place to live. There is oppotunity for anyone who wants to work hard and think properly!

i envy you!

Edited June 26, 2006 by marxist

[Inspector]

yes, somewhat i am equating circumstances with the initiation of force.

This is a terrible error. Logically, they are completely different. If you equate them, then you will advocate ideas which result in misery, death, and the violation of human rights.

we are all living in capitalism.

In what sense do you mean this? In one sense, most everyone has at least some elements of Capitalism in their country. (Except, perhaps, the horror that is North Korea) But the system of Capitalism, where the state is completely forbidden from initiating force, does not exist. Not even in the United States. We are the closest to capitalist, so we are the most free, most wealthy, and most happy.

your freedom doesn't only depend on your social system but also your society's"production capability"

"Freedom" means one thing: freedom from the initiation of force by other men. You are thinking of "prosperity" or "wealth," which are completely different. (although also good)

socialism does't mean the government get to point guns and tell us what to do but it will arrange us to do something according to our ability.

"arrange us to do something according to our ability" is a euphamism. What that actually means is that the government points guns at us and tells us what to do. That is why socialism is evil. You cannot escape this.

i think there are not the pretty words, of course now i like the capitalism in USA not in China.Now i think there are no necessary conditions for us to set up a socialism society in the world especially in china.we have to select the capitalism

If you are in favor of Capitalism, then you should learn what it really means. That capitalism means not just money, but freedom. The freedom from the government initiating force. And that Capitalism is moral because it protects rights, while socialsm is evil because it violates rights.

Now i would say the USA's system not the China's is the one of benevolence; of brother love

Good, then I think there is hope for you yet!

[marxist]

In capitalism you would never make a ton of a product at once if you didn't know whether it would sell for the very reason that it would make you bankrupt. Instead you test with a small amount to see if it works. And if it doesn't, you've lost money and stop producing it. And so in the end you produce things that people want.

yes, you can test with a small amount to see if it works but you can't know if a lot amount will work.for example, you made 10 widgets and you sell them successfully, can you say you can sell 100 widgets successfully, if you made the wrong decision and made 100 widgets. you can't sell 90pcs of them and you have to go bankrupt .

You've also neglected the fact that if you produced a ton of widgets that do sell, you'd become rich for your efforts in capitalism whereas you would just get same as everyone else in socialism.

it seems to depend on the luck. in socialism, the distrbution principle is" distribution according to work"not equalitarianism.

Can you explain this to me?

1) What is this principle?

2) How does it lead to the production of what people actually want?

1.this principle is "let each person do his best; from each according to his ability"

2. i have no good answer to your 2nd question but i would say maybe the planned economy will work.

[marxist]

I know that there are still major economic problems in China now (despite the fact that it is doing much better than it was before 1990, when it was more consistently socialistic). But the problems are because China is still communist. There is still a lot of central planning. Every time your government does something to (allegedly) "help" the workers, by strengthening controls and government powers in certain areas, it makes things worse. It keeps everyone in bondage. It stops people from becoming successful, because being successful makes people independent-- which makes them a political liability for any totalitarian regime. Independent, successful people don't want to be slaves. It is in the interest of any dictatorship or despotic regime to make sure most people are not independent and successful.

i think China is neither socialism nor the communism but captitalism and the state capitalism.no one in china are in bondage and are forced to do anything now even in the state-owned company. to the extent that we are free but we can't find the job or the decent job economically as there are no enough jobs in the labour market for us to do.

The irony is that you are blaming capitalism for your poor working conditions, when it is socialism that prevents them from improving. I bet you wouldn't have any problems finding a better job in Hong Kong. They have a much freer economy, and the Chinese central planners have more or less left them alone. So, economically, they're doing much better than China-- even though everyone is afraid that the Chinese government will intervene and ruin everything at any moment, they haven't really done that so far. Based on what I've heard from people who have been there, anyone can find a good job there. The reason why seems obvious-- capitalism works, and communism doesn't, because capitalism is only moral system, which upholds individual rights, and communism is morally corrupt, because it violates individual rights, for the good of "society" which means-- for the good of those who have pull (are favored by the government).

yes. Hong Kong have a much freer economy and it is a developed area while we are not developed and we can't go to Hong Kong freely to find a job there. for a bachelor, you can earn 10 times more in Hong Kong than in mainland of China.it has nothing to do with the system. you maybe admit that the india is also capitalism but to the extent that the india does't work also.

In a capitalist system, if there is a demand for some type of work, and the demand isn't being met, there is a simple solution. You start your own business. If you're really fulfilling a need which is important to society, then you'll be very successful. You'll be doing what you love, and making lots of money. That's how capitalism works.

it is the USA or Hong Kong not india or china or Brazil as many of us have no money to start our own business!

Edited June 26, 2006 by marxist

[Inspector]

Marxist, you speak of "developed" and "not developed"

Don't you realize that it is Capitalism that "develops" nations, and it is when a nation has little or no capitalism that it fails to develop. Look at what nations develop and what nations have remained undeveloped. To the extent that a nation is capitalistic - that is the extent to which it develops.

[marxist]

Marxist, you speak of "developed" and "not developed"

Don't you realize that it is Capitalism that "develops" nations, and it is when a nation has little or no capitalism that it fails to develop. Look at what nations develop and what nations have remained undeveloped. To the extent that a nation is capitalistic - that is the extent to which it develops.

Inspector

Do you mean the capitalism=developed=freedom=individual rights

per marxism stated in Marx's works, the socialsm=developed=freedom=individual rights

it's real confusing.we classfied the "social formation" according to the "production relations"

[Inspector]

Inspector

Do you mean the capitalism=developed=freedom=individual rights

per marxism stated in Marx's works, the socialsm=developed=freedom=individual rights

it's real confusing.we classfied the "social formation" according to the "production relations"

Yes, I do. Marx was wrong.

Here is what I mean:

Capitalism = Freedom (which is the same as individual rights)

Socialism = controls and coersion; the lack of freedom (the violation of individual rights)

Freedom causes economic advancement. The abridgement of freedom (not respecting individual rights) causes economic stagnation and collapse. That is why Marxism has never worked in history. That is why no matter how many times it is tried, Marxism will always result in misery and poverty.

That is why, even though it isn't completely capitalist, the USA is very rich and well off.

Marx was wrong and the proof is history. You can also prove it just by examining his theory and seeing that it does not respect individual rights.

It is a requirement of socialism that guns be pointed at people; that force be initiated. It is a requirement of capitalism that guns NEVER be used to initiate force; only to prevent it from being initiated and to retaliate against those who try. (in other words, against those who try to violate individual rights: criminals)

[marxist]

Marxist, you speak of "developed" and "not developed"

Don't you realize that it is Capitalism that "develops" nations, and it is when a nation has little or no capitalism that it fails to develop. Look at what nations develop and what nations have remained undeveloped. To the extent that a nation is capitalistic - that is the extent to which it develops.

What is Socialism?

the explanation of socialism from Encyclopedia

The "socialist left" expects that with a better distribution of goods and services, where people matter, NOT profits, there will be a fair utilization of resources for the benefit of everyone and NOT just a few. The benefits of a developed society would then accrue to the masses, rather than a privileged few as is the case in a systemically flawed capitalist system.

[...]

Those who create wealth are workers and workers collectively manage society for the benefit of workers on a planned basis for human need and not for profit and greed. Without the profit motive and without the capitalist class, there is no need for low wages, racism, sexism, class tensions and war. there is more than enough to provide everyone with a decent life, to restore the environment which is currently being destroyed by capitalist greed and to abolish the vile culture of commercialism and use all the modern means of production to reduce the burden of laboring for surplus labor value for the benefit of the ruling class.

[IAmMetaphysical]

I think with that, the argument has moved to ethics. Epistemology and metaphysics here we come!

[Felix]

yes, you can test with a small amount to see if it works but you can't know if a lot amount will work.for example, you made 10 widgets and you sell them successfully, can you say you can sell 100 widgets successfully, if you made the wrong decision and made 100 widgets. you can't sell 90pcs of them and you have to go bankrupt .

That's why there is something like market research. Testing if your product would actually sell is just part of that. Actually it's the last part. You don't just start producing.

it seems to depend on the luck.

No, it's based on understanding what the market wants and producing just that. That's not luck. It's skill.

in socialism, the distrbution principle is" distribution according to work"not equalitarianism.

1.this principle is "let each person do his best; from each according to his ability"

Oh, that's what you mean. But isn't the full quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

Therefore distribution has nothing to do with production, only with need. If you produce a lot but only need little, you are basically punished for that by getting tons of unpaid work to do whereas if you are incompetent and unable to do any decent work, you have the right to declare everything that you "need" as yours.

This should strike you as completely unfair given that even in the communist manifesto the basic idea was to free the productive part of the population. As I described above, socialism does the exact opposite.

2. i have no good answer to your 2nd question but i would say maybe the planned economy will work.

It won't. The planner makes mistakes since he's not omniscient. It's enough work to find out how many Coca Cola bottles can be sold in a given time period. Your planner would have to know this for every single product and would also have to find out what people want for every single person and then match this somehow to make it work. The thing is that this is way beyond any planner's capability.

What makes me wonder is that you even stated that finding out how much to produce of one widget was impossible and just a matter of luck. How can you then believe that it is even remotely possible for a planner to to this for an entire economy? Planners are humans just like everyone else. They don't get special powers by becoming social planners.

If you just let people decide what they want to do, they will

1) mainly produce things that are needed because they go bankrupt otherwise

2) choose the best job according to what they want

And they will very closely match the workings of a hypothetical omniscient planner. They'll do it way better than any committee ever will.

Thus, one argument for capitalism is that freedom is way more efficient than planning.

But this is not the main argument. The very fact that you have a planner who tells you what to do and what not to do means that you give up freedom because you do as you are told and are not allowed to do otherwise. In addition to that you don't get value according to what you produce but according to what a committee says you need. How can you believe this to be just?

[marxist]

Yes, I do. Marx was wrong.

Here is what I mean:

Capitalism = Freedom (which is the same as individual rights)

Socialism = controls and coersion; the lack of freedom (the violation of individual rights)

Freedom causes economic advancement. The abridgement of freedom (not respecting individual rights) causes economic stagnation and collapse. That is why Marxism has never worked in history. That is why no matter how many times it is tried, Marxism will always result in misery and poverty.

That is why, even though it isn't completely capitalist, the USA is very rich and well off.

Marx was wrong and the proof is history. You can also prove it just by examining his theory and seeing that it does not respect individual rights.

It is a requirement of socialism that guns be pointed at people; that force be initiated. It is a requirement of capitalism that guns NEVER be used to initiate force; only to prevent it from being initiated and to retaliate against those who try. (in other words, against those who try to violate individual rights: criminals)

can you tell me: do india and Brazil work well without marxism? Soviet Union and china don't have the needed conditions to put the real marxism to good use i.e they misused it, so the history can prove nothing.

i think we have the different idea of capitalism and the socialism and marxism and so on.

[Inspector]

the explanation of socialism from Encyclopedia

Every bit of that is totally backwards. The definition is in fact that Socialism intervenes via force into the economy, and Capitalism does not.

All that stuff about "no greed" is just a smokescreen behind which they hide the violation of individual rights. So what if people are greedy? That is no excuse to point a gun at them.

can you tell me: do india and Brazil work well without marxism?

They have less marxism than China and Russia so they work better than China and Russia. They have more marxism than the USA so they work worse than the USA. The more marxism a nation has, the worse off it is.

Soviet Union and china don't have the needed conditions to put the real marxism to good use i.e they misused it, so the history can prove nothing.

They didn't misuse it; they applied it in the only way it can be applied. Marxism is the use of force against the innocent. That always results in terrible things.

i think we have the different idea of capitalism and the socialism and marxism and so on.

Yes. Here is the definition of Capitalism: http://capitalism.org/

Be sure to take the tour, and look at the FAQ.

As for the definition of Marxism or Socialism, there are several, but all of them initiate force and all of them violate individual rights. So all of them will result in poverty and death. This is not caused by a mis-use of Marxism or socialism... it is caused by the essential nature of Marxism and socialism.

[marxist]

That's why there is something like market research. Testing if your product would actually sell is just part of that. Actually it's the last part. You don't just start producing.

yes you are right there. you can even produce products according to the orders. how to do market research very precisely and can you escape the market systematical risk, as you know, in Japan's 1990's, there is bubble economy and it stopped to grow.

No, it's based on understanding what the market wants and producing just that. That's not luck. It's skill.

Oh, that's what you mean. But isn't the full quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

no.in socialism, it should be "From each according to his ability, to each according to work"?

Therefore distribution has nothing to do with production, only with need. If you produce a lot but only need little, you are basically punished for that by getting tons of unpaid work to do whereas if you are incompetent and unable to do any decent work, you have the right to declare everything that you "need" as yours.

This should strike you as completely unfair given that even in the communist manifesto the basic idea was to free the productive part of the population. As I described above, socialism does the exact opposite.

It won't. The planner makes mistakes since he's not omniscient. It's enough work to find out how many Coca Cola bottles can be sold in a given time period. Your planner would have to know this for every single product and would also have to find out what people want for every single person and then match this somehow to make it work. The thing is that this is way beyond any planner's capability.

The planner is not the bureaucrat like the Soviet Union or China(1956-1978)but the workers, they will do it by worker's democracy. the democracy is economic democracy.

What makes me wonder is that you even stated that finding out how much to produce of one widget was impossible and just a matter of luck. How can you then believe that it is even remotely possible for a planner to to this for an entire economy? Planners are humans just like everyone else. They don't get special powers by becoming social planners.

i think luck is at least the part of it in capitalism. yes, i don't believe the bureaucrats as planner can do it. i think the workers can do it of course, it still depends on the highly developed means of production and the means of treatting the information processing, maybe the USA not the China has such condition now.

If you just let people decide what they want to do, they will

1) mainly produce things that are needed because they go bankrupt otherwise

2) choose the best job according to what they want

yes you are right on. people or workers' decision means the most to socialism. in capitalism, it's not the people but the capitalists who make the decision to produce things according to the profit principle and what job the worker should have actually, although you think the workers are free to select the job.

And they will very closely match the workings of a hypothetical omniscient planner. They'll do it way better than any committee ever will.

Thus, one argument for capitalism is that freedom is way more efficient than planning.

But this is not the main argument. The very fact that you have a planner who tells you what to do and what not to do means that you give up freedom because you do as you are told and are not allowed to do otherwise. In addition to that you don't get value according to what you produce but according to what a committee says you need. How can you believe this to be just?

no one can tell us or force us to do anything without our agreement in real socialism society.we just agree collectively(the way of democracy)

to do what we want to do!

Edited June 26, 2006 by marxist

[RationalBiker]

marxist said;

i would say she is lucky.

One has to believe in the dubious concept of "luck" before they would agree with you. Saying someone is lucky totally robs them of the credit they deserve for hard work, accomplishment, vision and foresight, intelligence, etc. Me, I would say she saw what her lot was and took successful steps to improve it by her own work and efforts. "Luck" is always what the unsuccessful say of the successful.

[Inspector]

Democracy violates individual rights.

Just because the majority of people voted to do something doesn't mean they have the right to have the government point a gun at anyone and make them go along with it. This violates individual rights.

Capitalism is founded on the principle that it is wrong to violate individual rights. Capitalism is incompatatble with Democracy.

The USA was founded as a constitutional republic, with many individual rights (capitalist principles) established by law. It was both implicit and explicit that the majority cannot simply vote for anything they want. (that would be a democracy)

Democracy is evil because it has no respect for rights. If the majority votes to violate rights, then the rights are violated. Think of it: if the majority votes to murder everyone with dark hair, then a democracy will let that happen. Do you think that would be right, Marxist?

[Felix]

no.in socialism, it should be "From each according to his ability, to each according to work"?

This would boil down to capitalism, where you get paid in proportion to the value you create for others.

The planner is not the bureaucrat like the Soviet Union or China(1956-1978)but the workers, they will do it by worker's democracy. the economy is economic democracy.

no one can tell us or force us to do anything without our agreement in real socialism society.we just agree collectively(the way of democracy)

to do what we want to do!

So you mean that everything will be dealt with by direct democracy? This is an even bigger hassle . And what makes you think that a cab driver has enough knowledge to decide which technology to use for a nuclear power plant. You'll end up with some sort of representative democracy in the end and you'll have all the problems they had in Russia and China.

And what happens if you want to do one job and democracy has made the decision that you're not allowed to do it. You have then given up the right to choose what you want to do with your life for the right to meddle with the lives of others. You still don't belong to yourself and if three people vote that you should do work you hate you have to do it, because you only have one vote.

The problem remains even if you had direct democracy, because you were breaking with the fundamental principle of freedom: The fact that your life belongs to you.

"If you just let people decide what they want to do, they will

1) mainly produce things that are needed because they go bankrupt otherwise

2) choose the best job according to what they want"

yes you are right on. people or workers' decision means the most to socialism. in capitalism, it's not the people but the capitalists who make the decision to produce things according to the profit principle and what job the worker should have actually, although you think the workers are free to select the job.

No. There is no fundamental class split. You can start a company in capitalism. There's nobody stopping you. The profit principle just means that you want to be paid as much as you can for your work, which in the end means that you want to be as productive as you can be, which is very similar to "From each according to his ability", only that it is chosen freely and not ordered by a collective or its representative.

There is no split like: "you are born poor, therefore you remain poor" or "you are born rich therefore you remain rich".

It has taken me a while, too, to get this, so I'll try to explain this a bit:

The only way to make money in capitalism is if you produce and sell products or services that people (the masses) actually want.

You can't dictate people what they should want or not. They hold the money they have earned in their hands and they decide what they buy or don't buy. So if you want to get anywhere in capitalism you have to make your products as good and as cheap as you can.

But you also have another problem:

If you want to hire people to do work for you, you have to give them enough money and/or better working conditions or they will work for the competition as they can freely choose where they want to work.

So the only way to actually start a successful company in capitalism is by doing the following:

Offering better and/or cheaper products and services to the masses while offering more money and/or better working conditions to your workers.

If you don't do the first, you can't sell anything and go bankrupt. And if you don't do the second, you can't even produce anything.

And the only way to do this is by increasing productivity and sharing the benefits this brings with your workers and customers. Any other way will not work. Either you can't start or you end up bankrupt.

There is no "class" which controls production. The market controls what it produced or not. Everyone is free to start a company on his own and offer new jobs and new services. So if it's profitable to start a company that pays more to its workers and creates the same products, it will be done. If it's profitable to start a company that pays the same to its workers but offers superior products it will be done.

There is nobody who can control what people do in capitalism. The only measuring stick you have is: What the masses want.

And even this is not quite correct as you can produce products for any group of people depending on their particular needs and wants. You don't need to appeal to everyone with your product.