Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[marxist]

Such as?

for example:

there are some peasants who make up a society and are living around a hill and they plant on the field of the hill, a peasant want to get more land to plant, so he decide to cut the trees. yes thus he can get more rice.but if many peasants want to get more land to plant and they decide to cut the trees.the result is the mud-rock flow and lost all land. the society was damaged.

Edited September 25, 2006 by marxist

[RationalBiker]

for example:

there are some peasants who make up a society and are living around a hill and they plant on the field of the hill, a peasant want to get more land to plant, so he decide to cut the trees. yes thus he can get more rice.but if many peasants want to get more land to plant and they decide to cut the trees.the result is the mud-rock flow and lost all land. the society was damaged.

For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume the context you have laid out is generally accurate.

More important than the society being damaged is that each of the individuals involved will be damaged with respect to their livelihood. Capitalism does not claim to ensure that men will properly plan out their own interests when running their businesses or living their lives. None of these men have any obligation to produce their goods for "society", so "society's" damage is irrelevant.

However, governmental involvement is not required to prevent this from happening. Rational men who have a clear understanding of their chosen occupation can have the foresight to see that some communication and cooperation with the other farmers in that are may well be in their own self-interest. It would appear that your assumption is that the men won't recognize that their own rational interests may require them to cooperate with neighboring farmers.

The point is, the government should not be there to ensure that men do not make poor decisions. Rather, it should be there to ensure that men are free from physical force such that they can thrive or perish as a result of their own actions. If indeed they plan and execute their business poorly, they deserve the consequences they get.

Edited September 25, 2006 by RationalBiker

[marxist]

The point is, the government should not be there to ensure that men do not make poor decisions. Rather, it should be there to ensure that men are free from physical force such that they can thrive or perish as a result of their own actions. If indeed they plan and execute their business poorly, they deserve the consequences they get.

1 or 2 men of them don't do so to get more plant, they are damaged too. can you tell me if they also deserve the consequences they get.

if there is no government and some farmers insist on cutting the trees but some farmers go agaist it(you can not deny this sitiuation,when they don't think this action will damage them according their "rational" judgement. ) what would happen!

Edited September 26, 2006 by marxist

[RationalBiker]

1 or 2 men of them don't do so to get more plant, they are damaged too. can you tell me if they also deserve the consequences they get.

if there is no government and some farmers insist on cutting the trees but some farmers go agaist it(you can not deny this sitiuation,when they don't think this action will damage them according their "rational" judgement. ) what would happen!

If their rights were violated, the perpetrators are subject to whatever criminal prosecution would be appropriate, but without more specific detail, I can't see a criminal issue here.

If they suffered damages that can be directly attributed to the negligent actions of other men, they may be entitled to compensatory relief through a civil court process. The same applies if there was some standing contract or agreement that was violated amongst the various men.

However, if one of the risks of their business includes that other people making legitimate use of their own property may have some indirect impact on their own business, they need to rationally plan on how to deal with this possibility. It might behoove them not to be involved in a business that so integrally relies on the otherwise legitimate actions of other people. Business, as life, comes with risks. No system of government addresses all possibility of failure.

Edit to add another comment:

Also, you are incorrect to assume that any Objectivist position supports "no government". I'm not sure if that's how you meant it, or if it's simply a communication issue. A proper government may still have a role in the issue in the instances I described above, it just doesn't have a proper role in regulating the legitimate uses of a person's property. One man has no obligation to ensure the success of another man and the government should not used as an end to that means.

Edited September 26, 2006 by RationalBiker

[marxist]

According to the Objectivism, the government should not force the farmer not to do the "rational" actions or "irrational" action..the civil court also can't force the farmer not to do the "rational" actions when there is no contract berween them and others but the the principle of getting more land by clearing a wild area for cultivation.To a farmer, it is absolute rational action because he can get more rice even without causing any damage to others. in this society, the other wise people have no any choise but to be damaged or to suggest those farmers not to cut trees (although he know it would not work,because those farmers have the right to clear a wild area for cultivation. you can't leave this society and live in moon.

(No need to quote the entire previous post - sN)

Edited September 26, 2006 by softwareNerd

[softwareNerd]

Marxist, Though your example sounds plausible, it probably is not. Farmers can do a lot of things to protect their land from the effects of other people cutting down trees miles away. Ask a simple question: how come the US has some of the most productive farms while the socialist countries have some of the least productive ones?

As for other "remote" effects of pollution, etc. ask yourself this: why do all the more-free nations have cleaner rivers, lakes, and air than the severly polluted socialist ones. The answer is: when one is rich, one can afford cleanliness. The more that we produce, the cleaner things get. Industrialzation and ever-increasing modernization is the main technical cause of a clean environment.

[RationalBiker]

This statement....

To a farmer, it is absolute rational action because he can get more rice even without causing any damage to others.

contradicts this statement....

the other wise people have no any choise but to be damaged

Were they damaged, or were they not damaged? If they were damaged, can it be objectively demonstrated in a court of law as to who is negligently responsible for the damages? Your post indicates to me that you have difficulty grasping the concept of civil liability. I'm not the best person to explain that, but I have the basic grasp. If someone else cares to go into greater detail they can jump in.

Aside from the obvious contradiction I mentioned above, the other "wise" people must not be so wise if they have no choice but to be farmers. If they had no choice, they must have missed the boat long ago. Or perhaps the government must have dictated what the occupation should be. Additionally, their lack of occupational choice is not my burden to bear, it's theirs. At the root of you entire argument is the idea that one man has a positive obligation to sacrifice of himself for sake of another man's needs.

you can't leave this society and live in moon.

Is this a false alternative? Is that two logical errors in one post? I don't recall ever suggesting leaving this society, least of all in favor of the moon, nor does Objectivism require it. You see, in this society we have farming co-ops. You see, I'm not speaking simply in theory here, I'm telling you about something that factually exists.

[marxist]

This statement....

contradicts this statement....

To a farmer, it is absolute rational action because he can get more rice even without causing any damage to others.

To a farmer, his action will not cause the damage to others and he can get more land as well.

but if most of them do the same thing, they and those who are wise and do not want to cut down the trees are damaged.i think there is no contradicts!

in this story.the Objectivism maybe whould agree that this society may have a government and make the law to protect the environment so that the government can force some farmers not to do the actions i.e cutting down the trees to make more land by Gun under the name of the law.

or no one can be prohibited by suggestion: not to clear a wild area for cultivation. although the reality is more complicated, we can't conclude there is absolutely no such consequence in some regards.

who make the law. what is the law? can the law lead us include those men who don't agree with this law in this society?

why the government can lead you by law that you don't accept at all. if there is no law, the individual will do something which is ratioanl to him but irrational to the society. Soviet Union lead or force some workers to do "by Gun" while the USA lead or force some workers to do by Gun under the name of the law.

actually our occupational choice is relatively limited, can i go to USA and have a job there?

in market economy, we have to get to the right position by going through many mistakes or the failures, because there is transaction cost.such as i should spend more than two months to find a job and maybe this job was still not a decent one, so i have to change and change until i find one that is the right one and so on. if in this world,there is only the market without plan, nothing would produced. the company is a unit to perform the function of plan. maybe we can have a bigest company i.e country

Edited September 26, 2006 by marxist

[marxist]

Marxist, Though your example sounds plausible, it probably is not. Farmers can do a lot of things to protect their land from the effects of other people cutting down trees miles away. Ask a simple question: how come the US has some of the most productive farms while the socialist countries have some of the least productive ones?

As for other "remote" effects of pollution, etc. ask yourself this: why do all the more-free nations have cleaner rivers, lakes, and air than the severly polluted socialist ones. The answer is: when one is rich, one can afford cleanliness. The more that we produce, the cleaner things get. Industrialzation and ever-increasing modernization is the main technical cause of a clean environment.

softwareNerd

yes, it is too complicated for me to make out the answer to this question.the society is complicated.

you maybe found there are many products made from China and designed in USA. the producing will cause pollution but the designning will not cause pollution.i think it is one of the reason. several decades ago, there are pollution in USA as well.

in the other hand, in non-industrial society,there is no pollution problem!

Edited September 26, 2006 by marxist

[RationalBiker]

i think there is no contradicts!

If in one sentence you say he can use his land without damaging others, and in the next sentence you say the use of his land is causing damage, the sentences contradict each other. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that your english is fairly difficult to follow sometimes. It is not my intent to insult you by saying that as I'm sure I have no skill in your native language. Never the less, as written your sentences present a contradiction.

in this story.the Objectivism maybe whould agree that this society may have a government and make the law to protect the environment

No, a governing body based on Objectivism's principles would not bring about laws like that.

A fair portion of the rest of your post is difficult for me to decipher. However...

actually our occupational choice is relatively limited,

That is a shame, but it is indicative of the likelihood that your society or your government does not accept that a man's mind is his primary tool of survival and that he needs the freedom to act to use that tool. It's also indicative that your society is based on the idea that man is inherently bad and that the government needs to be your nanny.

can i go to USA and have a job there?

The answer to that question starts with you. If I recall you are from China, correct? I've seen many, many Chinese people living and working in America. Somehow or another, they got here. Are you trying to get here? Whether or not you can get a job once you get here depends on what you can offer the market.

we have to get to the right position by going through many mistakes or the failures

Why is it necessary to go through many mistakes and failures? Why can you not be successful from the beginning? How do you get to the "right position" by making mistakes? That sounds like rewarding incompetence instead of competence. I suspect that is a communication issue here again.

if in this world,there is only the market without plan, nothing would produced.

I'm not sure what you mean by a plan, but I'm assuming it's a government control to organize and direct the market. If that's the case, you statement is patently false. This is more evidence of your bleak view of man and the potential and capabilities of his mind.

maybe we can have a bigest company i.e country

No thanks, they do enough damage already.

Edited September 26, 2006 by RationalBiker

[marxist]

If in one sentence you say he can use his land without damaging others, and in the next sentence you say the use of his land is causing damage, the sentences contradict each other. I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that your english is fairly difficult to follow sometimes. It is not my intent to insult you by saying that as I'm sure I have no skill in your native language. Never the less, as written your sentences present a contradiction.

yes i am trying to express myself well in english, but it seems difficult for me to do so.

in one sentence, i say a farmer can use his land without damaging others, and in the next sentence i say the use of their(many farmers) land is causing damage.when a farmer want to get more land by clearing a wild area for cultivation, he really can get more land and will not cause the mud-rock flow, because he can't cut down all trees by himself.if many farmers do the same thing like him, many many trees will be cut down and it will cause "water loss and soil erosion"and the mud-rock flow.i think it will happen in this story.

(Fixed quote-block -sN)

Edited September 27, 2006 by marxist

[softwareNerd]

Marxist, I have a question:

With your current thinking, what type of political-economic system woukld you like to see: free-economy, socialist or mixed-economy?

[marxist]

in Objectivism ethics of <the virture of selfness>, have a sentence reading as follows:

"the collective, which, in relations to every individual, consists of everybody except himself." maybe it is true in Soviet Russia socialism, but according to marx's opinion, it should be modified as following:"the collective, which, in relations to every individual, consists of everybody including himself." in communism, no one would be asked to be the selfless or selfness,we just need a community of free individuals.you can find it in marx's works!

Edited September 27, 2006 by marxist

[softwareNerd]

I have no idea what you mean by "freedom" in the post above.

[marxist]

Marxist, I have a question:

With your current thinking, what type of political-economic system woukld you like to see: free-economy, socialist or mixed-economy?

i have no clear idea now. maybe the mixed-economy is ok now but maybe to me, socialist is prefered.

[marxist]

I have no idea what you mean by "freedom" in the post above.

in Objectivism, the "freedom" just means no one will force you to do anything by Gun.is it right.

in marxism, the "freedom not only means no one will force you to do anything by Gun but also means you will free of being led by the capitalist or by the machine i.e capital. could i say no one is boss or everyone is boss in communism!

i am confusion why we should not forced to do something by Gun but we can permit to be forced to do something by Capital.

even if we can be led by Capital, why we can't be led by Gun? of cause, you choise and be willing to do something under the boss' (a man who hold the Capital)management and you won't choise and be willing to do something under the Gun's(another man who hold the Gun) management! of caouse, you can chiose to be a boss and hold the capital to lead other people freely, so you think you are free. you also can choise to be a man and hold the Gun to lead other people freely.of cause, you will feel free under captial but not free under Gun.why? a Gun is visible but the capital is incognizant. maybe it is one of the reasons!

Edited September 27, 2006 by marxist

[marxist]

you can select different boss who hold the Captial or to be the boss holding the captial in capitalism.

you can also select different official who hold the Gun or to be official holding the Gun in Soviet Russia.

the boss is not the robber and the official is not the robber as well. the robber is those men who hold the Gun and make you have no choice but to do what he want you to do when he point the Gun at you. of cause, at the beginning or later, you can choise to be a robber. the bosses is those men who hold the Capital and make you have no choice but to do what he want you to do when you have nothing but the labor and have to work under boss' management(this boss' or another boss' management), of cause, at the beginning , you have enough captial and are boss or later you make more money and choise to be a boss.the officials is those men who hold the Gun (army,police)and make you have no choice but to do what he want you to do when you are not a official of cause, at the beginning , you are a official or later you can work hard and choise to be a official.

do you think the official in Soviet Russia is like the robber who want to rob something from the workers.yes at the beginning, they rob the property of the capitalism.but it is for revolution. in the Soviet Russia economy, the official is not the robber. it is like the boss under the capitalism society.can you tell me what happened at the beginning of the capitalism?IT IS THE "CAPITAL primary accumulation" we know the history of England!

can you tell me what the substaintial difference between the machine or the Capital(the machine will not force you to do anything but the boss who has the machine can force you to do something) and the Gun or the military force (the Gun will not force you to do anything but the army(official) who has the Gun can force you to do something.)

in marxism, you are free of being forced by "Gun" and "Machine". it is the real freedom!

Edited September 27, 2006 by marxist

[RationalBiker]

i think it will happen in this story.

I don't doubt that this can happen, but the principle holds true. The men whose fields have suffered damage undeservedly should seek legal recourse if he can prove who is at fault for damaging it.

However, while you say that each man is acting rationally as individuals, that is not necessarily true. A persons individual rational self-interest may still be to work with other people around him. If he fails to foresee the potential damage caused be all the farmers in the area acting in the same way he did when he should have realized that possibility, then he was NOT acting rationally to proceed along that course of action without trying to establish a cooperative work effort with the others involved. The selfish man cannot act rationally as if he is the only man in the world as this would be denying reality.

I'll leave you with the often cited Winston Churchill quote;

"“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

Edited September 27, 2006 by RationalBiker

[marxist]

I don't doubt that this can happen, but the principle holds true. The men whose fields have suffered damage undeservedly should seek legal recourse if he can prove who is at fault for damaging it.

unfortunetly no one can prove who is at fault for damaging it under this situation.

you can't blame this society, it is its reality! no one in this society go to your land and damage it or force you to lose the land. it is just the consequence of society or the actions of many members of this society or the anarchism's individuals' actions like the earthquake or "greenhouse effect" caused by the greenhouse gas.

However, while you say that each man is acting rationally as individuals, that is not necessarily true. A persons individual rational self-interest may still be to work with other people around him. If he fails to foresee the potential damage caused be all the farmers in the area acting in the same way he did when he should have realized that possibility, then he was NOT acting rationally to proceed along that course of action without trying to establish a cooperative work effort with the others involved. The selfish man cannot act rationally as if he is the only man in the world as this would be denying reality.

can you tell me what the rational action is and how to do rationally.

is there any absolute rational action. a farmer decide to cut down trees, so he can get more land. another farmer decide to cut down trees, so he can get more land,... which one's same action to get more land will get to the point where everyone will lose the land.

i think the last one should be the wise man to do rationally.but who can stop those men before this last man or after him from cutting down the trees. why those men before this last man can be permitted to get more land while those men after him can not be permitted to do so. yes they should cooperate and plan how to cut trees and how to distribute the new land to each other.if some people refuse to do so rationally, they should be forced to do so by Gun or law.

"“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

the absolute capitalism will cause miseries soon or late like this story! there are more and more socialism factors in your country.

but the socialism not the state capitalism will win in the future.

Edited September 27, 2006 by marxist

[RationalBiker]

Well, Capitalism isn't about "the state", in fact it's quite the opposite, the state not being involved in the economy. Socialism IS about the state being involved in the economy. I'm not a prophet, so I can't divine which one will "win", but Capitalism is the superior approach based on man's nature.

We'll be just fine over here if you keep your Socialism over there and leave us with our struggle to keep freedom and Capitalism. It's worth fighting for.

As to your questions of acting rationally, I would suggest you read more Ayn Rand because that is an in depth topic that would be difficult to spell out for you on an internet forum.

That's all I care to contribute at this point.

Take care,

RB

[hunterrose]

Soviet Union lead or force some workers to do "by Gun" while the USA lead or force some workers to do by Gun under the name of the law.

I think you should separate your argument into two parts here

• voluntary (i.e. non-forced) socialist cooperation vs. laissez-faire capitalism
  
• forced socialism vs. a mixed economy (i.e. some force and some freedom)
  

The first one (no force on either side): are you saying that laissez-faire would constitute force (by your standard)?

The first isn't particularly a case of force/freedom (though there are other arguments against voluntary socialism), but the second one definitely is - I would say that more freedom (in a mixed economy) is better than much less freedom (under more socialist systems.)

[marxist]

I think you should separate your argument into two parts here

• voluntary (i.e. non-forced) socialist cooperation vs. laissez-faire capitalism
  
• forced socialism vs. a mixed economy (i.e. some force and some freedom)
  

The first one (no force on either side): are you saying that laissez-faire would constitute force (by your standard)?

The first isn't particularly a case of force/freedom (though there are other arguments against voluntary socialism), but the second one definitely is - I would say that more freedom (in a mixed economy) is better than much less freedom (under more socialist systems.)

we see eye to eye at this point..

i think the forced socialism is not real socialism.

Edited September 28, 2006 by marxist

[marxist]

Well, Capitalism isn't about "the state", in fact it's quite the opposite, the state not being involved in the economy. Socialism IS about the state being involved in the economy. I'm not a prophet, so I can't divine which one will "win", but Capitalism is the superior approach based on man's nature.

as to the man's nature, i would like to say something about it.

perhaps you will agree on that one would like to get something more and more without damaging others.

it is better than that farmer. you get something by making by yourself or trading.

Ok no one would deny your this requirement.

if you were Bill Gazz(i don't know how to spell this name who is the master of the Microsoft). you have so much money. now you still need money? can you tell me what use of these money. to you, these money's function is to help you make more money. do you agree it is your nature.actually, Bill Gazz don't need any more money, now he do something for the soceity.i think you get the benefit from him although you have no cognition on it because you think i get something from trading with Microsoft. but Bill Gazz has already gotten anything he want to have and by his nature, he don't need more money any more. why he would like to trade with you again and again now.is it because he want to get money from you?

if everyone in USA were Bill Gazz, what would happen in USA? i think the communism would come of it because the property means nothing in this sitiuation. you can't ask any poor country to enter into communism according to marx.

now, what do you wnat to have by your nature?

do you need Gold-ring which you can wear on your fingers, can you tell me how many Gold-ring do you need. is it enough to have 10 pcs. i think it is enough by natural man's nature as you only have 10 fingers.

another more one will have no function to you in the communsm. of cause, you will need more to hold and store it in your house or to trade something with them in capitalism.but it is meanless in communism, you can get anything else per your natural need but another more Gold-ring(because it is not your natural need). you can't be a king in communism. even in capitalism, you can be a king. a king is that man who want to have something which is not his natural need but the market style need). in captialism, you store another one Gold-ring when you wear 10 pcs Gold-rings on your 10 figers, it will cause poor condition of other people.you have 10 houses but you only sleep in one house and let others empty, but i have 0 house.

of cause you will sell or rent it to me.but i have no moeny.because you are the boss, i am a worker. of cause i can't rob your empty house,because the army(you would say it is the law) support you.yes i have to take something out to trade with you or i have to do something for you.

can you tell me, how much money do you naturally need by your nature?

Edited September 28, 2006 by marxist

[KendallJ]

we see eye to eye at this point..

i think the forced socialism is not real socialism.

"real socialism" exists in someone's dream. Forced socialism is socialism in the real world.

[~Sophia~]

in Objectivism, the "freedom" just means no one will force you to do anything by Gun.is it right.

Objectivism is not a political or economic system. It is a philosophy based on reason.

Freedom means freedom from government coercion. It not only means not being forced but most importantly it means freedom to act: freedom to pursue your values, your goals, freedom to keep the fruits of your own labor. What wealth you are able to aquire is a direct measure of your own ability and productiveness. That is justice.

in marxism, the "freedom not only means no one will force you to do anything by Gun but also means you will free of being led by the capitalist or by the machine i.e capital. could i say no one is boss or everyone is boss in communism!

Freedom is incompatible with Socialism/Communism. It can not exist.

In Socialism, a productive individual is not entitled to the fruits of his own labor. In fact, the more productive you are, the more able - the more you are being exploited. Those of less ability, who do not produce much, do not share much but those who are on the top of society when it comes to ability - have to give up most of what they produce. How is that freedom? How is that justice?

Under Capitalism you are led by no one. You don't have to work for a particular employer, and because there are many employers one can shop around for one who offers the best wages and working conditions. Under Capitalism one also have the freedom to work for oneself.

There is absolutely 'a boss' in Communism, which is the state. And there is only one boss. There is no competition, one can't shop around, what wages the state decides they should pay you - that is what one gets. You can't negotiate based on your performance and you have no other options as private business is forbidden. You can't work for yourself.

The same wages are being paid to a brilliant surgeon as to a crappy one because that is the standard pay for this profession. That standard is also not what one should be getting paid based on one’s ability and the market value of the service one is providing but instead is based on what some government official decided is a good wage, which is always below what one deserves.

Because of the “economic equality” philosophy the best minds in society are not being properly rewarded for their genius.

The crappy surgeon is also not going to be fired because everybody needs a job and the state is responsible for providing it.

The result of 1) not being properly rewarded for your work 2) and the fact that you are guaranteed a job regardless of your performance - is very low motivation to excel and very poor performance of society overall. Why would you be killing yourself under those conditions? Why would you want to be better at your job, it is not like you are going to be rewarded for it? What would be your motivation to invent?

THAT is the reason behind lower prosperity of Communist countries.

Where do you see freedom in all of that? You are in a prison and you can't get out. The borders of communist countries were closed for a reason. If they were not - the most able, the most innovative, and productive people in society would fleet.