Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Socialism Vs. Capitalism

Rate this topic


marxist

Recommended Posts

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

Yes you can.

you can also select different official who hold the Gun or to be official holding the Gun in Soviet Russia.
I will continue with the health care system, since it is a good example.

Which state-run hospital a surgeon decides to work for is irrelevant. They are all the same. Wages are the same, conditions are the same, lack of resources and medical equipment is present in all.

the boss is not the robber and the official is not the robber as well.

False. In the absence of competition the state is robbing the surgeon of what otherwise he would have been able to acquire from his productive work.

can you tell me what the substantial 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.)

What you call 'the machine of Capital' is not one person, is not one machine. It is many machines that compete with each other for a piece of the market. Competition is what is allowing people to have options and thus they are not forced by anyone.

The state is one machine. It is a monopoly power on everything. It controls every aspect of your life, your choices, your options, your rewards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

how much money do you naturally need by your nature?

This question is at the very heart of our ideological differences.

How much someone needs is not for you or anyone to decide. What someone needs is irrelevant.

The only thing you should be concerned with is how much money - YOU are able to aquire from your own work. If you think your needs are not being met - find a way to make more for yourself. Someone of larger ability, like Bill Gates, is not responsible for your life, is not responsible for your needs.

He is the only one entitled to his wealth. He is not responsible to share it, even if he has it in excess, and it is immoral/unjust to make him.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you can.

I will continue with the health care system, since it is a good example.

Which state-run hospital a surgeon decides to work for is irrelevant. They are all the same. Wages are the same, conditions are the same, lack of resources and medical equipment is present in all.

False. In the absence of competition the state is robbing the surgeon of what otherwise he would have been able to acquire from his productive work.

What you call 'the machine of Capital' is not one person, is not one machine. It is many machines that compete with each other for a piece of the market. Competition is what is allowing people to have options and thus they are not forced by anyone.

The state is one machine. It is a monopoly power on everything. It controls every aspect of your life, your choices, your options, your rewards.

if you have nothing but the labor, you can select boss, but you can't choise not to select boss,i.e you refuse to do anything that any boss want you to do, or you would die from hungry.

when the rober point the Gun at you, you have to regard him as your boss and do what he want you to do or refuse to do so and were shot to death.

the result is the same:death. in Soviet Russia style socialism, you will get the same result:death because of hungry.the official of Soviet Russia will not shoot you like the rober(not include the period of revolution).in Soviet Russia style socialism,you choise to do what the official want you to do or not to do so and die from hungry. actually. before 1978 in China, the people refuse to do more. the officer require everyone to make more pcs a day while he try to make less pcs a day. the officer can't shoot them. if the official has the right to shoot them if they make less pcs a day, they will do more, but this is not socialism. it is slavery.in Soviet Russia style socialism,only the officials want the socialism, so at the end, it is damaged.

in real socialism,the people want the socialism, in state-run hospital not in the boss-run hosiptal, a surgeon will do the same thing but he don't do anything for a person but for the collectivity. They are not all the same. Wages are not the same, conditions are not the same, resources and medical equipment is presentted.he would be able to acquire from his productive work.if he do more , he can get more, at the same time the collectivity(including himself) get more not the boss get more.

"What you call 'the machine of Capital' is not one person, is not one machine. It is many machines that compete with each other for a piece of the market. Competition is what is allowing people to have options and thus they are not forced by anyone."

in real socialism, the Competition is not needed, only the cooperation is required.

Edited by marxist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question is at the very heart of our ideological differences.

How much someone needs is not for you or anyone to decide. What someone needs is irrelevant.

The only thing you should be concerned with is how much money - YOU are able to aquire from your own work. If you think your needs are not being met - find a way to make more for yourself. Someone of larger ability, like Bill Gates, is not responsible for your life, is not responsible for your needs.

He is the only one entitled to his wealth. He is not responsible to share it, even if he has it in excess, and it is immoral/unjust to make him.

what my question means is how many gold-rings do your figer need when your 10 figers already wore 10 gold-rings. yes, The only thing you should be concerned with is how much money - YOU are able to aquire from your own work.you can't want to be a king unless you have the ability to be a king. to Bill Gates, he find his needs of money are met and now his unmeted need is to give the money to the society, give his "empty houses" to society or the poor man or charity.

if he want to throw his 50 billion USD to the fire, what whoud you think!

If we divide the earth into two parts C and L and all the capitalist select C and carry out the capitalism there but the salary man (workers) select L and carry out the socialism. What would happen? In C, the capitalist have to go to the workshop and become a worker because he can't make workers by any ways, then he has to select L and go into L. in L, there are no machines, but workers can plant to get rice and mine to get coal and so on until have the means to make machine. They can live well.

Edited by marxist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what my question means is how much gold-rings do your figer need when your 10 figers already wore 10 gold-rings. yes, The only thing you should be concerned with is how much money - YOU are able to aquire from your own work.you can't want to be a king unless you have the ability to be a king. to Bill Gates, he find his needs of money are met and now his unmeted need is to give the money to the society, give his "empty houses" to society or the poor man or charity.

if he want to throw his 50 billion USD to the fire, what whoud you think!

If you think capitalism is about money and profit, think again. People are all about money and profit; capitalism is a philosophical, sociological and political movement based on the right to life, liberty and property, non-agression &c.

People like profit, as shows even the simplest human relationship. Love is profit, and trade. Sex is profit, and trade. Friends are profit, and trade. And to some people, like Gates, computers and programming is profit, and trade.

And if you don't want to trade, and don't want profit - or if you want to give away (some of) your profit, like Gates, what right does someone else have to judge?

Edited by lombas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think capitalism is about money and profit, think again. People are all about money and profit; capitalism is a philosophical, sociological and political movement based on the right to life, liberty and property, non-agression &c.

i don't think People are all about money and profit, on the contrary, i think people will have more other need other than the money and profit when they are rich enough. although they don't want to be asked to be selfless but they have need to help other people when they are rich enough. in communism, ereyman are rich enough, although the communism don't need anyone to be selfness but everyone has the need to cooperate and help each other! it is based on the right to life, liberty and Great Harmony , non-agression &c.

Edited by marxist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't think People are all about money and profit, on the contrary, i think people will have more other need other than the money and profit when they are rich enough. although they don't want to be asked to be selfless but they need to help other people when they are rich enough. in communism, ereyman are rich enough, although the communism don't need anyone to be selfness but everyone has the need to cooperate and help each other! it is based on the right to life, liberty and Great Harmony , non-agression &c.

:lol:

In capitalism, voluntary aid, solidarity as it is meant to be, is your own choice. And, euhm, communism fails to be a persistent system for people to gain wealth. What you think people are, is you own business - let people be themselves, individuals. It is not up to you, you do not have the right, to make decisions in their places. That is, namely, a form of aggression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

In capitalism, voluntary aid, solidarity as it is meant to be, is your own choice. And, euhm, communism fails to be a persistent system for people to gain wealth. What you think people are, is you own business - let people be themselves, individuals. It is not up to you, you do not have the right, to make decisions in their places. That is, namely, a form of aggression.

would i say you support nothing but the Capital and the freedom of captial not of man.and you support the man who hold the capital to be free to lead or rule and exploit the workers i.e. another form of slaves.

no one need "you" in any style society but your wealthy. no one even the robber will force you if you have nothing but youself or you can't make something for him.i.e.no one will need your freedom. they will not want to take away your freedom if you have nothing but yourself.they force you just because they want to get the "capital(marx don't think anything is captial,such as money which is not to be used to invest)" from you.you just want to support your capital and prevent them from being taken away without trade.

Edited by marxist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't ask any poor country to enter into communism according to marx.
But wouldn't voluntary socialism provide some standard of living that is higher than that of capitalism??

"real socialism" exists in someone's dream.
Voluntary socialism may not exist in a national capacity... but neither does laissez-faire, for what it's worth.

If we divide the earth into two parts C and L and all the capitalist select C and carry out the capitalism there but the salary man (workers) select L and carry out the socialism. What would happen? In C, the capitalist have to go to the workshop and become a worker because he can't make workers by any ways, then he has to select L and go into L. in L, there are no machines, but workers can plant to get rice and mine to get coal and so on until have the means to make machine. They can live well.
Why would all workers prefer living in L over living in C? Won't some "workers" decide that they benefit from having more than "natural needs" fulfilled?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can select boss, but you can't choise not to select boss,

There is no escape from providing for yourself. It is a part of reality in any system that you have to work to live, ether work for yourself or for others.

i.e you refuse to do anything that any boss want you to do, or you would die from hungry.
I have already explained this to you and yet you keep making the same arguments. When there are more than one employment possibilites you do have options. If you don't like your boss or what you are doing - you can always leave but most importantly since your boss is not holding a monopoly if the value you bring to his business is something he won't like to loose to his competitor - he will listen to your concerns.

I agree with you, when you are working for the state and there are no other options - there is no possibility of negotiation.

it is slavery.in Soviet Russia style socialism,only the officials want the socialism, so at the end, it is damaged.

That is why I said Socialism goes against human nature - that is why it is flawed. Nobody wants to be enslaved.

in real socialism,the people want the socialism,
In the beggining people wanted to give Socialism a try because they did not understand what it ment in reality. It good in theory. Real socialism is the one that failed all over the world, no matter what the culture. That is reality.

in state-run hospital not in the boss-run hosiptal, a surgeon will do the same thing but he don't do anything for a person but for the collectivity. They are not all the same.

That is a utopian concept that they tried to push on people and it has not worked. Self sacrifice goes against human nature, against survival. One can not stay motivated under those conditions. No one is going to excell slaving for others.

Wages are not the same, conditions are not the same, resources and medical equipment is presentted.
You ment to say, resources and equipment is almost non existant everywhere. People are not given the tools they need to do their job well. Hospitals are equally miserable places all over the country. What is present, however, is a lot of corruption. It is in human nature to try to better your situation so if you know the right people you may get more supplies or one more piece of equipment for your particular hospital. It is of course not for free, favors are being exchanged. Surgeon's son may get into a better school as an exchange for somebody else's mother getting a better care at the hospital.

in real socialism, the Competition is not needed, only the cooperation is required.

Cooperation is a socialist slogan for exploitation. It is when they are robbing you that you hear " You just got to cooperate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to Bill Gates, he find his needs of money are met and now his unmeted need is to give the money to the society, give his "empty houses" to society or the poor man or charity.

Bill Gates would not have existed in Socialism. His success would not have been possible.

It is not his duty to give to others. His only responsibility is to himself, to provide for himself, to make money for himself. If he has excess - good for him - you are not entitled to it. Your need is not his business.

if he want to throw his 50 billion USD to the fire, what whoud you think!

He has the right to do so whatever he wants with the wealth he produced. It is his property, he has earned it. It is his to do with it as he wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no escape from providing for yourself. It is a part of reality in any system that you have to work to live, ether work for yourself or for others.

There is no escape from being ruled by the bosses or capital.It is a part of reality in capitalism system that you have to work to for yourself and for the bosses. in the another hand, assording to Objectivism, you have no obligation to work for others: boss-run company or society-run company.

I have already explained this to you and yet you keep making the same arguments. When there are more than one employment possibilites you do have options. If you don't like your boss or what you are doing - you can always leave but most importantly since your boss is not holding a monopoly if the value you bring to his business is something he won't like to loose to his competitor - he will listen to your concerns..

I agree with you, when you are working for the state and there are no other options - there is no possibility of negotiation.T

i think this kind of the option is meanless. in real socialism, you can elect the Official. no one whose IQ is lower 50 can be the Official in real socialism but in the Capitalism, if the boss' son's IQ is lower 50. but he have the "machine",you have to be led by him or by his agent. in real socialism, if the value you bring to the society is something the society needed - the society will listen to your concerns and you can be a official

that is why I said Socialism goes against human nature - that is why it is flawed. Nobody wants to be enslaved.

In China between 1956 and the 1978 or in Soviet Russia, it is not a real socialism, Mao put the equalitarianism high on the list, it is not the socialism but the equalitarianism that make the people try to make less as possible as he can.

In the beggining people wanted to give Socialism a try because they did not understand what it ment in reality. It good in theory. Real socialism is the one that failed all over the world, no matter what the culture. That is reality.

it is not real socialism.

That is a utopian concept that they tried to push on people and it has not worked. Self sacrifice goes against human nature, against survival. One can not stay motivated under those conditions. No one is going to excell slaving for others.

You ment to say, resources and equipment is almost non existant everywhere. People are not given the tools they need to do their job well. Hospitals are equally miserable places all over the country. What is present, however, is a lot of corruption. It is in human nature to try to better your situation so if you know the right people you may get more supplies or one more piece of equipment for your particular hospital. It is of course not for free, favors are being exchanged. Surgeon's son may get into a better school as an exchange for somebody else's mother getting a better care at the hospital.

Cooperation is a socialist slogan for exploitation. It is when they are robbing you that you hear " You just got to cooperate."

there is no sacrifice, they do for themselves and for the collectivity including himself not for the boss not including himself.

what is society, Objectivism's definition of the society is wrong.one individual +one individual +one individual ... not =society. one pig +one pig +one pig not =pig's society because pig has no society.no real interaction between pigs. the society is production of interaction between individuals.

pls see the word collectivism, it put the collectivity(including the individual) high on the list,it is right to Marxism but not right to Objectivism.

pls see the word individualism, it put the individual high on the list. it is right to Objectivism and Marxism. marx needs the community of the free individuals.

pls see the word socialism, it put the society i.e the production of interaction between individuals (including individual) high on the list. it is right to Marxism but not right to Objectivism.

pls see the word Capitalism, it put the Capital( it is material not man of individual) high on the list. it is right to Objectivism but not right to Marxism.

according to Objectivism, individualism=Capitalism, it is contradiction.

according to Marxism, collectivism=socialism, they are the same thing including the individual.

in capitalism, there is no man but the Capital. in socialism, there is no Captial but the man, it is real humanism.

the competition makes misery between the farmers in that story.

the cooperation makes happyness between the farmers in that story

Edited by marxist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Gates would not have existed in Socialism. His success would not have been possible.

yes , in socialism, there is no Bill Gates but the society or everyone is bill Gate, it is possible for society(every person) to success.

If he has excess - good for him - you are not entitled to it. Your need is not his business.

He has the right to do so whatever he wants with the wealth he produced. It is his property, he has earned it. It is his to do with it as he wishes.

it is not good for him. the money naturally already means the nothing to him. when you have 100000 pcs shirts, about 999900 pcs already means the nothing to you. Bill Gates don't has the needs to trade with you and get money i.e now he only need to buy anything he want, he don't need to sell anything because he has so much money in banks.

i think Bill Gates will not put his money to the fire but it is possible for him to give it to the society.

Edited by marxist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marxist,

First, let us talk about how things are in the 21st century, and assuming a mixed-economy that is relatively free by today's standards, like the U.S.

Firstly, the term "labor" is deceptive. It makes one think of physical labor. The fact is, that -- today -- the source of wealth is not human labor, it is the human mind. So, the employees of Microsoft create wealth by thinking. Of course there is a physical component. However, the key differentiating factor, the key to why one employee produces more than another, is primarily related to his mental abilities rather than purely physical ones.

In such an economy, what do you think is the major contribution that Bill Gates brings to the company. It is not capital. Not at all. Once again, it is ideas; or, to use your words: labor. Of course, once he becomes rich, Bill Gates has capital to use. Similarly, his employees, to a lesser degree, save some money and that is their capital. Bill Gates owns billions of dollars worth of stock, and the typical employee owns a lesser amount of stock.

Those who have capital, whether they are Bill Gates or the middle-class employee, want to put it to productive use while they are saving. So, they look for investments. What this means is that these people, in their role as capitalists -- big or small -- need people with ideas, people who are smart, people who know how to be productive. In your terms, they need smart labor, in the form of smart entrepreneurs who will employ other smart labor, in the form of employees, and take their capital and grow it.

It is not that easy for capitalists to find good people who will make productive use of their money. It is not easy for the head employees to find subordinate employees. When companies find good employees, they try to keep them, because they know good people are not easy to find. Of courise, this does not mean that they will employ a person at any cost, but they will try to keep people by paying what they think is at least enough to prevent them from seeking other opportunities.

On the other hand, people who are looking for employment need employers. Unless one works in some very specialized field, jobs are typically aplenty. So, people have a choice of employees. People look for good jobs: good pay, benefits, work that they like, flexible time --- whatever is important to them. When a person finds a good job, he'd like to keep it. However, that does not mean they will try to keep it at any cost.

In summary, even in the modern "fairly-free" mixed economy, there is a lot of competition from employers and from employees. Both need each other in the broad sense. However, very rarely does a particular employee need a particular employer at any cost, or vice versa.

So, that is the reality we're faced with, not some theoretical world in which poeople are forced to work for powerful capitlists and do their bidding, lest they starve.

By the way, part of the modern reality is that day to day good are extremely cheap, when measured in terms of human labor.

Now, I want to turn to a separate issue... the purpose of this debate. If your purpose is to understand what Capitalism means and why we think it works so well, then that's fine. However, if your intent is to try to convince someone on this forum that marxism (in its ideal form) is ideal, then I think you do not realize the difficulty of what you're attempting. You're free to try, as long as it's in the debate sub-forum, but I must warn you that you're wasting your time if that is your intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, but I must warn you that you're wasting your time if that is your intent.

Amen to that brother!

In addition to the many fine post of other participants, I think Sophia succinctly stated the single biggest hurdle (though there are more) for marxist to pole vault in post #152. Until he can shatter that principle, he's knockin' his noggin on the brick barricade.

Edit:

In addition, I think that marxist is fallaciously attributing money as Bill Gates primary motivation. I would assert that in all the years he's been in business, Bill Gates motivation has been more about being productive and identifying different market needs or desires and he's done such a good job at it that he's amassed a fortune in money. Bill Gates could not have become "king" (not that he even is a king) if he hadn't provided value to millions of people who consented to buying his products.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marxist, I am going to close this thread for a few days. That will give you some time to think about what has been said, and work through it on your own, without feeling any pressure to respond. Please do not start another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...