Do Socialists hate making money?

[soysauce]

I think you are missing the point Amazeroth, no-one today actually believes in an ideological utopia, the concept of a communist utopia is just as discredited as Noziack's. This is the end of history after all, Doc isn't suggesting that we go for a planned economy or anything, if you'd bothered reading you would have known that.

Pure capitalism is a bit like survival of the fittest. A society based on survival of the fittest is a neat idea but we'd never base our society on that, it is against human nature to let people fight to the death if nothing else. So why should we base our economy on that? While the first generation would have equality of opportunity over time we know that through the inheritance of wealth people would slowly evolve into a class structure, if left to it's own devices after a while we'd have a situation where many live in wage slavery.

[Amazeroth]

I think you are missing the point Amazeroth, no-one today actually believes in an ideological utopia, the concept of a communist utopia is just as discredited as Noziack's. This is the end of history after all, Doc isn't suggesting that we go for a planned economy or anything, if you'd bothered reading you would have known that.

Actually, he's suggesting just that. From what he says I gather that he wants

a. An economy where every need is exactly met - if 2,500 people need food, the government provides them with that exactly.
b. An economy where all basic needs are granted by the government, and private enterprise is only about luxuries.

Both require a planned economy. The second is pretty much exactly what was attempted in Soviet Russia and most of the Warsaw pact - minus the private enterprise thing, of course. The first is planned economy in it's purest form - the government knows (somehow) the exact demand, and plans to satisfy it exactly. The second is mostly planned economy, since most industry, at least worldwide, is still about basic needs, with the exception of luxuries.

So yeah, he's suggesting to go for planned economy again.

Pure capitalism is a bit like survival of the fittest. A society based on survival of the fittest is a neat idea but we'd never base our society on that, it is against human nature to let people fight to the death if nothing else. So why should we base our economy on that? While the first generation would have equality of opportunity over time we know that through the inheritance of wealth people would slowly evolve into a class structure, if left to it's own devices after a while we'd have a situation where many live in wage slavery.

Because if our economy is based on that, it's not the people that die (read the rest before you answer to this alone, as I know it must be tempting) but the enterprises. And that's a good thing.
I agree that we need to have systems in place for those that either can't take part in the system (the infirm, mentally handicapped, etc., even those that just don't want to work), and a system that helps those who worked in a now-extinct company to transition into another, preferably thriving one, (like the workers of a company that went bankrupt).

The other thing is that there's no reason why pure capitalism would lead into wage slavery over the generations. Inherited wealth is still spent or worked on (if it's not just money).
Pure capitalism without some kind of social security would lead to people dying though, but as you see I'm not advocating that.

[soysauce]

Actually, he's suggesting just that. From what he says I gather that he wants

a. An economy where every need is exactly met - if 2,500 people need food, the government provides them with that exactly.
b. An economy where all basic needs are granted by the government, and private enterprise is only about luxuries.

Both require a planned economy. The second is pretty much exactly what was attempted in Soviet Russia and most of the Warsaw pact - minus the private enterprise thing, of course. The first is planned economy in it's purest form - the government knows (somehow) the exact demand, and plans to satisfy it exactly. The second is mostly planned economy, since most industry, at least worldwide, is still about basic needs, with the exception of luxuries.

So yeah, he's suggesting to go for planned economy again.

There are alternatives, even non-socialist alternatives, which haven't been tried yet. We may have good, but it can always be better- Of course better will not be accomplished by continuing to try what we have been doing for centuries now.

I think that answers your question,

Because if our economy is based on that, it's not the people that die (read the rest before you answer to this alone, as I know it must be tempting) but the enterprises. And that's a good thing.
I agree that we need to have systems in place for those that either can't take part in the system (the infirm, mentally handicapped, etc., even those that just don't want to work), and a system that helps those who worked in a now-extinct company to transition into another, preferably thriving one, (like the workers of a company that went bankrupt).

The other thing is that there's no reason why pure capitalism would lead into wage slavery over the generations. Inherited wealth is still spent or worked on (if it's not just money).
Pure capitalism without some kind of social security would lead to people dying though, but as you see I'm not advocating that.

In theory you have a point but that's just it, it's theoretical. The idea that any one ideology alone can present a Utopian solution is outdated at best, we have seen in the few almost pure capitalist societies that the things that you said would never happen did happen. In the 1800s in Britain the industrialists were presented with an almost unregulated capitalist environment and that's what they did. We see the same in most LEDCs today, you can't say it doesn't happen.

[Siggon Kristov]

Once again, I get unfairly called out for being a Capitalist and expressing my support of the system. There are 4 others who espouse the stuff I do, yet I'm the one who gets the most flack. Jesus Christ, you all act like I'm a Libertarian who hates the government and wants a true free market. I don't want that, I want a market w/ a few regulations, but not to the point where those regulations affect businesses and the people. I support Capitalism because it works; deal with it.

I don't recall anyone else making this thread and asking if you like money, to call you out.

[Doc]

I'd also like to know where your concept of justice or fairness comes from (and I mean that completely without offense, I'm really interested).

I teach ethics and political theory. My notion of justice is my notion of fairness, which comes from Aristotle. All people should have just what they need, not more and not less. A just society is a moderate one. I am not a Marxist- I am an Ethical socialist. I think if society were run ethically, socialism, of some sort would be the result. I do not think it is run ethically, and therefore, capitalism is the result.

But no, I am not talking about Utopia or central planning boards. I am merely talking about ensuring a basic standard of living to all people, as a result of them being citizens and humans. Once people are freed from need, they can actually decide whether they want just the basic standard of living, or they want to earn more and live better than that, but at any rate, they are not driven into decisions about taking jobs or keeping their mouth shut on the job by hunger or a need to stay in a house or keep health insurance. Once people know that they won't lose that, no matter what happens, they can be free to demand things of their bosses that they wouldn't dream of demanding today. And incidentally, they can be freed to take risks that they may not otherwise have taken- they know that if they fail, at least they won't be thrown out on the streets or starve to death. I think being freed from necessity in this way would be a boon the the US economy- We actually would become a nation of small business owners. And then reality might look a little closer to the fantasy that liberals promote, where we are all happy little middle class petite-bourgeoisie.

It wouldn't take a public planning board to accomplish this- instead, it would mean that the Government got into the food business as another competitor, but with an edge on the private sector. See, a public food provider is one that is not driven by the need to make a profit, ever- All costs are paid by the tax base, and all people are entitled to use the service. But that public sector competitor is also one who stops subsidizing private individuals and corporations with public money, which is my main gripe with the "public private partnership" we have in this country today.

And that means that the Government offers a public health plan which allows individuals to still access the private health providers, but at no cost, while the government negotiates costs with health providers for all its subscribers, lowering costs system wide rahter than handing 30 million new subscribers over the the private sector to be exploited for the sake of dividends for investors the way ACA does. This would leave private insurers to provide the luxury sort of insurance for the one or two individuals who both has a ton of money to blow on unnecessary tests and equipment, and wants every single last intervention that money can buy.

And the Government becomes the single payer of all student fees and tuition, and as such uses the fact that it controls the financial aspect of education to force lower costs system wide. But in exchange for guaranteed education, the system requires all those who access the public system to work in public industries for just four years, at a pay scale based on the US Military, and learn a marketable skill along with the most basic skills and discipline necessary for keeping a job once they get done, and then, after they are done, their student debt is wiped out.

None of this requires significant changes to the current system. If a person wants McDonald's, let him work for it. But in a socialist society, nobody will ever starve who knows enough to go get some free food at the public food store. And if a person wants a mansion, let him work for one, but in a socialist society, a person should never do without a roof over his head and four walls who knows that he is entitled to one by virtue of his humanity. And no person should ever feel compelled by need to take a job, and no person should ever feel compelled to be silent about workplace injustice because he knows if he speaks up he will be fired and then lose his only means of supporting himself. It is in society's interest to ensure that all are fed, housed, healthy, educated and employed WAY more than it is in society's interest that each person be left to his or her own devices.

That's what I believe. What a selfish individual who feels he has no duty to his fellow man or the society as a whole thinks on the matter does not concern me one iota, except to note the moral corruption of such a position.

[TheNewGuy]

I really want McDonald's now...

[Afrocentric]

I care about me and only me. IDRGAF about people who are suffering or ended up as failures in life; it is what it is. As far as I'm concerned, its not my problem and I'm not obligated to extend my help towards them. If they need help, go jump on welfare and be done with it.

EDIT: What Doc has posted is nothing short of a radical revision of the current system that would put the USA on par with the likes of the Nordic Countries. Doc's plan all but removes private enterprise from the marketplace and requires government to come in and control our lives even more. People like Doc seem to have hatred for private businesses AKA the job creators, yet you will see them shopping at Walmart on the weekends because they're hypocrites and are too stubborn to practice what they preach. Down with the system...just let me buy a flat screen first, right?

BTW, how would you fund all of this Doc? Let me guess, raise the tax rate to 60% of the job creators, tax the hell out of corporations,and slash the defense budget, while at the same time increasing spending on entitlements?

You can be Ethical all you want, but when it comes down to reality, you are living in a dream world my friend. No sane American wants Socialism, in fact, we want the opposite. We want individualism and a chance to determine our own path. That's what makes America so unique. If you believe in America, you support the Capitalist system and the idea that the free market is more often then not better than the government. Government has a role in all of this, it needs to be a regulator to ensure a level playing field, but it shouldn't have its hand in every little thing.

[Doc]

I care about me and only me. IDRGAF about people who are suffering or ended up as failures in life; it is what it is. As far as I'm concerned, its not my problem and I'm not obligated to extend my help towards them. If they need help, go jump on welfare and be done with it.

EDIT: What Doc has posted is nothing short of a radical revision of the current system that would put the USA on par with the likes of the Nordic Countries. Doc's plan all but removes private enterprise from the marketplace and requires government to come in and control our lives even more. People like Doc seem to have hatred for private businesses AKA the job creators, yet you will see them shopping at Walmart on the weekends because they're hypocrites and are too stubborn to practice what they preach. Down with the system...just let me buy a flat screen first, right?

Well, you should know that in socialist utopia land, this is just the first step in the process. See- the problem is, we have two fundamentally different notions about the purpose of society. My view is that society exists to allow us, as humans to do things that we can't do alone. I don't see society as a herd which exists solely for me to cull for my own benefit.

And I have to give it to you- you really ape the talking points of the Ayn Rand set in our country pretty darn well. Ayn Rand was an admirer of sociopaths, because they are capable of acting without any sort of empathy or duty to their fellow man. Not exactly the kind of philosophy that *I* would choose to follow, but then again, I actually like people.

As for hatred for "job creators", I don't hate them. 1. I take issue with the idea that they "create" jobs. Demand creates jobs, those people merely manage them and restrict the job market to guarantee profits for their stockholders. But also 2. These people you erroneously call "job creators" are actually people, and so referring to them, I merely want to put them on the same level, socially and politically, with the "Job doers", meaning the people they employ and underpay.

As for how to pay for it- We aren't there yet. We're still inexplicably representing capitalists as morally superior to workers. When we get to the point where that is a realistic discussion, I'll have some more answers for you. But I think it at least involves cutting all corporate welfare to your so-called "job creators", including contractors, big Ag, the Defense Industry and for profit Security services, and then ending all preferential tax rates for companies and rich investors. That is a nice place to start- no public money, including uncollected taxes, for the private sector. Because then we will get to see just how well the wealthy do without the protection of the society they seem to resent so much that they spend all their time trying to wring every last cent out of the pockets of consumers while avoiding any legitimate imposition that the society may make on them for the benefit of being able to conduct business over a maintained infrastructure in an orderly market, guaranteed by the Government. They want whatever they can get while paying as little as possible back for it. They want to put as many cents as they possibly can back into their pocket, and they lobby the government to ensure that they can.

I don't have any sympathy for the "plight" of these so called "job creators." They've enjoyed the creme of this social arrangement long enough. The sooner that arrangement changes, the better off our society as a whole, without privilege for one specific group of it, will be.

[Doc]

And to beat you to the punch, I will just say here that yes, had I my druthers, I would run our economy into the ground and the US would become the 150th largest economy in the world before I would ever endorse an extension of capitalism. So as I say, you are lucky I don't have control of anything. Our system of capitalism and the ideology that it apparently inspires among a significant number of my countrymen is morally corrupt and wicked, equivalent to the explicit or implicit endorsement of slavery among the vast majority of the population of the US before the Civil War, and like chattel slavery, needs to be ended, whatever the cost- After all, just because the majority of the population support something, that doesn't make it any more moral or just. It will either be the determined effort of individuals, or the fundamental contradictions within the system that make it unsustainable which drives our form of capitalism into the dirt, so I can sleep easy at night knowing that this system is not long for the world, because it can't be without making war on the rest of the planet.

Meanwhile, yes I do shop at WalMart, because I am not fortunate enough to be able to afford to shop at other stores for my basic necessities. So yes, even I benefit from the exploitation of others. And that is what is so galling to me- I can't escape it if I tried.

[CanadianEh]

I'd also like to know where your concept of justice or fairness comes from (and I mean that completely without offense, I'm really interested).

I teach ethics and political theory. My notion of justice is my notion of fairness, which comes from Aristotle. All people should have just what they need, not more and not less. A just society is a moderate one. I am not a Marxist- I am an Ethical socialist. I think if society were run ethically, socialism, of some sort would be the result. I do not think it is run ethically, and therefore, capitalism is the result.

But no, I am not talking about Utopia or central planning boards. I am merely talking about ensuring a basic standard of living to all people, as a result of them being citizens and humans. Once people are freed from need, they can actually decide whether they want just the basic standard of living, or they want to earn more and live better than that, but at any rate, they are not driven into decisions about taking jobs or keeping their mouth shut on the job by hunger or a need to stay in a house or keep health insurance. Once people know that they won't lose that, no matter what happens, they can be free to demand things of their bosses that they wouldn't dream of demanding today. And incidentally, they can be freed to take risks that they may not otherwise have taken- they know that if they fail, at least they won't be thrown out on the streets or starve to death. I think being freed from necessity in this way would be a boon the the US economy- We actually would become a nation of small business owners. And then reality might look a little closer to the fantasy that liberals promote, where we are all happy little middle class petite-bourgeoisie.

It wouldn't take a public planning board to accomplish this- instead, it would mean that the Government got into the food business as another competitor, but with an edge on the private sector. See, a public food provider is one that is not driven by the need to make a profit, ever- All costs are paid by the tax base, and all people are entitled to use the service. But that public sector competitor is also one who stops subsidizing private individuals and corporations with public money, which is my main gripe with the "public private partnership" we have in this country today.

And that means that the Government offers a public health plan which allows individuals to still access the private health providers, but at no cost, while the government negotiates costs with health providers for all its subscribers, lowering costs system wide rahter than handing 30 million new subscribers over the the private sector to be exploited for the sake of dividends for investors the way ACA does. This would leave private insurers to provide the luxury sort of insurance for the one or two individuals who both has a ton of money to blow on unnecessary tests and equipment, and wants every single last intervention that money can buy.

And the Government becomes the single payer of all student fees and tuition, and as such uses the fact that it controls the financial aspect of education to force lower costs system wide. But in exchange for guaranteed education, the system requires all those who access the public system to work in public industries for just four years, at a pay scale based on the US Military, and learn a marketable skill along with the most basic skills and discipline necessary for keeping a job once they get done, and then, after they are done, their student debt is wiped out.

None of this requires significant changes to the current system. If a person wants McDonald's, let him work for it. But in a socialist society, nobody will ever starve who knows enough to go get some free food at the public food store. And if a person wants a mansion, let him work for one, but in a socialist society, a person should never do without a roof over his head and four walls who knows that he is entitled to one by virtue of his humanity. And no person should ever feel compelled by need to take a job, and no person should ever feel compelled to be silent about workplace injustice because he knows if he speaks up he will be fired and then lose his only means of supporting himself. It is in society's interest to ensure that all are fed, housed, healthy, educated and employed WAY more than it is in society's interest that each person be left to his or her own devices.

That's what I believe. What a selfish individual who feels he has no duty to his fellow man or the society as a whole thinks on the matter does not concern me one iota, except to note the moral corruption of such a position.

Does anyone actually take the time to read this?