Do Socialists hate making money?

[Doc]

Does anyone actually take the time to read this?

I do.

[TheNewGuy]

DOC, on a serious note, I do wonder how you reconciled your military service (in my mind, military service is de facto a nationalist, aggressive lifestyle) with your socialism (in my mind, socialist belief is an anti-nationalist, pacifist lifestyle). Can you elaborate on that situation, a bit?

[Afrocentric]

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.

I don't agree with Ayn Rand, so I don't know why you'd link me with her.

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.

Heirarchies exist in the world for a reaosn. I am not socially on the same level as my mother and a new employee is not on the same level as his manager.

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

Why are you so jealous of the rich and wealthy?

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.

What you'll get is a mass exodus of the wealthy from America to other places and I wouldn't blame them at all if they did it.

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.

#FirstWorldProblems.

[Amazeroth]

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,

Not really. What I want to know is specfics, not vague talk about non-socialist alternatives. I don't want to know that there are alternatives, I want to know what these alternatives are, and how they work.

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.

19th century britain was not capitalist, it was just unregulated. And not so much unregulated, but very regulate, but in a way that the state actually gave all its power to the industrialists trying to keep the workers down, the state spitting on the workers' rights, and the state forbidding things like unions and the like. And that's not a free market, that's a very controlled one. It's not capitalism, it's just some form of plutocracy.
The same goes for the LEDCs - I wouldn't know a single capitalist one. Their governments are, with perhaps a few exemptions I don't know of, extremely corrupt, giving all their weigh to industry and caring, pretty much, only about themselves. Or they've gone completely authoritarian, and that's not an environment capitalism could exist in either.

I would never say that capitalism would bring in a utopia, especially not capitalism alone - as I said, social security still is important, as are strict rules that guarantee a free market in the first place. And even then, we'll never have a utopia, but we'll be better off than now.

[soysauce]

Not really. What I want to know is specfics, not vague talk about non-socialist alternatives. I don't want to know that there are alternatives, I want to know what these alternatives are, and how they work.

Do you really want the sort of solution that could be defined in a ~100 word forum post? I certainly don't.

[Afrocentric]

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.

This just gives people more of a reason to be skeptical of Socialists and their agenda. I don't know how any sane person could join a Socialist Party.

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,

Stop. You don't get to compare Capitalism to slavery; you don't have that right or luxury to do that. I'm sorry, nobody is being ripped from their families, beaten to the point of death and worked to exhaustion like they were during slavery.Your analogy displays a complete lack of understanding of what actually went down during slavery and shows Socialists will stop at nothing to get their point across, even if it means comparing a system that has statistically lifted many African-Americans out of poverty to one that kept them in poverty as nothing more than property.

whatever the cost-

It will either be the determined effort of individuals

You outwardly support domestic terrorism as a means of overthrowing the Untied States government in an attempt to bring about change to the Capitalist system? I got to say Doc, that's pretty hardcore.

After all, just because the majority of the population support something, that doesn't make it any more moral or just.

You don't get to decide what's moral and just in the world, anymore than I do.

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.

Again with the wishful thinking?

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.

You have alot of guilt going on in your life. Why is that? Also, how does a college professor with a doctorate not make enough money to shop at high end stores. You probably make about $75,000/year.

[Amazeroth]

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.

Please explain more about how you, or Aristotle, come to the conclusion that fairness means everyone has what they need. I'd really be interested in that.

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.

And where would the money come from to pay for the fullfillment of all the citizens' needs, or for taxation in general, if nobody needs to work anymore in order to have his or her needs fullfilled? Who would perform all the manual labour jobs needed to produce food, or houses, or even medication? Who will go and seek higher education, in order to fullfill management roles in governmental positions, or become doctors, or scientists working for the government, if they get the same as the manual labourers, or the people doing boring but easy bureaucratic work?

Next question - why wouldn't it end like the Soviet Union did, if there is no incentive for government workers to work hard, since they don't get paid more if they do? That's actually one of the few things the Soviet Union has shown pretty impressively - that people need motivation to do more than the least. Granted, there will always be a few idealists who go the extra mile even if they don't get paid, but the majority won't, at least in a bureaucratic system like you're proposing, where you don't actually see any consequence of your shoddy labour.

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.

Who would pay taxes in that setting? I mean, you'd have to enact it globally to prevent all the wealthier people fleeing your country, and then who would work extra if that only means getting taxed all of a sudden? I'm all against subsidizing too, but it wouldn't matter, the government as competitor would either be so efficient that it remained the sole competitor in the end - since it has, compared to private companies, unlimited resources; or so inefficient that you'd have a large black market going in no time.

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.

I actually live in a country where that pretty much is the case already, and so long as you have enough tax payers, it works. It's costing a lot, and it doesn't have the best image, but it does its job. But with your similar idea of forcing out taxpayers, how would you finance that?

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.

That's where your system finally turns totalitarian. Forcing all students into the military or into public industries by not letting them pay their fees for themselves is a fun idea, but why would they go and study. After all, they can't make more money of have a better life with it afterwards, and they'll have to work somewhere they don't want to work, at least in most cases.

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.

If you don't think the government taking over education, food and health completely wouldn't bring significant changes, you're sadly mistaken. Even more if it eliminates all needs of its citizens, and pretty much take away their motivation to do a good job, or to go and work at all.
I'd also like to know how humanity is a virtue that entitles me to have all my needs fullfilled (except the one you don't deem basic) without having to work for it. Or will people be forced to work by law in your utopia?

Also, why exactly is it in societies interest that all are fed, housed, healthy, educated and employed? If you'd said it's Christian duty to see to that, or something like that, I would see your point. But how does society, as a whole, profit from eliminating everyones needs?
By the way, earlier you said you felt like the mark in a con when you had to pay the prices companies would set for their products. How are you not the mark, just because government sets the prices? It still won't mean that they're fair.

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.

While it's great that you think of yourself that highly, I'm not sure if it matters much to this discussion.

[Amazeroth]

Not really. What I want to know is specfics, not vague talk about non-socialist alternatives. I don't want to know that there are alternatives, I want to know what these alternatives are, and how they work.

Do you really want the sort of solution that could be defined in a ~100 word forum post? I certainly don't.

Yes, I really do. I mean, what good is it just to criticise capitalism in posts way stronger than 100 words, but never present alternatives?

[soysauce]

Not really. What I want to know is specfics, not vague talk about non-socialist alternatives. I don't want to know that there are alternatives, I want to know what these alternatives are, and how they work.

Do you really want the sort of solution that could be defined in a ~100 word forum post? I certainly don't.

Yes, I really do. I mean, what good is it just to criticise capitalism in posts way stronger than 100 words, but never present alternatives?

Well I guess you have a point, at the same time since no-one has the time to put a couple of thousand words into a forum it means that you win by default,

You've not defined your "system" or how exactly it should work, indeed you seem to make several seemingly at least contradictory statements about it, Why don't you concentrate on that?

[Amazeroth]

Do you really want the sort of solution that could be defined in a ~100 word forum post? I certainly don't.

Yes, I really do. I mean, what good is it just to criticise capitalism in posts way stronger than 100 words, but never present alternatives?

Well I guess you have a point, at the same time since no-one has the time to put a couple of thousand words into a forum it means that you win by default,

You've not defined your "system" or how exactly it should work, indeed you seem to make several seemingly at least contradictory statements about it, Why don't you concentrate on that?

I really always assumed that capitalism or the free market would be known already. Likewise, I don't ask people to define marxism or anything, or even socialism in general. But if someone says that there are alternatives that are neither capitalist nor socialist, I think it's not unreasonable to have them explained.

If there are contradictions, please point them out, and I'll happily either explain or concede I'm wrong.

Also, I've always accepted if someone wrote that he didn't have the time to continue with a debate. And if people do post 100 words or more-posts, I usually respond in detail, so I'm not really expecting more from others than I'm willing to offer myself.