Poll: Capitalism, yay or nay?
- Thread starter Ken_J
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nay. It allows for a a few rich individuals to control all of economic policy even if the citizens don't like the policy. Look up company towns or robber barons if you don't believe me.
capitalism is fine and dandy but it always needs at least a little regulation or the gigantic mega corporations would work everyone without a billion dollars to death and then screw them over. Unfortunately, a little regulation can lead to a lot of regulation, and communism is a shitty economic alternative since it never follows its own rules.
It's been used as an excuse for businesses to be total douchebags too often for it to really be good. I'd much rather have the government in control of everything with the added effect that it would make a country's economy much easier to control.
Then again I'm a communist so...
Then again I'm a communist so...
It can work but it needs a decent amount of regulation and watching over to function. Its idea is good and has been proven to work, but it can't be an excuse for the government to just sit by and do nothing and hope that things will work out on their own.
It's wonderful though most college students would rage against it cause it "makes the rich richer and poor poorer". Or whatever their sociology professor told them.
If left to it's own devices unions kept companies in check and new idea/product/service keeps monopolies from happening. There has never been a economy that's been truely capitalistic but I'd say Americas version of it worked pretty well. I'd much rather deal with an up and down business cycle that expands greatly over time than deal with a stagnant "secure" economy.
If left to it's own devices unions kept companies in check and new idea/product/service keeps monopolies from happening. There has never been a economy that's been truely capitalistic but I'd say Americas version of it worked pretty well. I'd much rather deal with an up and down business cycle that expands greatly over time than deal with a stagnant "secure" economy.
Hehe they love socialism here. I guess they are used to having a paternalistic government hand them everything. I on the other hand don't think I have a right to someones wealth. O well.Dzikun said:
Capitalism and Communism are good in different aspects, but bad in others, neither of them are good. There is need for a middle ground.
I'd say a blend of capitalism and socialism is the best option, because neither socio-economic ideology can stand on its own without eventually selfdestructing. They both have fundamental flaws respectively being a failure to realise there is no such thing as infinite growth and a narrow viewpoint the lacks the versatility to make progress.
Oh, and communism = not socialism.
Oh, and communism = not socialism.
I said "Yay"
Simply put you really can't blend capitolism and socialism effectively on any sizable scale without losing one or the other. They are mutually exclusive philsophies, however that is another discussion entirely.
In the end, the basic needs of any kind of society and the reality of limited resources means you are going to have vastly more people on the bottom of society than at the top. What this means is that after communist or socialist revolutions you see nothing really changing except the people calling the shots. The major differance for the people at the bottom being that in a capitolist system they can better themselves through personal achievement, where in a communist or socialist system this is not the case.
In general communism doesn't exist off of paper because the theory is fundementally unworkable beyond a very small group of people. In the end you need to get certain things done, and no sane person is going to agree to do backbreaking labour for a minimal return of resources. Everyone is going to want to contribute to the community in a way that they want to, or will benefit them, rather than by doing what needs to be done.
Socialism gets started because someone (a goverment) needs to make sure everything that needs to be done is done so the society can work. Thus it decides who gets to be the doctors and such, and who is going to grow the food and work the factories, not to mention what the "fair share" of the society's product is for each job.
The end result being that even if you start with the idea of communism, you wind up with an all powerful goverment/party making desicians for everyone, and putting the people it wants into the best jobs and giving them the most liberal "cuts" of the resources. It becomes more about who you know and how favored you are than personal abillity which is why communist regimes are generally known for their incompetance compared to capitolist counterparts. The rat race means that the best person winds up doing a job in a capitolist society, or at least more often than not (and "best" might simply mean being the most charismatic or ruthless), in a socialist society you don't nessicarly need to compete, your uncle being a party official can be enough to get you whatever job you want irregardless of qualifications.
The point about "Merchant Princes" and "Robber Barons" are accurate to some extent, which is why the US limited capitolism in some minor ways, like preventing things like monopolies and price fixing. Basically the idea being to keep competition constant, things like you see with price fixing among gas companies, or video game companies, are not supposed to happen. The only industries the goverment regulates are things where competition is impractical to an extent (like some utilities, and products like milk).
The thing about the US is that in general the best people wind up being in charge. Everyone with massive resources either earned those resources or inherited them from someone who did. Society being a competitive shark tank means that there are always going to be people looking to grab the resources of mere "Silver Spoon Kids" if they can't hold their own, and indeed fortunes are won and lost in the US.
This is one of the reasons while not being a fan, I occasionally defend people like Paris Hilton by pointing out that they at least must have the brains to pick good people (which is in of itself a skill) or else they would rapidly lose everything they have.
In the end though, it doesn't matter because the majority of people are going to be at the bottom.
This is also incidently one of the reasons why I have been somewhat critical of the central "Red Faction" concept (not as heavily communist as I expected so far, and pretty decent, but I haven't had much time to dig into it yet). Simply to use the general concept as a point, let's say workers rise up, and tear down the oppressors. Wonderful, but as soon as the cheer of 'Freedom' goes up it becomes clear that there is still ore that needs to be mined, and well.. you've still got to sell/trade it to the guys you were just fighting, and in the end they can only pay so much since the resources on earth are depleted. Ooops. Well now you've got the dominant revolutionaries becoming the new goverment, forcing everyone back to work under the same conditions (possibly worse with less gear coming in from earth), and quite probably making less money than before because someone just cheezed off the market. In the end things get even more brutal, and everyone who picked up a hammer to fight, winds right back pounding rocks again.
I happened with Russia for example, huge workers revolt, down with the white russians/nobility/royalty, poor princess Anastashia, blood in the snow everywhere. The work still needs to be done, but everyone says "well gee, I'm done working. I just want to sit back and enjoy the largesse of society, what else did I go through all that for?" things start to fall apart, and it takes Stalin to basically come into power and create a nasty and oppressive regime to get the society moving again. Basically: go back to work or go to a Gulag. In a Gulag people were re-educated and turned into productive members of society or died there. In the end they were hoping for a work force, but didn't care much how many died. The idea being that if a hundred thousand go in, and only ten thousand come out good workers/members of society then that was a win because it was ten thousand more workers than you had before and ninety thousand dead resource leeches.
People tend to forget this kind of thing, especially modern leftists. Stalin (who is often compared to Hitler) didn't just come into power and say "Gee, I think I'll kill a few million people for lulz". All of these guys who comitted mass murder had reasons, except for maybe Pol Pot but then again vengeance was his big thing, he didn't really have much of a plan for society as it seemed to me he just wanted social vengeance and all of the "city dwellers" and their sympathizers to die in the most horrible ways possible. Everything else was just rhetoric he had no abillity to put into place.
Basically, I'm pretty far down on the social totem pole (disabled, and honestly with what little I get for that I have serious concerns about the future and what happens to me when I can no longer live at home), but as far as theory goes I at least like the idea that a person who is smart enough, strong enough, or talented enough can rise from the bottom right to the top. The thing is though that out of any pool of people the number of people who are that good is extremely minimal compared to the masses who aren't that talented, and/or merely wish they were. Those people tend to wind up staying at the bottom, and well... any society is going to need all those people at the bottom to hold things together. Someone has to take out the trash, work the factories, grow the food, and carry heavy things from place to place.
The way I see things is that under the US concept of society your welcome to muse about communism. In most communist societies (like China) you muse about democracy and you might very well disappear during the night, or at the best are unlikely to be allowed to go outside of your home when the Olympics come around.
>>>----Therumancer--->
>>>----Therumancer--->
Simply put you really can't blend capitolism and socialism effectively on any sizable scale without losing one or the other. They are mutually exclusive philsophies, however that is another discussion entirely.
In the end, the basic needs of any kind of society and the reality of limited resources means you are going to have vastly more people on the bottom of society than at the top. What this means is that after communist or socialist revolutions you see nothing really changing except the people calling the shots. The major differance for the people at the bottom being that in a capitolist system they can better themselves through personal achievement, where in a communist or socialist system this is not the case.
In general communism doesn't exist off of paper because the theory is fundementally unworkable beyond a very small group of people. In the end you need to get certain things done, and no sane person is going to agree to do backbreaking labour for a minimal return of resources. Everyone is going to want to contribute to the community in a way that they want to, or will benefit them, rather than by doing what needs to be done.
Socialism gets started because someone (a goverment) needs to make sure everything that needs to be done is done so the society can work. Thus it decides who gets to be the doctors and such, and who is going to grow the food and work the factories, not to mention what the "fair share" of the society's product is for each job.
The end result being that even if you start with the idea of communism, you wind up with an all powerful goverment/party making desicians for everyone, and putting the people it wants into the best jobs and giving them the most liberal "cuts" of the resources. It becomes more about who you know and how favored you are than personal abillity which is why communist regimes are generally known for their incompetance compared to capitolist counterparts. The rat race means that the best person winds up doing a job in a capitolist society, or at least more often than not (and "best" might simply mean being the most charismatic or ruthless), in a socialist society you don't nessicarly need to compete, your uncle being a party official can be enough to get you whatever job you want irregardless of qualifications.
The point about "Merchant Princes" and "Robber Barons" are accurate to some extent, which is why the US limited capitolism in some minor ways, like preventing things like monopolies and price fixing. Basically the idea being to keep competition constant, things like you see with price fixing among gas companies, or video game companies, are not supposed to happen. The only industries the goverment regulates are things where competition is impractical to an extent (like some utilities, and products like milk).
The thing about the US is that in general the best people wind up being in charge. Everyone with massive resources either earned those resources or inherited them from someone who did. Society being a competitive shark tank means that there are always going to be people looking to grab the resources of mere "Silver Spoon Kids" if they can't hold their own, and indeed fortunes are won and lost in the US.
This is one of the reasons while not being a fan, I occasionally defend people like Paris Hilton by pointing out that they at least must have the brains to pick good people (which is in of itself a skill) or else they would rapidly lose everything they have.
In the end though, it doesn't matter because the majority of people are going to be at the bottom.
This is also incidently one of the reasons why I have been somewhat critical of the central "Red Faction" concept (not as heavily communist as I expected so far, and pretty decent, but I haven't had much time to dig into it yet). Simply to use the general concept as a point, let's say workers rise up, and tear down the oppressors. Wonderful, but as soon as the cheer of 'Freedom' goes up it becomes clear that there is still ore that needs to be mined, and well.. you've still got to sell/trade it to the guys you were just fighting, and in the end they can only pay so much since the resources on earth are depleted. Ooops. Well now you've got the dominant revolutionaries becoming the new goverment, forcing everyone back to work under the same conditions (possibly worse with less gear coming in from earth), and quite probably making less money than before because someone just cheezed off the market. In the end things get even more brutal, and everyone who picked up a hammer to fight, winds right back pounding rocks again.
I happened with Russia for example, huge workers revolt, down with the white russians/nobility/royalty, poor princess Anastashia, blood in the snow everywhere. The work still needs to be done, but everyone says "well gee, I'm done working. I just want to sit back and enjoy the largesse of society, what else did I go through all that for?" things start to fall apart, and it takes Stalin to basically come into power and create a nasty and oppressive regime to get the society moving again. Basically: go back to work or go to a Gulag. In a Gulag people were re-educated and turned into productive members of society or died there. In the end they were hoping for a work force, but didn't care much how many died. The idea being that if a hundred thousand go in, and only ten thousand come out good workers/members of society then that was a win because it was ten thousand more workers than you had before and ninety thousand dead resource leeches.
People tend to forget this kind of thing, especially modern leftists. Stalin (who is often compared to Hitler) didn't just come into power and say "Gee, I think I'll kill a few million people for lulz". All of these guys who comitted mass murder had reasons, except for maybe Pol Pot but then again vengeance was his big thing, he didn't really have much of a plan for society as it seemed to me he just wanted social vengeance and all of the "city dwellers" and their sympathizers to die in the most horrible ways possible. Everything else was just rhetoric he had no abillity to put into place.
Basically, I'm pretty far down on the social totem pole (disabled, and honestly with what little I get for that I have serious concerns about the future and what happens to me when I can no longer live at home), but as far as theory goes I at least like the idea that a person who is smart enough, strong enough, or talented enough can rise from the bottom right to the top. The thing is though that out of any pool of people the number of people who are that good is extremely minimal compared to the masses who aren't that talented, and/or merely wish they were. Those people tend to wind up staying at the bottom, and well... any society is going to need all those people at the bottom to hold things together. Someone has to take out the trash, work the factories, grow the food, and carry heavy things from place to place.
The way I see things is that under the US concept of society your welcome to muse about communism. In most communist societies (like China) you muse about democracy and you might very well disappear during the night, or at the best are unlikely to be allowed to go outside of your home when the Olympics come around.
>>>----Therumancer--->
>>>----Therumancer--->
Nay, I believe it to be inefficient and the very reason the world is suffering a recession right now.
Thank you, Therumancer, for writing that which I personally lack the patience to write.Therumancer said:
As for the answer to the OP's question, "yay."
