Capitalism vs Socialism - Your View?

[Glen Quagmire]

Capitalism. Why should a doctor and someone who works in McDonalds get paid the same wage?

 

I may be wrong (n

[patiirc]

patdfb - the point being made is that the popular argument against socialism (that people are naturally selfish and unfettered capitalism naturally and inevitably leads to the best results for everyone) is bollocks, since corporate giving was utterly dwarfed by normal working people's desire to help their fellow man. I'd actually use the example of people sending five and ten dollar bills to help JYD when Michael Hayes blinded him as a better example, but it might go over the heads of a lot of people here, never mind in a mainstream publication. Who gave what and how much and blah blah blah is completely irrelevant. The point is that a lot of people are altruistic and aren't only out for themselves, never mind what the invisible hand might get up to. Your counter-argument is silly because it doesn't actually address the issue - companies didn't help. People did. Thus, Compassionate Socialism 1-0 Capitalism.

 

Kenny writes some stuff, doesnt make any sense, isnt justified and is on a par with the original article for bull shit.

 

Let's deconstruct or at least question the argument that is made

 

1.Prove that the 4.2 billion or whatever figure was wholly from normal working people. You cant, because it isnt broken down or disseminated at all. Thus glib assumption

 

2. So people sent money to JYD. What proportion put themselves below the poverty line or made an 'ultimate sacrifice'? Who sent 'chump change'? Transpose that to the Hurricane Katrina discussion. There isnt the figures that either confirm or deny this.. so to make an argum,ent confirming any position as gospel is bollocks.

 

3 How is who gave what and what effect that had on their incomes and lifestyles irrelevant? The author of David's article seems to think it was pretty fucking damn important. How come you can ignore questions related to it without proof confirming what is being said?

 

4. The point that people give has never been denied? In fact, in my last post it was the fucking opening statement that you couldnt dispute that. but if you want to some how argue it as silly go ahead? For those 'stupid, like wot i iz', please explain.

 

5. Companies didnt help? So $400 Million isnt enough? Do companies generally give to things unprompted? Was there a separate companies appeal to the prolonged media driven appeals specifically driven at individuals or like minded souls? Where was the company one? How do donations compare to other disasters say the recent oil spill or other problematic things? Whats the context of the donation? What is the comparative government donation? How is the donation measured? etc etc etc etc

 

6 Why is this 1-0 to anyone? Politicising when there is no need again? @Look us socialists are ace and capitalism is shit!' We get it. Its mentioned lots of the time. The record never changes nor do the blank arguments for it As I mentioned before .. take the politics out of something like this. But hey why change things when you can shout 'loser or what ever' ffs. Peoples suffering by a natural disaster is a political situation to score points off the way that capitalism sucks? Yeah bollocks is it. Socialism that out of my arse.

 

 

(I must note Iam slightly tiddled but fucking hell some drivel coming out of the socialist sides at the moment. Iam not even saying I agree or disagree with anyone's system. Its just when the argument or discussion is full of holes and is easily picked apart, then you know that there are issues.)

[Tommy!]

Capitalism. Why should a doctor and someone who works in McDonalds get paid the same wage?

 

I may be wrong (n

[Glen Quagmire]

(I must note Iam slightly tiddled but fucking hell some drivel coming out of the socialist sides at the moment. Iam not even saying I agree or disagree with anyone's system. Its just when the argument or discussion is full of holes and is easily picked apart, then you know that there are issues.)

Unless I'm unblocked then you won't see this reply, but there are plenty of arguments on pretty much all sides that can be "de-constructed" depending on the language and structure of not only whoever writes it, but also whoever makes a critique. What I look for in a written piece is strong fact and empirical evidence along with a view that is not unipolar, if it isn't it's more likely to be a PR powder puff piece and too many "news" outlets are only too happy to parrot it. This is why I loathe the way the media is going in much of the Anglo-centric world, it that is now less encourages people to make up their own minds objectively and instead bombards them with subtle thought mechanisms to pull their objectivity and emotions either one way or another.

[Tommy!]

Again I'm no expert, but I don't think I would want to live in a pure capitalist or socialist state. A little of both sounds grand, regulated in part by the changing social situation.

[Glen Quagmire]

Capitalism. Why should a doctor and someone who works in McDonalds get paid the same wage?

 

I may be wrong (n

[Tommy!]

There is no right answer, but the example given by Mr. Seven is a very lazy and stereotypical one. It may surprise some people, but the Soviet Union did use a lot of financial incentives to get people into certain occupational areas and bonuses awarded on successful project completions, one of the most notorious being that aimed at engineers at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant to finish "that" reactor work on time. Unfortunately, they cut corners doing so and I reckon you know the rest...

 

When I was in Cuba one guide said that to encourage people into certain jobs where there was a high demand they would be excluded from military service or other similar perks.

I have to say it was an amazing place to see.

[David]

I may be wrong (n

[Tommy!]

I may be wrong (n

[Happ Hazzard]

There can never be pure socialism. It goes against human nature. At least under capitalism things are open and honest. Socialism just produces hopelessness as people are unable to better themselves through hard work or entrepreneurism.

[Tommy!]

There can never be pure socialism. It goes against human nature. At least under capitalism things are open and honest. Socialism just produces hopelessness as people are unable to better themselves through hard work or entrepreneurism.

 

I wouldn't go that far myself.

 

Any way can you explain why no one could better themselves under socialism, would hard work not allow progression still to personal goals or growth. Even to better roles or money, I don't know but I don't think there's a rule that says if you worked hard in a socialist state you couldn't justly earn more money, it just that that some of that wealth would be justly spread to ensure a suitable base line and state investment. This is how I understand it, where am I wrong there if I may ask.

[Steveo2007]

There can never be pure socialism. It goes against human nature. At least under capitalism things are open and honest. Socialism just produces hopelessness as people are unable to better themselves through hard work or entrepreneurism.

This. But I think there's more to it than that. I don't think any system should be purely a socialist type system as there should always be capitalist elements to everything, such as private schools, private health care and so on. Socialist systems seem to approach the idea that, rather than have goals which can only be reached through hard work and being the best, they want to lower the standards of a particular target just so nobody misses out. A capitalist system broaches the idea that, if you work hard, you're rewarded for it. There are, of course, arguments which may be made about nepotism, rich families and so on, but the general principle is the same. If you push hard enough, you will succeed.

 

I think there can be a perfect balance between socialism and capitalism which provides people with the rewards they deserve through the hard work and those who don't work as hard don't get rewarded, while at the same time providing the basic platform which would allow those born into poorer families to get themselves onto the ladder so that they may work towards an aspiration, such as good public education system.

[tom]

a tax system skewed in favour of heavier (both in real terms and proportionately) taxes on the rich.

This always intrigues me; why do you need both?, as obviously, for example we'll say, 30% of a rich man's income is going to be a lot more than that of a poor man's income, so thus the rich man's higher earnings is taken into account with a proportion based system. The only issue is once you go down to a low enough level of poverty taking that money from the person is going to have a much bigger impact on their lives than taking it from a rich man; but in that case, you just simply don't tax those below a certain level of income.

[David]

There can never be pure socialism. It goes against human nature.

It goes against human nature? In that case, would you say that Capitalism sits harmoniously with human nature?

 

At least under capitalism things are open and honest.

Are you being serious there? There are far too many examples of the corruption that Capitalism spawns to even begin to go into them.

 

Socialism just produces hopelessness as people are unable to better themselves through hard work or entrepreneurism.

How so? You'll have to give me a little more detail on how someone can't better themselves under a Socialist system.

[Yoghurt]

Just be glad this clearly isn't the case [the poll results up to now] with Socialist Worker stands getting laughed at in the streets. Don't ever think these people have any majority of any kind, they're a downtrodden minority for all the right reasons.