|
| Thread: Why is socialism so prevalent in online communities? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Blizz, capitalism isn't misconceived as selfish. It IS selfish.
Incorrect, capitalism is inherently neutral in terms of "selfishness". A person is within their rights to donate every last coin to charity if they feel so inclined, although they could do far more for the country in the long term by investing.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:20 AM |
|
|
Natural selection is selfish and inefficient dude.
Also, if a capitalist doesn't donate to charity, he DOES affect the others -- he isn't neutral. Take Microsoft -- small software businesses get ruled out because of it if they do the same products, so it DOES affect the others.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Natural selection is selfish and inefficient dude.
How is it selfish to allow people to gain according to what they invested in? That's not selfish, that's pretty straightforward.
Quote:
Also, if a capitalist doesn't donate to charity, he DOES affect the others -- he isn't neutral. Take Microsoft -- small software businesses get ruled out because of it if they do the same products, so it DOES affect the others.
There's a difference between capitalism and anarcho-capitalism where you completely let private investors and companies off the hook to do absolutely anything. When we speak about socialism, we don't automatically defer to the Soviet Union, so when we speak about capitalism, it isn't fair to automatically defer to anarcho-capitalism.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:24 AM |
|
|
Not doing anything for others is the sheer definition of selfishness.
And the capitalist system does nothing for anyone. So it is selfish.
Simple as that.
But this is getting off topic.
I think the original issue has been pretty much gone through. People are young most often. Jackasses often get the boot from sites. And educated people tend to prefer the humane way. Anything else?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Not doing anything for others is the sheer definition of selfishness.
And the capitalist system does nothing for anyone. So it is selfish.
Simple as that.
Your definition is incorrect, so no, it's not selfish. There is nothing stated in the principles of capitalism that says "do everything for yourself".
Quote:
I think the original issue has been pretty much gone through. People are young most often. Jackasses often get the boot from sites. And educated people tend to prefer the humane way. Anything else?
I'm not the one being insulting. Although as a Finn, you are from one of the heaviest leftist propaganda regions in the world, so I sympathize with your situation and won't hold it against you.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:32 AM |
|
|
Selfish=not doing anything for others
Capitalism=not oding anything for others
Capitalism=/=selfish???
"I'm not the one being insulting." And that added to that list, how exactly?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Selfish=not doing anything for others
Capitalism=not oding anything for others
Capitalism=/=selfish???
Yes, that's right, because the middle sentence is wrong.
Quote:
"I'm not the one being insulting." And that added to that list, how exactly?
You were talking about how economic authoritarianism (leftism) was humane, and economic liberalism (rightism) was inhumane, and I thought it was odd that you were being highly prejudice and insulting in the process by calling us jackasses. But again, you pretty much only hear one side of the story from the time you are born till the time you die, so your resentment is expected and I forgive you for it.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:41 AM |
|
|
I saw you edited. I didn't insult you in anyway, you misunderstood me. I meant that jackasses are often capitalist. Not the other way around. And since jackasses often get banned that means less capitalists in the forums.
And actually finland is going under higly rightish propaganda state now. They are trying to bury all the leftist ideas under huge wave of propaganda.
I need you to explain yourself why is capitalism doing something for others?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I saw you edited. I didn't insult you in anyway, you misunderstood me. I meant that jackasses are often capitalist. Not the other way around. And since jackasses often get banned that means less capitalists in the forums.
And actually finland is going under higly rightish propaganda state now. They are trying to bury all the leftist ideas under huge wave of propaganda.
I need you to explain yourself why is capitalism doing something for others?
This will be my last post for today since I didn't want to get wrapped up in a political discussion thread while the turkey downstairs is cooking  We can talk more tomorrow though.
@ your last paragraph: "Capitalism" is an economic philosophy, and it doesn't do anything for or against people. It's a concept. People that are pro-capitalism are perfectly able to be humanitarian and beneficial people, and many of them are. Capitalism simply means that goods are traded and operated by private entities rather than by a government.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 12:58 AM |
|
|
"it doesn't do anything for or against people." You said it yourself. It does not do anything for people. That equals selfish.
And again I have not said capitalists are necessarily selfish or uncapable of humane actions. The system doesn't equal people.
Too many posts about things that are copmpletely irrelevant to the thread and in the end it was all about misunderstandings. 
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 01:01 AM |
|
|
Joonas:
Thanks for the Finnish democracy lessons. 
Quote:
You have no sympathy of whatsoever against the unlucky in life.
If I give to charity, but don't want to force others to, then I'm a jackass?  If I want to help the poor by giving them the opportunity to rise, then I'm a jackass? You don't make things better by dragging down the rich but by lifting up the poor.
And now I see what you're referring to as "jackass". I personally prefer the term "conservatroll".
Quote:
Not doing anything for others is the sheer definition of selfishness.
No, selfishness = caring only about the self. That doesn't mean that you don't do anything for others.
Quote:
I need you to explain yourself why is capitalism doing something for others?
At its very core, capitalism is based on the principle of voluntary exchange. Thus, even a totally selfish person's (one that doesn't even care about emotional benefits) actions do something for others. It doesn't matter if I care about others or not, if I am a farmer and you are a blacksmith, it is to my advantage to trade my wheat for your tools. So I would be doing something for you, even though I don't care about you at all except about how you benefit me materially. Capitalism is fundamentally based on doing something for others. I'd like to see someone succeed in business while completely not caring about what somebody wants.
So, in this regard, here's the difference between capitalism and socialism. Under capitalism, if you don't care about what others want, then you probably won't do very well. Under socialism, if you don't care about others, then either the state will give you everybody else's money, or it will come and kill you.
TheDeath:
If Communism is so stateless, then why did Marx advocate statism?
Quote:
mvass will never get it -- he thinks that the "unlucky" people deserve only public education and police, but in other areas (MUCH more critical to become a millionaire for example) they can't be unlucky, just lazy, in his opinion
Wrong, as usual. Everybody deserves education and police, of course. But I freely admit that not everyone can be a millionaire. But to take away the possibility of becoming a millionaire - not to mention the ability to move into the middle class - that, to me, is wrong. I admit that not everyone can be upper-class, even if they're not lazy, but anyone who is not lazy may move into the middle class, if there's education available.
Also, natural selection may be selfish, but it isn't inefficient. It's the most efficient system.
Blizzardboy:
You are entirely correct.
All three:
But this is really not what this thread is about. It's not about capitalism and socialism but about each's supporters.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 01:15 AM |
|
Edited by JoonasTo at 01:19, 26 Dec 2008.
|
No problem.
"If I give to charity, but don't want to force others to, then I'm a jackass?" That wasn't exactly your view before...
It was more like, those lazy punks got no right to have anything!
Oh he lsot his leg in a car accident? And he was a timber? Well too bad for him, he should go and learn how to be a secretary!
At least that's what I got. Or maybe you have improved?
In capitalism everything about caring other's is left for the invidual to decide. In socialism it is al ready taken care of by the state. Even if one does not care for others they still help them because they must. This is what makes the difference. Socialism provides even for those who can't afford. So socialism is unselfish philosophy and capitalism is selfish philosophy.
Capitalist does business because he cares about others? You must know better Mvass. Capitalist only does something because he wants something himself. This is selfish. If he gave away for free for those in needs then he would be unselfish. But then it is socialist act not capitalist.
I should note here that those who become millionaire are mostly that because of luck not hard-work. Sure hard-work plays a role but with it alone that is hardly ever possible. They happened to be born to a rich family, got a good opportunity, were born gifted etc. Most hard-working people are not millionaires and there are a lot of lazy millionaire's.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 01:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That wasn't exactly your view before...
It was more like, those lazy punks got no right to have anything!
That is my view. They have no right to have anything. But I can still be nice and give something to them. If I am nice and place a high value on emotional benefits, then I will help the poor. But I will never ever force anybody else to help them.
I don't mind spending some money to help the poor. But I do mind being forced to - which is what socialism is about.
Quote:
Even if one does not care for others they still help them because they must.
And this is morally wrong. People shouldn't be forced do anything.
Quote:
Capitalist does business because he cares about others?
No, that's not what I said. I said that if a capitalist wants to do business, he has to care about others in order to succeed. If I were to start a business that manufactures extremely tiny cars that get 1 mile per gallon and are painted purple, I'm not going to succeed. I have to care about what other people want in order to do so.
But this isn't what this topic is supposed to be about!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 01:37 AM |
|
|
So what if those lazy punks just got unlucky? The factory got closed and they don't have anything else? They still don't deserve anything?
So you still prefer anarchy? Were you ever beaten in school? Did you deserve it? Did you like it? Do you want to be beaten again? Thought so.
Capitalist does not have to care about other people. He has to care about what other people want. There's a big difference.
And I don't have anything on topic to add. But I'd be happy to see and discuss if someone still has something.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 02:09 AM |
|
|
I don't know anything about the given subject to be honest, but...
"capitalism's inherent vice is the unequal sharing of blessings, socialism's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 04:08 AM |
|
|
Joonas:
Quote:
So what if those lazy punks just got unlucky? The factory got closed and they don't have anything else?
Obviously, there's a role for government here - but the role is not to prevent them from losing their jobs, but to help them get new ones. There should be retraining, education, etc. for workers that have lost their jobs because of such things. This would be a far more productive action than, say, protectionism. And there shouldn't be incentives for them to just sit on the social net.
Quote:
So you still prefer anarchy?
When did I say that?
Quote:
Were you ever beaten in school?
No.
Quote:
Capitalist does not have to care about other people. He has to care about what other people want.
Who cares, as long as the end result is good for the people? I'd rather have a guy that hates me give me a thousand dollars than to have a guy that likes me give me a cent. This is, incidentally, one of the great benefits of capitalism - it fights discrimination of all kinds by making it unprofitable.
Dagoth:
Well, may I recommend you some books about economics?
Freakonomics - a lighthearted look at economics. Doesn't really dig into theory, but shows why economics is cool. No adherence to any particular school of economics.
Naked Economics - the book that got me into economics in the first place. Great book - light reading, but very informative. Written from the left wing of the neoclassical school of economics. Though I still agree with 95% of this book's ideas, there are a few things I disagree with after studying economics a little bit more.
Economics for Real People - an excellent introduction to the Austrian school of economics. Not quite as easy to read as Naked Economics, and has a few significant things I disagree with, but is nevertheless very much worth reading. But if you read this, read it after Naked Economics.
Capitalism and Freedom - an excellent book by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, founder of the Chicago school of economics. Pretty good book, and I agree with most of the things he says in it. Though there are a few mistakes, IMO.
The Communist Manifesto - Everyone knows what this is, of course. After reading all of the others, read this one for the lulz. It has historical value, and makes a few interesting points about several things, but is mostly nonsense.
The following books I have not read, but are classics, and should be read. I should get to reading them when I find the time.
The Wealth of Nations - the classic of classics. The foundation of Classical economics. One problem, though: it's hard to read, being written in the typical style of the time. Some of the things in it are antiquated, but the majority still holds true. I did try to read it, but found it too boring.
Das Kapital - Marx's famous and extremely long work on economics. It's a lengthy work that attempts to describe and criticize classical economics. It's three volumes long.
Principles of Economics - not to be confused with the economics textbook by Gregory Mankiw (which I hear is also pretty good), Marshall's book lays the foundation of neoclassical economics. Very influential in its time, and in recent times its ideas have experienced quite a renaissance.
General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money - John Maynard Keynes's famous work laid down the principles of Keynesian economics. Though I've heard it's not easy reading, and few accept all of Keynes's ideas, they have certainly been influential and experience a revival from time to time.
Human Action and Man, Economy, and State - I'm putting these two together because they're both fundamental works of the Austrian school. Human Action is a more philosophical book, while Man, Economy, and State is more focused on economics, and advocates anarcho-capitalism. Obviously, these books contain all the aspects - positive as well as negative - of Austrian economics.
Evolutionary Socialism - the foundation of modern social democracy. Argues that socialism can be achieved by gradual democratic means, and that it is not necessary to cast off capitalism all at once.
I would advise you to read them in the order that I put them.
As for the various schools of economics, here are the main ones, from what would be considered left-wing to right-wing.
Marxism. Everyone knows (or should know) what it is. Says that the working class is being exploited, class struggle, labor theory of value, socialism, etc. For obvious reasons, less popular than it once was.
Mercantilism. Protectionism, unchanging volume of global trade, actual support for economic oppression. (To me, it actually sounds a lot like socialism )
Keynesianism. Says that government spending and extensive regulation and taxation can be used to fine-tune the economy and establish full employment. Though Keynesianism as a whole is no longer popular, many of its ideas are now part of newer schools of economics.
New Keynesianism. Basically, it's like Keynesianism, but with less enthusiasm about regulations (though they admit that they are quite necessary in many cases), taxation, and government spending. The key idea is price stickiness - that prices do not immediately respond to changes in supply or demand.
Neoclassical economics. Marginalist subjective theory of value, minimal (but absolutely necessary) regulations, etc. Dominant school before Keynesianism replaced it.
Classical economics. The school from which the other schools - except for Marxism - gradually developed. Limited but necessary regulation, gold standard, labor theory of value, etc.
Chicago School. Favors even less regulation than the neoclassical school. Marginalist subjective theory of value, monetarism, set rate of inflation, etc.
Austrian school. Favors no regulations at all. Limited or no government, free banking which would result in a commodity standard, marginalist subjective theory of value, etc.
Today, mainstream economics is a combination of New Keynesianism, neoclassical economics, the Chicago School, and a bit of the Austrian School. Of course, different economists lean more towards the ideas of one school than the others, but most combine at least some of the ideas from these four schools.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 04:17 AM |
|
|
actually, a change of literature is something that I might enjoy ^^
(honestly, never ever read 'the sorrow of Belgium' in a week. It hurts your brain...) and I always try to learn more about the world to get a headstart on my peers euhmm... Smarter.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 04:52 AM |
|
|
I looked it up... doesn't look that interesting.
Those books above (at least, the ones I've read) are pretty good, though.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 08:36 AM |
|
|
Community --> Communism --> Socialism
I think the connection between being liberal how much brain you have is a bit....childish. The problem about capitalism, which is in my eyes the main problem of the US, is the egoistic part of it. Everyone has his OWN rights, possibilities, wealth and such in his mind. No one cares about others (just ask your health insurance companies how they care about the poeple, ask your bankers how they care about the people, etc...). Everyone wants to make money out of everything. And everyone thinks he can build his live on debts, because he will for sure find a way to make money in future...many people even built their whole life on the idea the value of their house will raise enormously, because it always did. We all could/can see the result nowadays.
And about the example of the homeless...
In europe (at least in central and northern europe), there aren't many homeless people BECAUSE of the social system. Let's take a look at New York....Bronx.... I don't see this "Let's help this guy and look why he became such a poor guy and then we will fix the problem" attitude. Why is it? Because there is no profit!
Profit is the problem...Shareholder value...not liberalism.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 26, 2008 11:06 AM |
|
|
Of course there is retraining for them, but they have to live and eat while being retrained also. Some form of help is necessary. Since we live in a capitalist society they can't live for free. This is where the point about caring the person or just the profit he makes from his wants and needs because the end is different if the person cares about the other or just himself. You see if the person cared for the other, he would give him for free or with the prise of what it took for him to get that. But when he cares for the profit he won't be giving it for free even for those in need who can't pay. And you say who cares about the difference? I think everyone should.
By not forcing anyone to do anything means anarchy. Not forcing anyone to follow the laws you see. And that beating was relevant to the anarchy issue. If you prefer anarchy(not forcing anyone to do anything) then you might as well get beaten. You wouldn't like that now would you?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
| |
|
|
