|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|10-31-08 10:04 AM|
I agree, state sanctioned theft is not right, and that's exactly what the deriving of profit is.
Workers, through their work, make wealth. Bosses, through their (state-sanctioned) ownership of the means of production, take that wealth and return... oooh, lest say 10% to the workers. The other 90% is therefore stolen. The fact that the state says it's OK doesn't make a blind bit of difference.
But it does mean it's OUR money not THEIRS.
This is why co-operatives (companies where all workers take part in management and ownership, in other words workers without bosses) can work, but no-one ever set up a company composed of all bosses and no workers. Workers create wealth, bosses steal it, it's that simple. It's called "extraction of surplus value".
As Proudhoun said: "Property is theft". This is why we need to destroy capitalism and the state at the time.
Yes, I understand how economics works. Do you?
|10-31-08 02:12 AM|
|Son of mortarion||
Originally Posted by Red Orc View Post
Really? do yu really understand economics, because that isn't how it works. you are also advocating stealing from someone since they have more. Just because the theft is government-sanctioned, it still isn't right.
No the rich have no moral obligation to give the poor their money, that is precisely why society sees it a a respectable action. they have no obligation to do so, but do so anyways,
it is lazy to look to others for your money, even if it is ethically lazy to do so. very few people are truly unable to provide for themselves in the developed world, most simply do not want to do what is necessary.
|10-30-08 11:10 PM|
If by "Socialism" you mean "electing a social-democratic government" then it certainly can lead to fascism. Look at Chile. Allende was elected on social-democratic ticket, the CIA and the Chilean military overthrew his governmet, 3,000 plus people were murdered by the fascists. Same thing happened in Spain in 1936; republican government overthrown by the army backed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, leading to Franco's dictatorship. Fascist? It's a point one can quibble over. Authoritarian capitalist military dictatorship? Certainly.
On the other hand, I think Allende was a scumbag and a crook. I'm not glad he was murdered, and I'm certainly not glad thousands of others were murdered by the US and its fascist allies, but it wasn't all nice before Pinochet took over.
It doesn't lead to communism though, communism can only be brought about by a revolution. History has repeatedly demonstrated since 1870 that communism (or socialism) cannot be elected into power. "Socialist governments" are capitalist governments, because "socialist government" cannot exist. Socialism, as the end of states and classes, can only be brought about worldwide, without governments, countries or any other that unneccessary crap that retards the progress of the human race.
Even when communists have come to power, a capitalist dictatorship has rapidly re-asserted itself, such as Russia. Communism in one country is a nonsense - this is just "National Socialism" ie not socialism at all, it's national or state capitalism.
Communism and capitalism cannot exist at the same time. Communism (or socialism) can only exist once capitalism has been abolished. The disagreement between "communists" and "socialists" is effectively one of tactics; communists believe in the necessity of revolution, socialists belive that it is possible to conquer capitalism by seizing state power through elections. Both (claim to) seek to bring about a classless communal society.
And I'd like to say, the poor do deserve the money the rich have, as the rich made their money by ripping off the poor. Wealth distribution is a zero-sum game. One person has a lot because very many have nothing.
|10-30-08 10:47 PM|
Originally Posted by Son of mortarion View Post
You're forgetting that not everyone who requires money in a socialist state is a 'lazy jerk'. Do the people currently taking goverment aid because there is no work in their area lazy? Does somebody who can't work not deserve to live because they can't 'pull their weight for the greater good of capitalism'? Some people are lazy, some are genuinly downtrodden. Please remember that before making such a comment.
Yes, of coruse there will be different social ills, but the ones we have currently would disapate to some degree. If the balance came out for the better or worse, nobody can know.
People will always be bothered by somebody else living in 'better' conditions than they are. Be it money, enviroment, or whatever problem. This is not an ill of socialism, it is an ill of every form of goverment ever to exist, so the point is irrelevent. The only time this will be overridden is when people can choose their job and take and recieve pride for the job they do.
|10-30-08 09:25 PM|
|cccp||surely some of it boils down to a moral duty, if you have more money that you could ever spend, and there is a family starving in their house through no fault of their own, it would be the right thing to do to give them some money. the only dfference here is that it is taken from you by the government and given to them that way. obviously, there are limits on how much can be redistributed and how much you pay.|
|10-30-08 09:12 PM|
|Son of mortarion||why should they have to pay more? to say that the rich need to pay more in taxes is not far from saying that the poor deserve the money that the rich have. the rich should simply be required to pay all of their burden, not have it increased.|
|10-30-08 09:04 PM|
|cccp||but really, why should the rich pay less tax when there are no government controls stopping the poor from starving?|
|10-30-08 09:02 PM|
|Son of mortarion||
Originally Posted by General Panic View Post
|10-30-08 08:59 PM|
|General Panic||Socialism is (in a capitalist nation) simply the expenditure of public funds on public property, state ownership of key industries & services and tax relief and maybe some benefit payments for low-income families/individuals. At the cost of some extra taxes & controls on private enterprise and the rich....|
|10-30-08 07:15 PM|
|Son of mortarion||
Originally Posted by EndangeredHuman View Post
Socialism does promote mediocrity by discouraging excellence. Why would anyone work to make more money, if it was just going to be taken away so some lazy jerk could collect it. As for less poverty and socialills. Bull the primary effect is to make everyone poor, and new social ills would crop up. "My dispensation check isn't big enough" or the inequality of laboring for the same pay as the guy that works on a computer all day in an air-conditioned office.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|