Capitalism- Inherently bad or grossly misunderstood?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

The practical experience isnīt _proof_ of anything. But theoretically we can take it as a given that unlimited abundance is not a potential source of equality, because such abundance will never come.

Amazing. Simply amazing. Real-life data isn't proof, but theory is better ?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Not a crime. Simply a limit where taxation goes from x% to 100%, for the part exceeding the limit.

And when this policy is put into practice, it generally results in productive, successful people shifting their past-the-limit productivity to black markets or foreign markets, where their productive, successful efforts aren't 100% stripped away from them.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by theprestige

And when this policy is put into practice, it generally results in productive, successful people shifting their past-the-limit productivity to black markets or foreign markets, where their productive, successful efforts aren't 100% stripped away from them.

Could apply to those who donīt have a Socialist view on economy. But these are expected not to choose Socialism in the first place, so they would not be participating in this scenario.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Real-life data isn't proof, but theory is better ?

You try to make generalized conclusions based on limited data, which you would not accept in any other topic than this.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

So there is punishment, but no crime?

If taxation = punishment, you are being punished every day by your government.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

When the government has total control over your internet access?

Not them, remember the separation of powers.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Could apply to those who donīt have a Socialist view on economy. But these are expected not to choose Socialism in the first place, so they would not be participating in this scenario.

No-one would, that's the point. Or at least, no-one productive. That's one of hundreds of reasons why your scenario is doomed from the start.

Quote:

You try to make generalized conclusions based on limited data, which you would not accept in any other topic than this.

And you are trying to make generalised conclusions that contradict unlimited data.

Quote:

If taxation = punishment, you are being punished every day by your government.

My government doesn't impose 100% taxation. If they did, I'd leave.

Quote:

Not them, remember the separation of powers.

Ah, yes, your magical handwavy solution to every failure.

And who enforces the separation of powers? And who enforces them?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

You try to make generalized conclusions based on limited data, which you would not accept in any other topic than this.

Correction: an informed yet provisional conclusion based on ALL the available data. You're making generalized conclusions based on theory and NO data. Don't you think it's a bit weird ?

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Belz...

an informed yet provisional conclusion based on ALL the available data.

Not true.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

No-one would, that's the point. Or at least, no-one productive.

Not true.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

And who enforces the separation of powers? And who enforces them?

Ultimately, every country needs an army that refrains from staging a coup dīetat. As long as you have this, you are able to enforce whatever you need.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Not true.

Argument by assertion.

It's a FACT that all communist states have either failed or have strayed from the original form.

What evidence do you have to counter this ?

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Argument by assertion.

By your line of thought, nobody should have campaigned against racism, patriarchalism, colonialism, slavery or monarch dictators, because [insert your anti-Socialist argumentation here].

Originally Posted by Belz...

It's a FACT that all communist states have either failed or have strayed from the original form.

What evidence do you have to counter this ?

Strayed from the original form, yes.

Failed -- then how some of them still exist?

Even if they had failed, which is not actually true, it would not be evidence of what possibilities a future attempt can have, by different leaders and/or with a different people.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Not true.

My evidence is that people flee from communist states even at risk to their lives.

Quote:

Ultimately, every country needs an army that refrains from staging a coup dīetat. As long as you have this, you are able to enforce whatever you need.

Which is why socialism is not only unworkable, but actually evil.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

By your line of thought, nobody should have campaigned against racism, patriarchalism, colonialism, slavery or monarch dictators, because [insert your anti-Socialist argumentation here].

I would you like you to explain to me what "line of thought" leads you to that conclusion. I suspect you can't.

Quote:

Strayed from the original form, yes.

Failed -- then how some of them still exist?

Pretty much one, though it's debatable if even Cuba's a communist state, now.

Quote:

Even if they had failed, which is not actually true, it would not be evidence of what possibilities a future attempt can have, by different leaders and/or with a different people.

Actually, the past is evidence of the future. Perhaps you've heard of something called science, in which we make observations, theories, tests and predictions based on those observations ?

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

My evidence is that people flee from communist states even at risk to their lives.

Only a minority of citizens of any country report a willingness to move abroad, such polls and international comparisons are actually being done.

I say that some people want Capitalism, some Socialism. You say that nobody wants Socialism. Me right, you wrong.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Which is why socialism is not only unworkable, but actually evil.

A conclusion based on false premises is not a valid conclusion at all.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Actually, the past is evidence of the future. Perhaps you've heard of something called science, in which we make observations, theories, tests and predictions based on those observations ?

Yes. And science does not restrict the future by the past. An aeroplane is possible if it is possible, regardless of if somebody invented it before or not. Restrictions of what is possible are naturalistic, not historical.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Only a minority of citizens of any country report a willingness to move abroad, such polls and international comparisons are actually being done.

I say that some people want Capitalism, some Socialism. You say that nobody wants Socialism. Me right, you wrong.

No-one risks their life to flee capitalism. No-one needs to, because you can, by definition, just walk away.

Socialism, not so much.

And anyway, no, I did not say that. I said that, to a first order, no-one with money or useful skills wants socialism. The remainder that want it don't understand it, and will attempt to flee after it is implemented and fails.

Quote:

A conclusion based on false premises is not a valid conclusion at all.

Well, don't do that then.

Quote:

Yes. And science does not restrict the future by the past.

It predicts the future by the past, and it works.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Yes. And science does not restrict the future by the past. An aeroplane is possible if it is possible, regardless of if somebody invented it before or not. Restrictions of what is possible are naturalistic, not historical.

Uh-huh. The aeroplane, however, is only possible if the physics for flying are there beforehand.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Belz...

The aeroplane, however, is only possible if the physics for flying are there beforehand.

You are planning to argue that the physics for state ownership of companies does not exist? Look around... every state owns companies, some more, some fewer.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

No-one risks their life to flee capitalism (...) you can, by definition, just walk away.

You are in serious need of a quiz: how many persons annually drown, or otherwise die, while trying to migrate from a Capitalist country to another?

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

no-one with money or useful skills wants socialism.

This addition does not make your claim less false. Give up, this what you are claiming is nowhere near the truth, not in the real world outside of your own imagination.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

You are planning to argue that the physics for state ownership of companies does not exist?

You know, I'm getting tired of people who can't remember a conversation as far back as two posts ago.

ME: All previous communist states have failed.
YOU: That doesn't mean that a future TRUE communist state will fail.
ME: That's how science works, predicting the future by looking at the past.
YOU: Planes didn't exist before they were made.
ME: Yeah but the physics did.
YOU: Are you arguing that communism is physically impossible ????

Again:

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Belz...

ME: That's how science works, predicting the future by looking at the past.

Wrong.

Science works by examining how the laws of nature work, and what is naturalistically possible. Your claim that Socialism is impossible is not a scientific claim, it is simply your subjective opinion, nothing to do with science.

If a science _predicts_ something about the society, weather, or whatever, they tell that they are _predicting_ with a degree of uncertainty. Your self-claimed degree of 100% certainty is simply unscientific hogwash.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

This addition does not make your claim less false. Give up, this what you are claiming is nowhere near the truth, not in the real world outside of your own imagination.

Don't know if you've been in a coma for the last 20 years but it's true. Pixy is right and you're wrong. Socialism is dead. It's a loser's ideology.

The socialist economic model collapsed with the Berlin Wall. What happened after that was historically unprecedented: Countries like South Korea jumped from third to first world in 20 years. China and India followed suit. The stupid left could only look on horror. They were finished. The economic system they hated just became the most successful idea in human history.

Nobody believes in socialism anymore. Even most socialist parties in Europe were forced to drop it and accept that the private sector was where real, long-term wealth was created.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

You are in serious need of a quiz: how many persons annually drown, or otherwise die, while trying to migrate from a Capitalist country to another?

I don't know at this point whether you are truly that clueless or simply dishonest.

The correct question is, how many persons are annually drowned, or otherwise killed, by their own governments, while trying to migrate from a capitalist country to another?

And secondarily, how many people remain in their home countries only out of fear of their own government?

Quote:

This addition does not make your claim less false.

Since it's not false to begin with.... Correct.

Quote:

Give up, this what you are claiming is nowhere near the truth, not in the real world outside of your own imagination.

I point you to a real world with zero successful communist states.

There are people who want - or claim to want - a communist state. I don't deny this.

But since it has been established that communist states do not and cannot work, and indeed, have directly resulted in some of the worst atrocities in human history, those people are either unable to function in the real world, or simply ignorant.

If you want to live under socialism, join a kibbutz. That's as close as you will ever get to a functional socialist state, for several reasons: They're small - barely village-sized rather than nation-states; historically adaptive rather than ideologically driven; internally co-operative rather than coercive; externally competitive; and exist within a larger capitalist state that provides goods and services they can't produce themselves, as well as a social safety net.

The only successful socialist model in the world works in precisely the opposite way to what you are proposing.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Wrong.

No, he's entirely right. It's inductive logic.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

The correct question is, how many persons are annually drowned, or otherwise killed, by their own governments

Highlighted the legal loophole through which the government of USA claims to be better than other killer governments. They donīt torture or kill _their own people_, nor inside the teritory of USA proper (excluding military bases and international prisoner flights etc. etc. etc. -- you know, it is always good for a good government to have some legal loopholes for doing evil).

No, that was not the correct question. If a government tortures or kills, then it is a torturer and killer government. No matter if the targets are their own citizens or not. And if a government causes deaths by wilful negligence in aforeseeable circumstances, they cause deaths, period.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

I point you to a real world with zero successful communist states.

Define "success".

Is reaching your "success" the universal and obligatory purpose of life? Says which religion?

If any Capitalist countries exist, which do not meet your criteria for "success", what is that evidence of?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Science works by examining how the laws of nature work, and what is naturalistically possible.

Ergo, past obervations.

Quote:

Your claim that Socialism is impossible is not a scientific claim, it is simply your subjective opinion, nothing to do with science.

Really ? EVERY socialist state HAS FAILED, JJM. Every single one of them. That is an observation of the results of your theory. YOU are the one who is unscientific by claiming that, somehow, some future socialist state might work, even though all the past ones didn't.

Quote:

Your self-claimed degree of 100% certainty is simply unscientific hogwash.

And your reading comprehention is poor, since I never said I was 100% certain. Or is it a made up lie ?

[Virus]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Define "success".

Socialism would have to be superior to free markets to warrant a change. By any metric you want to use, socialist economies were inferior and could never achieve the astounding success that free markets have.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Highlighted the legal loophole through which the government of USA claims to be better than other killer governments. They donīt torture or kill _their own people_, nor inside the teritory of USA proper (excluding military bases and international prisoner flights etc. etc. etc. -- you know, it is always good for a good government to have some legal loopholes for doing evil).

Wow. You really see everything through your ideological filters, don't you? Questions and answers alike distorted out of all recognition.

Communist countries fence their own people in and kill them if they try to escape.

Capitalist countries don't.

It's not complicated.

Quote:

Define "success".

Not murdering tens of millions of your own citizens is a start.

Not condemning them to live in entirely unnecessary misery and squalor is next.

Delivering goods and services with reasonably close to equal efficiency to other, competing systems is the goal.

Quote:

Is reaching your "success" the universal and obligatory purpose of life?

Yes, of course.

Quote:

Says which religion?

No religion, just evolution. If you can't compete, you go extinct.

Quote:

If any Capitalist countries exist, which do not meet your criteria for "success", what is that evidence of?

Socialist parasitism is a common one. (Greece is a good current example of this, though that's not the only factor at work there.)

But no-one ever said that capitalist states always succeed, just that communist states always fail - and that, critically, you can leave a failing capitalist state.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Belz...

EVERY socialist state HAS FAILED

Would you tell your parrot to step away from the keyboard for a while. This has been repeated many times afore: some Socialist countries still exist, and you havenīt defined "failed" and why your measure of "failed" should be a universal measure.

Originally Posted by Belz...

YOU are the one who is unscientific by claiming that, somehow, some future socialist state might work, even though all the past ones didn't.

Theoretically they might work even if run in the same style as before. That is not an impossibility. But I talk about running them in different style than has been done before, and that pulls the carpet from under your references to history: no previous examples of the same exist.

Originally Posted by Virus

Socialism would have to be superior to free markets to warrant a change.

Socialism needs to promise a dream that is not coming true in Capitalism. Not everyone is having a merry time in Capitalism, not even in places as wealthy as USA.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Communist countries fence their own people in and kill them if they try to escape.

Capitalist countries don't.

It's not complicated.

Many Capitalist countries fence themselves in and kill any immigrant trying to enter. It is a tad more complicated than you say.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Theoretically they might work even if run in the same style as before. That is not an impossibility. But I talk about running them in different style than has been done before, and that pulls the carpet from under your references to history: no previous examples of the same exist.

No you aren't. Your sketch was pretty much the economy of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. You can't admit it because you don't want to.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Many Capitalist countries fence themselves in and kill any immigrant trying to enter. It is a tad more complicated than you say.

First, that's a blatant and ridiculous lie. Second, they don't shoot people trying to leave.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

they don't shoot people trying to leave.

I donīt either, and if you donīt, then the issue is OT.

Originally Posted by Virus

No you aren't. Your sketch was pretty much the economy of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. You can't admit it because you don't want to.

Round we go. You have presented this claim afore, and I have mentioned major differences: decision-making power in the hands of people, not an elite of dictators. Participation of those only whose political will is to participate, nobody fenced in or forced to join.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

This has been repeated many times afore

It's not my fault if you don't listen.

Quote:

some Socialist countries still exist

You said there weren't any. Which is it ?

Quote:

and you havenīt defined "failed" and why your measure of "failed" should be a universal measure.

That makes no sense, but I suspect it means you know we're right, but can't admit it, so you're stooping to semantics.

Quote:

Theoretically they might work even if run in the same style as before. That is not an impossibility. But I talk about running them in different style than has been done before, and that pulls the carpet from under your references to history: no previous examples of the same exist.

No, it's been quite clear that your "style" is the same we've seen before, and we've explained to you why that doesn't work. We've explained all this to you. Your continued denial is simple willful ignorance.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

I donīt either, and if you donīt, then the issue is OT.

Communist nations do.

Quote:

Round we go. You have presented this claim afore, and I have mentioned major differences: decision-making power in the hands of people, not an elite of dictators. Participation of those only whose political will is to participate, nobody fenced in or forced to join.

Do you really think that the Bolsheviks set out to create a dysfunctional police state under a murderous dictator?

No. That's just the inevitable outcome of communism.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

I donīt either, and if you donīt, then the issue is OT.

And anyway, why the blatant and ridiculous lie?

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Communist nations do.

So they are doing it wrong. (Wait, did I say this 10 pages earlier.)

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Do you really think that the Bolsheviks set out to create a dysfunctional police state under a murderous dictator?

No. That's just the inevitable outcome of communism.

Bolsheviks set out to create a dictatorship. The obvious outcome of such an effort is that a dictatorship is created. That it would become murderous was not the original plan, it was a lesson learned too late.

Until Marx and Lenin, the Socialist doctrine was that all they have to do is found a dictatorship of the working class, the rest will take care of itself. When this was done for the first time in USSR, Lenin and Trotsky noticed the problems and risks of centralized power, as it started happening. Too late, Stalin in, and everyone else soon with a bullet in the head.

The Socialism of 20th century was full of grand mistakes to learn from. It proves that the committed mistakes lead to a disaster, but proves nothing about what avoiding the mistakes would lead to.

Originally Posted by Belz...

You said there weren't any. Which is it ?

Numerous dictatorships existed, and if Socialists imagined that that is the correct way to form a state, now they know that it is not.

In this thread I have been speaking for non-dictatorial Socialism, such states have not existed.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

So they are doing it wrong. (Wait, did I say this 10 pages earlier.)

That presupposes there is way of doing it right. We have ample evidence that this is not true.

They were doing it right. That's just what happens.

Quote:

Bolsheviks set out to create a dictatorship.

[citation needed]

Quote:

Until Marx and Lenin, the Socialist doctrine was that all they have to do is found a dictatorship of the working class, the rest will take care of itself.

And that is precisely what you are proposing.

Quote:

When this was done for the first time in USSR, Lenin and Trotsky noticed the problems and risks of centralized power, as it started happening.

Lenin "noticed" the problems and risks of centralised power?

Quote:

The Socialism of 20th century was full of grand mistakes to learn from.

Yes, and the lesson is: Don't do that.

Quote:

Numerous dictatorships existed, and if Socialists imagined that that is the correct way to form a state, now they know that it is not.

The Berlin Wall went up more than 50 years ago, at which point it was obvious to every rational being that communism was a disaster.

Since then, no-one anywhere has been able to produce a functional socialist state.

Quote:

In this thread I have been speaking for non-dictatorial Socialism, such states have not existed.

Exactly.

[Virus]

It goes round-and-round because you don't understand the free market objection to socialism and you don't understand why socialist economies underperformed compared to capitalist ones. You think it's because there were no elections. There are no elections in China but it underwent the fastest economic growth in human history by enacting free market reforms and loosing the state's grip on the economy. Full democracy has only been around for about 100 years in the West but the West was richer than the rest for hundreds of years before that.

You can't run a modern economy with a committee because a committee will never have enough information. It doesn't matter whether that committee is elected or not.

You might want to look at Britain under old-style Labour party. Large sections of the economy were nationalized with the goal of achieving your type of system via democratic means. It was an economic under-performer and considered the sick man of Europe.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Numerous dictatorships existed, and if Socialists imagined that that is the correct way to form a state, now they know that it is not.

In this thread I have been speaking for non-dictatorial Socialism, such states have not existed.

Again, you are putting ideology before fact. Do you think they initially planned for these to be dictatorships ? One way or another, you're not going to get communism going unless ou do it with an iron grip.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Jumping in randomly:

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Until Marx and Lenin, the Socialist doctrine was that all they have to do is found a dictatorship of the working class, the rest will take care of itself.

This is incorrect. Marx saw himself as opposed to the Utopian Socialists, who would devise detailed and complicated plans for exactly how socialism would work. Furthermore, they did not care for class struggle or the proletariat per se, and thought that everyone could be persuaded to join the socialist utopia. Thus Marxists today are quite pernicious in not detailing how socialism would work, but rather the means by which it may be reached.

[NewtonTrino]

Explosion and fire at an oil refinery in Venezuela. According to the article I read they aren't maintaining their equipment properly. This was all predicted when Chavez started nationalizing.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Explosion and fire at an oil refinery in Venezuela. (...) they aren't maintaining their equipment properly. This was all predicted when Chavez started nationalizing.

If this was meant as an argument against Socialism, think a few months back, what poorly maintained American oil platforms caused in the Caribbean Sea.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Do you think they initially planned for these to be dictatorships ?

Yes, Bolsheviks were Marxists, and Marx taught to form a "dictatorship" of workers. Why a "dictatorship", it was seen necessary to suffocate by force any Capitalist efforts to revert the Socialist revolution. They didnīt realize that a force capable of that might get in their heads the idea of suffocating many other aspirations as well than only Capitalism. Marx etc. didnīt realize that ultimate power doesnīt necessarily obey their doctrines, it can go rogue... and indeed it did.

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

This is incorrect. Marx saw himself as opposed to the Utopian Socialists, who would devise detailed and complicated plans for exactly how socialism would work.

This exactly was Marxīs great mistake, he taught that workers must found a "dictatorship", but he refused to plan the said dictatorship in any detail, he believed that everything will take care of itself. Said and done in USSR, with disastrous results.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

That presupposes there is way of doing it right.

Also you believe that there is a way of running the economy right.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Lenin "noticed" the problems and risks of centralised power?

Yes, he wrote about the problem, and Trotsky openly revolted against the problem. Stalin did not come to power with a warm hug from all comrades, he won a brutal and bloody fight for power.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

The Berlin Wall went up more than 50 years ago, at which point it was obvious to every rational being that communism was a disaster.

Their Communism was. But I can give you a long list of Capitalist countries too whose economy is a disaster currently.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

This exactly was Marxīs great mistake, he taught that workers must found a "dictatorship", but he refused to plan the said dictatorship in any detail, he believed that everything will take care of itself. Said and done in USSR, with disastrous results.

But just a second ago you said the opposite.

And anyway, it wasn't a mistake. It was a natural conclusion of his dialectic materialism that he opposed all blueprints. In layman's terms: it was a feature, not a bug.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Yes, Bolsheviks were Marxists, and Marx taught to form a "dictatorship" of workers. Why a "dictatorship", it was seen necessary to suffocate by force any Capitalist efforts to revert the Socialist revolution.

That alone should tell you something.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Re: The "dictatorship" thing, a lot of people get caught up on the translation of that word. Lenin brought Marx's minor quotation into the limelight, but it was just to try to justify the Russian state. And Marx's own idea of it changed over time. At first he thought of it as a Robespierre thing, but towards the end he thought of it as more of a democratic assembly. And this again was something that he thought would be formed by the material and social relations of the specific society.