quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor No more stupid than capitalism.

Capitalism is not stupid because it does not ignore human nature. Humans want to work hard to get ahead of others, not have it taken away to raise those around them (outside of their family/community). I urge you to prove me wrong.

Dont think Americans can really talk about socialism! Over there communism/socialism is a dirty word (like fascism) due to the Cold War (altho we all know communism in Russia was spelt with a capital 'C' and was in fact merely fascism and resembled nothing of communism or socialism...well, the yanks dont know that!!!)

I think the perfect solution is Social Democracy...as pure socialism (communism and anarchism) goes against human nature and capitalism fucks us over and will cntinue to create too much strife for us all (see the war on terror)

Social Democracy is a nice mix of socialism and capitalism. Nationalise ALL natural monoploies (Keynesian economics) ESPECIALLY (and I cant stress this enough and I'm sure our British members will certainly agree) ESPECIALLY PUBLIC TRANSPORT!!! And with the rest of the industries, we let capitalism's efficiany take its course. And of course...the Welfare state (cos its well fair innit?)

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I urge you to prove me wrong.

I can prove you wrong no more than you can prove your self right. I simply disagree with the notion of “human nature” as being as self-serving as people claim it to be. And besides, even if human nature is that selfish, we have evolved to a point where we can use our higher intellect to overcome these darker facets of our nature - surely would it not be better to try and change our nature and build something better, even if it fails rather than just give it in as a hopeless effort?

How bout a libertarian gov't?

quote:

Originally posted by Spin Doctor I can prove you wrong no more than you can prove your self right.

Sure I can, it's called human history. Find me an example anywhere throughout the reign of man where a large group of peoples, under their own free will, has ever acted in a purely communist or socialistic manner. There are none. Man, as an animal, has a first priority to look out for himself, then his family, then his community. You may be able to find instances where a community can act in a socialist manner, but never a nation, especially one as large as any modern day European or American nation-state.

People want to see their hard work and efforts have an impact on the things around them, not someone living hundreds of miles away, and especially not someone who is putting less into the "collective pot" then they are. If you want to live in *feedom* then socialism and communism won't work. You need a system that rewards hard work by allowing the person doing the work to achieve more than those who don't.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Sure I can, it's called human history. Find me an example anywhere throughout the reign of man where a large group of peoples, under their own free will, has ever acted in a purely communist or socialistic manner. There are none.

Many argue that a kibbutz is an example of a communist system.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Capitalism is not stupid because it does not ignore human nature.

how does socialism ignore human nature? I think it's quite the opposite actually, considering all of the things that socialist governments do for their people.

And there is a difference between communism and socialism. Communism is far more leftist than socialism. It ranks up there with nihilism, where as socialism is closer to captialism.

___________________

It has to start somewhere,
It has to start sometime,
What better place then here?
What better time than now?
--Rage Against the Machine

What I'm getting at is both of these styles of government have at their root the belief of all giving to the common good, at least far more than capitalism does. Both types require that citizens willfully give to the government so that it can later redistribute those given resources to the people it sees fit. What I am saying is that humans want to keep what they earn. The idea of a human working and then happily giving a huge amount of his earnings and resources so that others without those earnings are resources can have them is what is contrary to "human nature," and what I would argue is also counter productive to a strong work ethic.

Think of it like this, to be a doctor in America it takes four years of undergraduate schooling, four years of medical school and three to seven years of residency. All of this takes time, money and hard work. Who would want to be a doctor if you gave so much of your income that you earned the same as somone who never finished high school working in a factory pushing a button. You can say "for the love of it," but that's rediculous. Some professions need to have high earning potential because not only do you want people to fill those roles, you want the best people to fill those roles. If you don't believe me, look at the doctor shortage in Australia and the impending one in America.

Here are just a few points that I’d like to bring up. I’ll use the term Socialist from now to save having to type both...

In these debates people tend to look at socialism and capitalism as mutually exclusive, which isn’t the case. You can have a capitalist state that is also socialist, but the world the way it is at the moment, granted, the odds are stacked heavily against it.

Capitalism, in its current dominant form is in no way meritocratic. If everyone stated with an equal playing field and had exactly the same chances and opportunities as everyone else to make it to the top, I wouldn’t have such a big a problem with capitalism, but it’s not like that. The dice are deliberately stacked against some of us making it to the top. Besides, take a Teacher and compare the wage to Coca Cola Executive. I think we can both agree which is more beneficial to the running of society, but why the hell does the Coca Cola Executive deserve such a higher wage?

This issue of human nature really is the crux of both our arguments, so I’d just like to clear my position on this. I simply do not think that human nature is as you would have us believe. While I agree with the premise that basic human nature is to protect yourself, family and community, after that everything that gets labelled as “human nature” are simply cultural norms and values which are drummed into us, the only time you would willingly wish to put someone else at a disadvantage would be if it seriously jeopardised your chances for survival, you wouldn’t intentionally put someone down in any other situation, yet capitalism encourages people to just that! From the moment we are born we are simply bombarded by the message that “greed is good” and that you have to make more money than your neighbours or you are a complete and utter failure, to buy the latest clothes, gadgets and gizmos etc. Capitalism creates a system that requires you to be a bastard in order to succeed. You succeed at others expense. Those cultural values and norms are not in any way human nature. Granted, I can’t provide any examples of large nations which have acted in purely socialist manners, but just because something hasn’t happened, doesn’t mean it can’t, won’t or shouldn’t happen.

I’m not suggesting that we should (or even could) somehow magic capitalism away with the click of a finger over night and live in a socialist utopia. That would simply be irresponsible (and instantly fail miserably). It requires time, patience, foresight, hard work and good intention.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono What I'm getting at is both of these styles of government have at their root the belief of all giving to the common good, at least far more than capitalism does. Both types require that citizens willfully give to the government so that it can later redistribute those given resources to the people it sees fit. What I am saying is that humans want to keep what they earn. The idea of a human working and then happily giving a huge amount of his earnings and resources so that others without those earnings are resources can have them is what is contrary to "human nature," and what I would argue is also counter productive to a strong work ethic.

That's nonsense! The main statement is that (I'm sorry but i only can say the german word PRODUKTIONSMITTEL what means the machines which are producing goods should be in possession of the public! Not more. Everyone must have the possibility to get in reach for goods.
Private property is "ALLOWED" and must not be shared with all, thats a fact that is always mixed or quoted wrong.

And the main difference between communism and socialism is the fact that communism says that within time the state itself would vanish and no partys and/or politicians would be needed, whereas the socialists say that there must be an 'intelligentia' who lead the people...

bah this sux. I'm in the minority here too

Why, why can't I be in the majority for once? Why can't this place be full of commies? Why do so many of you have to be damn socialists?

Its unfair I tell you UNFAIR!! ohh is that mustard over there...

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.