Capitalism Vs Socialism: dealing with poverty

[Roller]

I was having a discussion about this with a girl the other day and thought it was quite an interesting topic, might make for some intelligent discussion for once. Anyway, our discussion was regarding which economic model was better suited to help end the world's poverty. It started when I was telling her about a charity that provides interest-free loans for people in poverty to start up businesses, therefore providing them with security, an income and the prospect of employing other people. Through doing this you are in essence starting up a capitalist economy in the poverised country, and this will be of much greater assistance in bringing people out of poverty than simply handing them food and money. Anyway, that's really where our conversation started. So what do people think? I myself think that capitalist economies will be of much greater assistance to alleviating and ending the world's poverty, if employed and encouraged properly and thoughtfully, and of course paired with free trade, although there are undoubtably drawbacks to capitalism. I won't really go too in-depth here, I'd like to hear what other people have to say first... I'm not by any means an expert in all this - I do have a fair (if a little rusty) understanding of economics though, so I apologise in advance if I get things wrong. Go your hardest.

[bradybaker]

Where's the 'none of the above' option?

[Roller]

Argh, silly me - it should be "what do you think is best equipped to deal with poverty."

[bradybaker]

Well in that case I'll have to go with Socialism. Even if wealth is still not distributed evenly, people on or below the poverty line are taken care of with social safely nets like public healthcare, welfare, etc. Capitalism is too dependant on maintaining an underclass, poverty is almost a necessary component of such a system. It's a form of social control, keeping the working class in check. "You have two options, work for whatever wages we'll give you or end up on the streets." The workers of the world however seem to be content in a Capitalist system, pushing for institutional changes rather than revolutionary (higher wages as opposed to equal distribution of capital). So it seems that poverty is a natural result of our fetish for commodities and possessions. What's interesting is the fundamental contradiction of a capitalist, consumerist society....capitalism exploits the middle class, giving them nothing while consumerism panders to their every desire. This is why the predictions of left leaning sociologists have yet to come true, capitalism won't collapse if the proletariat are happy with their situation. Automation however poses a threat to the capitalist. If all the factories are run by computers and robots, how can the ruling class justify ownership of all capital and surplus? They aren't doing anything for it. This is where the state will step in and begin to distribute wealth equally among society.

[Roller]

Hmm fair enough, but i'd beg to differ on a few points there. I dont' think that capitalism 'causes' poverty in any way, or relies on poverty. Capitalism would work jsut as well if there was not a single empoverished person in the world, in my opinion. Capitalism does result in a small minotiry of people having a vast majority of money, and this serves as a stark contrast that highlights those in poverty, but doesn't cause the poeverty. It is however true that rich corporations have been able to exploit those in poverty for their own gain, and this is the major drawback. If people in third world countries were given the chance to establish free-market, capitalist economies, then they would no longer be able to be exploited, and their standards of living would dramatically increase. The actual practice of being able to achieve this is much harder however, and I don't think that it would be happening any time soon. If more larger economies (European Union, United States) fully embraced free-trade, then the people in these third world countries would be on exactly the same economic footing as everybody else, and it would go a long way to improving things. It's true that Capitalism results in an underclass, but there's no reason that the underclass has to be living in poverty. The 'underclass' is only a result of Capitalism being geared to allow for some people to be very rich - just because there are a few tall poppies doesn't mean that the rest has to be stunted. The few that are really rich actually play a vital role in maintaining the living standards and conditions of the society around them anyway.

[Leo Volont]

Well, it should be obvious. Capitalism is based on competition. And not everybody can win. Indeed, look at the World today where all manufacturing jobs are going to those States that offer the lowest bids -- who employ the cheapest labor or use the most capital assets in their production -- who do the most with the least amount of labor. We can see the trend in both America and Europe where production only goes up as the unemployment rates increase. Even China, growing at over 8% is already discovering that automated production and robotics if for efficient than labor. I read a book a few years ago -- "End of Work" -- which stated this argument in detail. We also have Capitalism's inherent problem of business cycles. At my age I have lived through about 7 or 8 'recessions' and was born only just after a major world depression. Such is all we can expect from Capitalism in its natural state. It is only by intervention and planning that these periodic economic collapses can be mitigated. And then the resistance of the Capitalist Communities to regulation makes effective interventions difficult -- just ask anybody who lost their life savings in the Greenspan Collapse of 2001 where almost a quarter of the World's combined wealth evaporated practically overnight. That's Capitalism for you. Of course we have been immersed in Pro-Capitalist Propaganda. But then we have only to compare Socialist Economies to Capitalist Economies. We can go behind the former Iron Curtain and poll the general populations and ask them whether they were not better off under Socialism. Now, we need to remember that Capitalism did its best to conspire against Socialism -- applying Military threats, sanctions, petroleum embargoes -- anything they could devise in order to make Socialism's path an uphill road. But even with all of these difficulties... even with production of necessity leaning toward military production over consumerism... still, the majority of citizens were better off under Socialism. Now, we have a situation in which about 1 or 2 % of the people of these nations being successful in predating and exploiting their fellows -- in selling off cheap the now privatized Capital that had once been the common property of The People. This Prosperity of Vultures is the 'success' which is much tauted by Capitalist Propaganda. But we can see how the people are voting. In Russia today the majority are voting for an Ex-KBG Official who is implementing a policy to rein in the predatory Capitalists. Now, about Charity. Charity only works in a Moral Society. A Moral Society must be a Religious Society. Surprisingly, Ancient Rome once scored fairly high on this scale, as there was something in the Pagan Polytheistic Religions that promoted Wealthy Individuals to provide the funding for huge Public Works. You see, what I believe was going on was the compelling idea that each Community was patronized by a real God or Goddess who would favor any Citizen for doing whatever was in their power or reach to benefit their Community as a whole. The High Age of Catholicism was able to retain something of this altruistic impulse. We can see this in High Medievel France -- the Land of a thousand Cathedrals -- all bought using private funds... all supporting a Culture with over a hundred Holy Days and Feasts a year, in addition to weekends off. Before Predatory Protestantism destroyed a Moral Religious Civilization, Private Wealth was much more at the disposal of the Public Weal. Now, with Calvinist Protestantism and its idea of Election on one side and Reprobation on the other, stating that the poor deserve to be poor, along side Secular Darwinism which states that it is a positive thing for the weak to simply die off, there is no Institutional Impulse to Charity. What Charity remains is motivated by the Traditional Inertia residual from Catholic Civilization, but with each succeeding generation, this is cut down to less and less. Indeed, we have only to look at the recent propaganda that calls out for Charity. The Rich Capitalists only feel that they will do better on their bottom lines by giving some tiny bit to Charity, with a great deal of hoopla, than to give a greater proportion in taxes for the same ends. In short, the call for Charity by the Rich is a cynnical ploy by those who have no intention of actually giving anything... not anything substantial.

[wombing]

i find the following definition of capitalism to be most accurate: An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and controlled and which is characterized by competition and the profit motive. machinery and labour are the means of production. humans are by far the most important means presently. without them, machines are useless. any capitalist venture has two simple, interconnected goals- minimize costs, and increase profits. if a company can buy oil to power their machines that is cheaper than other oil, they will obviously use the cheaper. if a company can buy portions of people's lives that are cheaper than portions of other people's lives, they will obviously use the cheaper. the third world exists as a cheap labour pool which the richest capitalists exploit, giving the destitute just enough to survive, reproduce, and remain uneducated, downtrodden, and subservient. . presently the majority in the first world cannot see this obvious fact, and docilely allow a small percentage of the world's population to steal hours of their life, week after week. accepting the fact we are the middle link between grotesque exploitation and suffering, and grotesque wealth and greed. money can only buy goods, or services. people create the goods, and people provide the services. in the end, capitalism painfully transmutes people's lives into currency which sits in the coffers of capitalist pigs who have nothing to do with that money but 'make more', not even caring they 'make' that money by stealing from the rest of humanity. how many mansions and cars and lovers can on person use? it is incredible to see that a large portion of the world is starving or needy physically, so that a minority of the world can be starving and needy spiritually. when life is seen only for its material worth, and not love, cooperation, trust, compassion, and inherent value, poverty results for all. Anybody who looks into the facts sees capitalism is inherently flawed. for anybody who is open-minded and simply doesn't know enough to condemn or accept capitalism, i recommend you read http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/155365022...glance&n=283155 by david suzuki- a collection of short essays and papers condemning capitalism, environmental degradation, and human rights violations in a straightforward way. it is easily understandable by any high school graduate, and makes compelling arguments. and watch 'the corporation', a well-done documentary which analyzes transnational corporations against the FBI's checklist for psychopaths, and concludes corporations (which have all the legal rights of a person) are psychopathic. those two sources just scrape the surface, but they will give you starting points... ugh, i am going to leave this thread now. i don't want to wait until someone actually tries to defend capitalism as a system which can benefit humanity as a whole....i'll either committ suicide or pop a neck vein http://www.globalissues.org/

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Asher machinery and labour are the means of production. humans are by far the most important means presently. without them, machines are useless. Actually, not any more. Today we have two types of Capital Machinery which reduce the importance of human labor, but it used to be 3 types: we once had Animal Motor Force -- draft animals such as horse and oxen, but these now are hardly used by the advanced industrial nations; and we have industrial machinery powdered by industrial energies, and we have most recently computerized and automated apparatuses of production. With the onset of automated and robotic technologies, human being have effectively been supplanted. But even without robotics, we need to understand just how much production has been taken away from Labor even by industrial technologies. We only need to consider how many Medievel Guild Laborers and Workshops it would take to build a Crysler 300. We would be looking at hundreds or thousands of workers where now we only see a few dozen. And it could be less with robotics. Even 20 years ago, in Japan, when the Infiniti and Lexus Factories first fired up, they had been designed to be COMPLETELY automated. There were a few monitors walking around with white coats and clipboards, but basically they dumped sand and iron ore into one hopper at the front of the factory, and out of the back of the factory popped Luxury Cars, with practically nobody cashing any pay checks. This was at the height of the Japanese Miracle and there was then Full Employment, but the Political Leadership saw what was on the horizon -- increasing market share going to plants in taiwan, Korea, America and Mexico, presaging an immanent unemployment rate in Japan, and the owners of Infiniti and Lexus were asked to mothball their Laborless Factories. I have heard your argument before, that Machinery takes Labor. I have even heard that Machinery doesn't replace labor but only requires different forms of Labor. However, you need only to consider the Math. The only reason Capitalists would decide to use Capital Machinery instead of Labor, or new Machinery instead of old Machinery is primarily to save Labor Costs. New generations of Technology are preferred because they require less and less workers. So it becomes increasingly ludicrous to say that Machinery is useless without Workers.... not when 1000 workers can be replaced by 1 Machine and several monitoring workers per shift. The Machine seems to work quite well without 998 Workers.

[Roller]

Hell yeah, looks like we've got ourselves a decent discussion for once. So here I go, I'll defend capitalism. in the end, capitalism painfully transmutes people's lives into currency which sits in the coffers of capitalist pigs who have nothing to do with that money but 'make more', not even caring they 'make' that money by stealing from the rest of humanity. Ok, let's start with this - and I think this is perhaps the most stereotypical and demonised view of Capitalism by far, and a view which I strongly disagree with. Powerful corperations play a vital role in improving living standards for their society. Yes, the sole purpose of a corperation is to make money, but where does this money go? A significant proportion of the money is taxed (in Aus I think it's 33%), some is spent on purchasing capital and expanding the business, and the rest is given to its shareholders in the form of dividends. Here is the most vital aspect that many seem to overlook - anybody can buy shares in a company, and share in the profits. Profits aren't just heaped up and locked away in some underground, eventually all profit generated cycles back through the economy. Corperations pay their employees, they pay other companies for products purchased, they invest in other companies, thus providing the oppurtunity for further employment etc. In a democratic country, companies and corperations play a vital aspect in raising the living standards - taxes on company profits go into infrastructure, education, health, welfare and everything else that any normal person's tax would go into. how many mansions and cars and lovers can on person use? True, but buying a Mercedes Benz results in bigger profits for the German company > more money taxed to spend on whatever the German Govt spends it on > more dividends to the thousands of shareholders. The drawback is that capitalism needs to be in a freely democratic society for these benefits to be seen, and a society in which the government has no control over the economy at all (apart from fiscal). Thus, those that are in third world countries without free-market economies, free trade and under poor government are routinely exploited by large multi-national companies, the profit of which is funelled beck into other countries. A solution to this problem is to encourage the economies of third world countries to develop. In economics at school we studied a charity orginization that instead of simply giving handouts (which more often than not get exploited by corrupt governments) they provided small, interest-free loans to people in slums etc that want to start businesses. An example of this might be someone that wants to start making a shoe business making thongs out of old rubber tyres. They use the $400 loan to build their shop etc and start trading, and after a while earn enough to pay the loan back. The person makes a bit of a profit, and can expand the business, employing more people so that they can support their families in a ligitimate way. Soon enough new businesses are formed in other areas - gathering old tyres to be used by the shoe-maker, etc etc. Promoting this kind of capitalist economic development has a far greater effect on poverty than handing out food or monetary aid by promoting and giving the means with which to improve their lives by themselves. Building small, viable economies brings stability and also helps to reduce crime and other factors caused by unemployment. If developed nations were to spend time and money on promoting economic development in poorer countries, then these people would no longer be able to be exploited by multinational organisations - they would have enough employment options to find work that pays proper wages. A free, capitalist economy can improve the living conditions of the a society remarkably, if managed properly. Competition and the profit motive are not by any means bad things, as both of them drive progress in research, research which can result in new technologies and raise the living standards of many people. Greed is a completely unavoidable part of human nature, and this results in unlimited demand. Seeing as there are only limited resources, the capitalist economic system deals with this greed in a way that benefits people throughout the country. I do agree that corporations need to be ethically and morally accountable. In the current system, there is nothing to stop corporations from exploiting resources, both human and natural. As a corporation, they are actually legally bound to provide the greatest profit possible for their shareholders, and there are no binding rules nor laws within which they have to do this. While I support free-market Capicalism, I think that Corporation responsibility and the elimination of trade barriers are two vital issues that need to be dealt with if there is going to be any earth left in another century. [/quote]

[Tsen]

Depends. Pure capitalism doesn't succeed well, at least in terms of public opinion. Pure capitalism makes too much room for monopolies, in fact, capitalism encourages monopolies. With monopolies present, like Brady said, you merely continue to hold the impoverished down to feed the system. Hence the public opinion failures. Socialism doesn't actually HELP the people, though, it merely sustains them. Reverting to communism, you've got more problems: No society has, on a large scale, maintained a TRUE communist society. Marxism-Leninism is nearly as oppressive as pure capitalism. You can't really defend either system well. The answer lies somewhere in between, likely leaning more towards the socialist side. Just a note-- Like I said earlier, capitalist societies DON'T WORK. That's why America isn't capitalist. We're obviously more capitalist than communist, perhaps too capitalistic, but we are a MIXED MARKET economy. There are limits placed on buisiness. Quite a few, actually. Capitalist systems minimize interference with corporations to increase net profit, hence monopolies and then price gouging. Capitalist systems rely heavily on a class division, with the wealthy clearly separated from the rest of society. True, you could buy shares in a company, provided they weren't already incredibly expensive and assuming you had any money left after filling up your $50,000 compact car's tank with $20/gallon gas, then driving to your $980,000, 2-bedroom, 1-bath house that night. The object of a capitalist system is to send ALL money into or through the corporations, in the process draining the average Joe's wallet to as near empty as possible. Some gets rerouted through the lower class workers, but most stays with the wealthy.

[Leo Volont]

A free, capitalist economy can improve the living conditions of the a society remarkably, if managed properly. Competition and the profit motive are not by any means bad things, as both of them drive progress in research, research which can result in new technologies and raise the living standards of many people. Greed is a completely unavoidable part of human nature, and this results in unlimited demand. Seeing as there are only limited resources, the capitalist economic system deals with this greed in a way that benefits people throughout the country. [/b] You say 'A 'free' capitalism is good IF managed properly'. Huh? Are you saying that a Free Capitalism is good as long as it is socially planned to get around the recessions and depressions? Then it isn't free anymore, is it? Competition does lead to rapid product development, but for the sake of this product development we must suffer the waves of unemployment in those industries which find themselves surpassed. Is a modicum of techno-sophistication worth the disruptions to people's lives? Then we need to look at the damage done by Competition. There can only be one Winner, but many losers. Nowadays, because the pharmaceutical industries are all in private ownership, nothing can be done to fight AIDS and HIV infections because of the distortionate prices demanded by these private companies. The Winners here have decided not to sell their medicines for anything less than a King's Ransom. The other downside of Competition is in its demand that the Winner, where the war is between equal patents, must be the lowest bidder -- the Industry that provides the least benefit to Society by way of employing Labor or contributing Taxation. Every year, indeed, every moment, Capitalist Competition reduces its contribution to the general distribution of Wealth and reduces its contribution to society's infrastructure. I have heard arguments that every Nation should be exactly like Hong Kong that does not tax its businesses, or taxes them at the World's lowest rate. They argue that every nation could be successful if they adopted the same policies. But I reply that there can only be one Lowest Bid 'Pirate Island'. The success of these Low Bid Communities comes only because they are the Lowest Bid. Only one Community can win at such a game. What would happen if every Nation in the World competed to pay its Labor the least and to ask the least in regards to taxation. We would have impoverished slave labor, and the disintegration of all the World's Infrastructure. What we are talking about is phenomena of Concentration of Wealth. The Ultimate end to Private Economic Competition is the extreme Concentration of Wealth. When we examine the collapse of the previous 20 Civilizations that have been known in Human History, we find that in every instance, the primary contributing problem responsible for collapse was concentration of Wealth. This is what happens -- private individuals corner nearly all wealth in their Society, cutting off resources that would ordinarily have gone to support the infrastructures of transportation, communication, education, security, religion. Indeed every institution of Civilization is strangled out as all wealth is diverted into a few private hands. It is now the subject of much Capitalist Propaganda that Big Government has always been the enemy to Civilization, but this is disingenuous to the extreme. No Civilization has ever perished from having a strong tax base, but only when the very opposite situation existed. And it can happen quickly. Back several Dynasties ago in China, the Wealthy gained enough political influence, with their own version of a Republican Tory Party, to exempt the wealthiest landowners from paying taxes, because they provided jobs and magistrates, etc, blah blah blah. Well, within 10 years of that legistlation the wealthy introduced a campaign of buying up all smaller holdings and leasing them back at below the tax rate, which was a good deal for these small holders. However, it soon deprived the Government of its last remnants of any tax base. The canals soon clogged because they could not be dredged, and so relief supplies could not be shipped to areas affected by seasonal famine. This introduced food riots and rebellion. Security forces could not be hired. External Barbarians saw the weakness and vulnerability of Chinese Civilization and invaded. Because of this almost instantaneous exertion of Concentration of Wealth, Chinese Civilization collapsed and it would be a hundred years until it could well be on its way to recovery. We are again approaching such dangerous levels of concentration of Wealth. Look at America where their programs of primary and secondary education are now last of all developed countries, and behind even many of the developing nations, where there is a health care crisis because it is considered such an economic burden to provide medicine to those who are ill, where complete Urban Zones are washed away by floods because conscious decisions were made to continue with crumbling flood control structures that hadn't received repair in the last 50 years. Stockholders decide to export 80% of America's productive capacity overseas. It helps their stock portfolios but with the reduction in high Blue Collar Incomes, the Tax Base shrinks. Municipalities that respond by increasing their progressive tax policies find that businesses abandon them. Businesses go where they are promised they won't ask to contribute to costs of Civilization. Businesses increase their Productivity by diverting resources from Labor, that pays taxes, to automated technologies that are taxed only on a prorated schedule that nulls out only after a few years. These policies are incremental, but their is no end in sight. The Concentration of Wealth edges more over to the side of Disaster every single day. Now we see it happening in Europe, where resources are being diverted away from Social Infrastructures to support Businesses, all while unemployment goes up. yes, their are momentary bumps in the Employment Rate of the most recent Lowest Bid Economy, but that only lasts until the next State decides to sell itself even shorter. The result of unbridled Competition is that everybody loses. Now, about how Greed is unavoidable.... how Greed is an inextricable element of Human Nature. Well that is just cynical. Looking into History we have seen many Institutions that worked well enough without appealing exclusively to Greed. Indeed, just look at the very industries we are talking about. They are not MANAGED by capitalists, but are managed by salaried managers. America has the largest incentive programs while not having appreciatively better companies. Japan and Europe, in their heyday, were Managed Economies -- run by people on salaries that were not all that outragiously high. Then we have the examples of the Church and the Military that have done well enough without appealing at all to the profit motive. You see, while Greed has its appeal to the lowest and meanest of people, there are a significant number of people who have enough Civilization in their blood and breeding to be motivated by Higher Impules -- the urge to Community Recognition and Heroism. Be cynnical and call it a Will to Power, but we can also see it as the desire to be recognized as valuable to one's Community. Also, we need to recognize that there had been a great many people who did and perhaps still believe in the Socialist Ideals. In Cuba there are those who are not influenced by Greed. In Russia there were many true believers. yes, Socialism and its Ideals have been beaten down. But this has only been their first tentative rise into the popular Human Consciousness. Certainly as the creeping predations of Concentration of Wealth continues, impoverishing the generality of our Societies, it will again become generally understood that, yes, Greed is a vice. We only need to put it into some perspective that we have been duped by a Propaganda that has made the Greedy Exploiter into our Social Ideal. We are asked to Worship the King of the Mountain without first understanding that it will be the King of the Mountain who will inevitably step upon our heads. When things get bad enough, even the stupidest among us will again realize that our Heroes should be Heroes, and that Virtue can only be Virtue, and that vice must be treated as vice. Because the worst among us are greedy is no excuse for a general dispensation authorizing this most comtemptable of vices. We will all see soon enough just what makes a vice so bad.

[Neruo]

Socialism is in theory great. In reality it is very hard to have a non-corrupted socialist government. People just arn't happy with 'everyone is the same'. Everyone wants to be Better.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Neruo Socialism is in theory great. In reality it is very hard to have a non-corrupted socialist government. People just arn't happy with 'everyone is the same'. Everyone wants to be Better. Well, not everyone needs to be the same. Socialism is only a dedication to Planning. Indeed, one need not call it "Socialism" at all but Government by Magisterial Bureaucracy. We have both the Church and the Military as fine working examples of how well Organizations can operate without pillage and plunder. And it has always been understood that the young people do not start at the top of their paygrade, or in the highest positions (except in Capitalism where some idiot scion of Henry Ford can jump to the very top and run a trillion dollar company into the ground in the time an ordinary person takes to work from apprentice to journeyman). We have only to look at the various socialist systems to see that they have almost universally engaged in talent scouting their schools and finding the best positions for those with the most talent and intelligence. And yes, of course, the Doctors and the Engineers would garner a better living then those who did not display the same high level of performance in the schools. Just look at Russia's performance in the Olympics in all those years of the Soviet Union. Did it appear to anybody that those superstars were picked at random from the street. Or was it obvious that there had been a rigourous scouting program followed by an intensive training program, all reflective of a good degree of Planning. Socialism is nothing more than planning. It is Capitalist negative Propaganda that Planning would somehow overlook talent and ability. In fact, it is just the opposite. It is Capitalism that ignores Talent and Ability while rewarding inhereted wealth. Look at the Medical Schools and the Law Schools. Sons of Doctors and Lawyers get free passes into the Schools. Now, who wants their surgeon to be the son of a fine doctor and a pretty ditz of a wife? In Socialism we are more likely to have talent and ability rise to the top. In Capitalism, isn't it true what they say... it is not what you know but who you know, and more precisely, whom one is related to. Indeed, no person should be able to buy their way into a University. There should be no such thing as a Private University. To pass undeserving Privelege at the expense of Talent and Ability is dangerous to society. We only have to look at America's collapse as an industrial power to know that a great many idiots had somehow matriculated up into positions of power. This would have been impossible under Socialism. Just look now at China growing at over 8% a year. That is what Socialism can do.

[Sortilegio]

Ok, I find this thread useless, Roller, you obviously don't know how a capitalistic economic system works period. It should end there, you can't go out to defend something you are not entierly sure about, and less talk about a different economical system if you haven't lived it, seen it, studied it, etc. . For everyone here who thinks capitalism works, then you should ask yourselfs and do some economical research on how third world countries became third world countries, if you want a hint, you could actually start by looking up what free trade is, free trade is by far a way to build up an economie. Capitalism in the end lies on competition, money>people, you can not expect a third world contry economies to compete against a first world economic system ever, thats why free trade simply does not work, basicaly anything that relies on competition does not work. On another note, Socialism has been marginalized by far by the rulling power of Capitalism, for example, How many people know how the goverment of cuba functions? How many people outside of Latin América know how the goverment of Venezuela functions?. Have you ever heard of a blockade of information, Mediatic war?, this war is on every day, and you can't expect to discuss serious economical issues out of this, And who are the owners of the media in your capitalist worlds? why don't you ask yourselfs all this questions, and follow up the rest of the questions that come in with this, before starting to defend/attack an economic system you don't understand. To sum it up: Capitalism = Money>People = Competition Socialism = Money<People = Solidarity Don't confuse socialism as literally everything equal, whats equal are your wrights, economic oportunities, welfare, education, etc. This doesn't mean there can't be some materialistic person with 3 cars and five houses, but he does has to have use of it all, and still gets the same wrights as any other person, poor or wealth. Socialism doesn't end wealthy people, it just takes away from them the exclusivities of wrights and social aspects they "gain" from capitalism, but socialism has them live under the same wrights as everyone else.

[ravenqueen]

provided way to info about myself here decided to delete

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Sortilegio Ok, I find this thread useless, Roller, you obviously don't know how a capitalistic economic system works period. It should end there, you can't go out to defend something you are not entierly sure about, and less talk about a different economical system if you haven't lived it, seen it, studied it, etc. . For everyone here who thinks capitalism works, then you should ask yourselfs and do some economical research on how third world countries became third world countries, if you want a hint, you could actually start by looking up what free trade is, free trade is by far a way to build up an economie. Capitalism in the end lies on competition, money>people, you can not expect a third world contry economies to compete against a first world economic system ever, thats why free trade simply does not work, basicaly anything that relies on competition does not work. On another note, Socialism has been marginalized by far by the rulling power of Capitalism, for example, How many people know how the goverment of cuba functions? How many people outside of Latin América know how the goverment of Venezuela functions?. Have you ever heard of a blockade of information, Mediatic war?, this war is on every day, and you can't expect to discuss serious economical issues out of this, And who are the owners of the media in your capitalist worlds? why don't you ask yourselfs all this questions, and follow up the rest of the questions that come in with this, before starting to defend/attack an economic system you don't understand. To sum it up: Capitalism = Money>People = Competition Socialism = Money<People = Solidarity Don't confuse socialism as literally everything equal, whats equal are your wrights, economic oportunities, welfare, education, etc. This doesn't mean there can't be some materialistic person with 3 cars and five houses, but he does has to have use of it all, and still gets the same wrights as any other person, poor or wealth. Socialism doesn't end wealthy people, it just takes away from them the exclusivities of wrights and social aspects they "gain" from capitalism, and have them live under the same wrights as everyone else. Oh! I forgot you were from Cuba. Well, it is good that we have some first hand experience available to us now. I was sure there had to be some True Believers in the Socialist Sphere. But in the Capitalist Nations, with the Capitalist Media, we are continually impressed with the notion, we now to be disingenuous, that everybody within the Socialist Societies all deeply regret that they are not unemployed and without healthcare, like those Lucky People in the Capitalist nations. Also, I forgot to point out earlier just how callous the Capitalist powers are. Back in the Seventies and Eighties the World Bank and hordes of Capitalist Diplomats pounded Latin America with demands that they have free elections, open their markets and free up their trade. And there were a thousand tacit and implied promises that by doing this, their standard of living would improve. But what happened? What Latin America did not consider was that Capitalists do not plan. Nobody signed any contracts. All the promises were empty. When it came time for Capitalism to actually spend their money for product, they preferred to trade with China. China is not Democratic, and so China is guaranteed to be reliable from one year to the next, while who can trust what Democracy will do from one day to the next. What the Capitalists wanted was for Latin America to drop its own protected industries so that these Markets would be vulnerable to dumping. These nations gave up their own fledgling industries for empty promises and now have nothing. Yet, their revenge will be sweet. America is proving to be its own victim of Free Trade as it has outsourced much of its own industrial capacity to Lowest Bid Societies. One of these days the World will realize that America has nothing left to sell for its Dollars and the Dollar will collapse, making America the newest member of the Third World with belts of starving populations that will make Africa seem like a land of plenty by comparison. We will see how long America promotes open competition when it becomes abundently clear that they can only be the losers there of.

[ravenqueen]

Damn it I'm sick of all the social and political crap. Poverty is poverty and it hurts so damn bad.

[bradybaker]

I think one of the most astounding statistics I've ever heard is that the literacy rate in Cuba is 97%. Much, much higher than any 'world super-power'. Two points for socialism there.

[ravenqueen]

I think it is funny that Cuba offer the US help to give the poor help with free heath care. The US government denied it.

[Sortilegio]

Originally posted by Leo Volont Also, I forgot to point out earlier just how callous the Capitalist powers are. *Back in the Seventies and Eighties the World Bank and hordes of Capitalist Diplomats pounded Latin America with demands that they have free elections, open their markets and free up their trade. *And there were a thousand tacit and implied promises that by doing this, their standard of living would improve. Yes, this was an awful horrible time people can study about if they want to learn more on the subject of capitalism vs socialism, you could take for example that most of the countries that denied this, their goverments sudenly disapeard and were turned into dictartoships founded by, YES, they US, and some of this dictartos that actually bent a little sudenly started to apear as drug dealers and enemies of the US and "freedom", just because the US cannot keep a dog on a leash all the time. One of the worst scenarios of this, although they are all horrible, was in Chile in the seventies, when Socialist Allende arrived to power and gave control to the people of all nacional Industries, avoiding the upcoming privatization, What did Capitalism do, they went and bombed the place to one million pieces, killing Allende, and over 30.000 people who were part of this socialist beliefs, I mean, how horrible is it that 5000 people were gathered at a stadium and killed for there politicals belifs, and no they were not terrorist or whatever, they were regular people like you and me, some even artists, most of the Socialist Chile people that survived, did it because they fled the country, all in the name of capitalism and making an extra buck. You can also take a more recently activities like Panama, The US goverment basicaly invaded, even their military system was eliminated and replaced by the USs one. Originally posted by bradybaker I think one of the most astounding statistics I've ever heard is that the literacy rate in Cuba is 97%. Much, much higher than any 'world super-power'. Yes, as I explained earlier, every person has the equality of rights, meaning, educational, health, economic, etc. Thus as in other countries of "super-power" people fight their way thru working, laboring, and finding a spot at a University just to be able to get in, if there are no other tramps, In a Socialist goverment you simply study what you want, whenever you want, without paying, doesn't matter if you're old, young, rich, poor, bagabund, etc. and the level of the education is superior, due to Solidarity wich is one social improvement brought by socialism. And Illiteracy in Cuba was eliminated at the earlies years of the revolution by campaings, wich are in the process in the new revolution of Venezuela wich has already eliminated the first step, wich is basic education, all this meaning, the education reaches you all the time, its there, it depends on you if you want to study. Originally posted by ravenqueen I think it is funny that Cuba offer the US help to give the poor help with free heath care. The US government denied it. I find it funny(or stupid) too, but that is because of the blockade in anyway, Venezuela did the same thing, and they did agree because venezuela hasn't been blockade yet(and hopefully won't be), plus they gave alot of Heating fuel to the poor people of New Orleans after the Hurricane. This has affected Cuba in many other ways too, for example, there are hell of alot of medical researches and advances no other country may get because of the blockade, like many diseases have been erradicated.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by bradybaker I think one of the most astounding statistics I've ever heard is that the literacy rate in Cuba is 97%. Much, much higher than any 'world super-power'. Two points for socialism there. And the Education there must have some very basic and solid quality. Look at Sortilegio on this Site... he is from Cuba. His English is better than most American's.

[Roller]

Ok, I find this thread useless, Roller Hmm, maybe you misunderstood me. I didn't start this thread to try and 'prove' Capitalism is better, I started it for discussion. At the moment I support Capitalism, but I by no means will stick to it to the grave - I'm open to other opinions. I'll argue from a Capitalist viewpoint for the moment because it seems to be the best way to stimulate more discussion. As I said in the first post, I am by no means an expert and I've already confused a few things in this thread, but if I can learn from it then I'll be all the better for it. And sorry if I'm post-whoring here, seems I've got a lot of work to do. [quote]you can not expect a third world contry economies to compete against a first world economic system ever, thats why free trade simply does not work, basicaly anything that relies on competition does not work. Now, about how Greed is unavoidable.... how Greed is an inextricable element of Human Nature. Well that is just cynical. Personally I would say that it is a natural animal instinct and a part of evolution - ensuring one's survival and improving the chances of your own genetic material being passed on. I know you're a Catholic, and not sure whether you would agree with this, but that's a matter for the religon forums. Ah well it's late at night and I'll post more later. Just a word about Capitalist propoganda etc. Yes, I'm aware that there is a lot of propoganda against Socialist economies but I'd like to hope I'm analytical enough to not believe any of that stuff. I'm no more filthy capitalist pig than anyone else, just wanting decent discussion, if you're not open to challenging and arguing what you believe then no matter what you believe in, you're a closed mind, and closed minds are dangerous.

[Sortilegio]

Originally posted by Roller+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Roller)</div> Hmm, maybe you misunderstood me. I didn't start this thread to try and 'prove' Capitalism is better, I started it for discussion. At the moment I support Capitalism, but I by no means will stick to it to the grave - I'm open to other opinions. I'll argue from a Capitalist viewpoint for the moment because it seems to be the best way to stimulate more discussion. As I said in the first post, I am by no means an expert and I've already confused a few things in this thread, but if I can learn from it then I'll be all the better for it. [/b] I find this useless because, if you want to learn on the subject then rather you could be more neutral and take in consideration what you are being told, but instead you are talking about something you don't know how it functions in a way like if you knew and being stuborn and defensive, that way you wont learn anything, you are taking a side, wich if you look at my post I have not taken a side but rather explaining and talking about things were you might be able to gather more info on the subject. In the end, you are defending free trade as if you were absolutly sure how it works, and you've got it wrong, it's like if I were describing a beach at australia wich I haven't seen but read about at a brosure. <!--QuoteBegin-Roller Well, yes free trade can work because it puts the third world economy on the same footing as the frist world economy. Say we have poor Brazillian coffee farmers producing cheap, good-quality coffee as they have done for generations (or something along those lines). They try exporting their coffee to say America, where it would sell well due to competative price. The American government however places a tarrif on imported coffee beans which increases their price by 50% so they cannot compete with local American coffee beans, which are produced inefficiently and cost more than Brazillian beans would normally. Removing this trade barrier allows Brazillian coffee beans to be sold at their true price, and therefore supporting the Brazilian coffee farmers. Without the tarrifs, they have access to a huge market and are on the exact same footing as any other economy. No it is not like you say, sounds like if you were trying to buy a car. Let's go with the coffee, so let's say brazil joins the free trade with the US, they have one if its primary market as coffee, the poor working man at brazil have a nice stablishment of sales on their nation thanks to its production size and market, but as the free trade arrives, the market is now open for millions of companies to get in, now the poor coffee makers barely have money to import their coffee and small stablishment being a third world market, their production rate is small too, so they can only stay in their market at the nation hoping to grow and import wich hasn't been their precise point, as their nacional market sudenly by the free trade becomes bombard by other million coffee makers who start to compete, sudenly normal sales have gone down due to the new aquired variety on the market, and bigger companies with the ability to produce cuantities the brazilians can't, little by little the companie ends in bankrupt not being able to compete with other brands and is forced to sell its coffee brand to some other companie, wich only ones that happen to buy are ones that can really compete, so it is bought by, let's say, cocacola, and the productions begins and this brazilian brand, its now again on the market with a reliable production rate, it reaches the US, you go and buy it, but beside the big logo of Coffee the brazilian, you will see in tiny letters, the cocacola company, so you are actually buying brazilian coffee from the cocacola right, do you understend up to here, or do you still need some economic teachings to abide how a market works, let's continue, the same thing happens to any other market on the area, really big markets that are able to compete on their nacional status are forced to join a foreign market in other to maintain and rise their production to be able to import, but only at the cost of most of its company title, so in the end they all loose, now Brazil has no low cost production of its own national product and has a market full of imported items, making them extremly expensive for the low and middle clases, wich continues to produce poverty, because now brazilians instead of buying the same ol coffee, etc, they used to buy, now they are buying to foreing companies, their markets has gone down, not only making its citizens poor, but making the state poor because they now don't have any economic income from nacional production, so Brazil looses not beign able to compete, the people become poor, the foreign companies explode all resources out of brazil, and its people too by low paying jobs, and kills the economie of brazil, but yes this is were capitalizm works, ithe US is now making millions out of resources that aren't theirs without invading by military porpuses, horray!! for the US soldiers. Now why have countries like Canada and China been able to compete with the US, well simply because their production rate is not a third world country rate, but rather a extremly big market, espicially the chinese one, if you don't believe it, then you can ask yourself why so many of the things used worldwide come from China. And no china although its suposed to be a socialist nation, it isn't, its a capitalist nation, mostly invaded by the UK and USs market. But what has happened to Mexico, It has been part of this free trade shit over the past ten years, and all its done for it is pull down its economy and up its poverty, why, becuase Mexico, and again, can not compete, and I will say it again, no economic system that functions by competition will ever work, why?, because someone wins and someone looses, so it has to be a different form in wich all parties win or loose. Anything else, do you finally understand how it works, or do I have to bring out a whole economics book on this. I'm not trying to be a bad person here, or a close minded one either, you are talking about a very sensitive subject wich you have no Idea about, so if you want to learn about it, then fine, but don't be stuborn about something you don't know, because if you want it to be a nice discussion, then don't get stuck on something. I don't care if you were on a date with some girl, having a great time looking good talking about wich way its best to end poverty like if you really knew what poverty is. If you continue to bring up the same subject, then you have not learned anything yet have you.

[Roller]

Originally posted by Sortilegio+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sortilegio)</div> I find this useless because, if you want to learn on the subject then rather you could be more neutral and take in consideration what you are being told [/b] Well I if I have seemed stubborn and defensive I apologise, and yes there has been many points that I haven't responded to. I have only kept on arguing for capitalism because nobody else seems so, and to keep the debate going. I don't mean to be offensive in any way about it, and I have said numerous times already that my knowledge of economics is scratchy so I also apologise if some of my points have been wrong. Actually no I don't apologise, because I've already said that I would most likely be wrong about my points. I'm only arguing them as I understand them which is all I can do until I learn more. <!--QuoteBegin-Sortilegio If you continue to bring up the same subject, then you have not learned anything yet have you. I will continue bringing up the subject as long as there is disconssion to be had about it, there's nothing wrong with that. But anyway, sorry to have acted like a blundering fool, I don't really explain my intentions very well sometimes. Ok, i can see what you're saying about free trade - that the sudden opening up of a larger market like the US to the Brazilian coffee traders would cause a frenzy of competition, a flood of the market, some businesses spiralling towards bankruptcy and therefore being bought by a foriegn company. The resulting profits would then be sent overseas and the workers would be no better off than before. Ok, that's a valid point and it makes sense. Foriegn ownership is undeniably a very big downside to Capitalism, and means that other economies can be unfairly exploited. But wouldn't the removal of the trade barriers and the subsequent access to a large market mean more demand, and because of their limited supply therefore lead to higher prices than what they were originally obtaining? I'm only discussing here, don't want to sound like I'm being stubborn etc etc, just want to talk more about it. With higher prices they would be able to obtain more profit to purchase capital - more land or another ox to help cultivate the land. By purchasing more capital, the coffee farmer is able to expand production and increase efficiency, thereby helping to fill the gap created by the acces to a new market and increased demand. Gradually purchasing more capital and expanding would enable Brazillian coffee farmers to stay competative adn increase production until maret equilibrium is reached again. What do you think?

[Neruo]

I would just like to say: If you take the letters from Socialism it spells 'acilsimos'. That Must mean something.