Would you work as hard if socialism

[daudaudaudau]

Heard of Linux?

Not to mention, without open source and cooperation, you wouldn't have OsX as it's based off FreeBSD...

Without capitalism people would not develop linux in the first place because they would be busy chopping wood or harvesting beets with a shovel.

 

[daudaudaudau]

I'm pretty sure their workers generate the actual wealth.

No they don't. You need capitalists to take risks, come up with ideas for businesses and make new investments. You might as well say that the pigs and cows are the ones generating the actual wealth on a farm, not the farmer.

Besides, many countries have LOTS of workers, but no wealth. How come? Because the capitalists are missing!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I started working on a paper route in 1961, during the Kennedy administration. I was and remained quite diligent through a variety of jobs in my early years. But since the 'Great Society' programs of the Johnson administration made the US into a socialist tyranny, I've been taking it pretty easy.

 

[rabbitweed]

No they don't. You need capitalists to take risks, come up with ideas for businesses and make new investments. You might as well say that the pigs and cows are the ones generating the actual wealth on a farm, not the farmer.

Yes the pigs and cows are the source of wealth on a farm. That and the farm workers. And to a lesser extent the farmer.

Besides, many countries have LOTS of workers, but no wealth. How come? Because the capitalists are missing!

Care to come up with an example of such a country?

 

[daudaudaudau]

Yes the pigs and cows are the source of wealth on a farm. That and the farm workers. And to a lesser extent the farmer.
Care to come up with an example of such a country?

Ha ha, so basically your definition of wealth is "raw material". Right. Look, I have better things to do. Have fun shooting fish, you really rock.

 

[Count Iblis]

If you have a more socialist system, you can let the economy slow down a bit without causing problems. That would also reduce CO2 emissions, so it wouldn't be a bad thing.

The problems most developed countries face is primarily caused by chronic over consumption. Despite the fact that there are unemployed people and you have regional poverty problems, the cure for this is not by having more economic growth by letting people consume even more.

The problem is similar to the energy balance of an extremely obese person who is addicted to eating. The metabolic rate of such a person is actually higher than that of the average person. If the weight of the person is stable, then he is burning as many calories as he is eating, and he is eating a huge amount. So, his "GDP" measured in used calories looks very healthy, but we know that this is a bad measure of biological health. Rather we should put the person on a home trainer and see what his maximal power output is. If it is lower than 200 Watt for a young person, that's an indication of bad physical fitness.

Now, this obese person does have energy problems. His muscles are wasting away. He feels hungry and tired all day. But eating more is not the solution. He should eat less and work out more! The same is true for the developed countries. We should have a larger government, increase taxes which will lower wasteful consumption. The measure of economic health is the analogue of putting the obese person on a home trainer. E.g., what is the capacity the government has to explore space? If there is room for spending trillions to build bases on Mars, then that's an indication of a healthy economy.

The economic crises we are facing since late 2008 is analogous to the obese person feeling sick and as a result not being able to eat as many Big Macs as he is used to. He must now take it easy, otherwise he might collapse. The sickness was caused by the obese person eating even more to try to get more energy. It worked for a while until he got stomach problems.

 

[Pupil]

Heard of Linux?

Not to mention, without open source and cooperation, you wouldn't have OsX as it's based off FreeBSD...

Linu-what? Vaguely. I think I read an article talking about how Linux and Mac were getting dominated by Windows (which as 90% of the computer market). I think the head guy from that company -- Bill something -- is the richest man in the world and has donated $28 billion to charity.

But I'm sure Linux has done much, much more.

 

[fleem]

Do you know what 'socialist' means?

I think I'm going to have fun in this forum. Political discussions here is like shooting fish in a barrel.

So I take it you categorize the concepts of entitlements, corporate welfare, and forced charities under the category of free marketism or Constitutionalism?

 

[brainy kevin]

I guess it's also kind of like how doctors have to endure through the hard years of med school... and all that debt in the 100s of K, but then realize that universal healthcare may become a reality.

Man, I'm so glad we don't have a socialist health care system like France, where they pay for medical school for doctors, have costs of less than half of ours, is more effective, and the government provides cheap malpractice insurance for doctors. I know I would never want to become a doctor if America was like that.

 

[kldickson]

Yes the pigs and cows are the source of wealth on a farm. That and the farm workers. And to a lesser extent the farmer.



Care to come up with an example of such a country?

Ha ha, so basically your definition of wealth is "raw material". Right. Look, I have better things to do. Have fun shooting fish, you really rock.

daudaudaudau has just admitted that rabbitweed won the argument.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm pretty sure their workers generate the actual wealth.

They wouldn't if they did not have jobs.

 

[rabbitweed]

Linu-what? Vaguely. I think I read an article talking about how Linux and Mac were getting dominated by Windows (which as 90% of the computer market). I think the head guy from that company -- Bill something -- is the richest man in the world and has donated $28 billion to charity.

But I'm sure Linux has done much, much more.

Unix like systems completely dominate when it comes to important applications, such as supercomputers and servers.

Joe sixpack buying a home PC will of course buy something with MS Windows pre-installed because 1. it's not like they give you much of a choice and 2. he just wants something familiar without a learning curve.

It's sort of like saying Pinks music is technically superior to Mozarts or Bachs because it sells much more copies...

 

[rabbitweed]

So I take it you categorize the concepts of entitlements, corporate welfare, and forced charities under the category of free marketism or Constitutionalism?

No, I just think you're using sound bites from knee-jerk politicians, and using a word you don't understand to describe something you dislike.

If you're an American you should know a lot of cold war era red paranoia still lingers, and using 'socialist' to describe something is pretty much a slur.

 

[rabbitweed]

They wouldn't if they did not have jobs.

True. Your point? I don't think you need a capitalist class in order to provide jobs.

 

[MissSilvy]

^ You need a 'capitalist class' to provide the ideas that generate those jobs. Oh, unless you think the workers can come up with those as well, of course. Rabbitweed, I'd read up on how capitalism actually works before slurring the entire system based on misunderstandings and hastily-reached conclusions. It's almost as bad as those people who watched that laughable 'Zeitgeist' documentary and consider themselves sudden experts on the Federal Reserve system.

 

[rabbitweed]

^ You need a 'capitalist class' to provide the ideas that generate those jobs.

You think that in order for someone to generate ideas, that generate jobs, they need to own land and resources (usually inherited)?

And without this, society and innovation will..what? Cease to function?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

True. Your point? I don't think you need a capitalist class in order to provide jobs.

True. We could have the government providing jobs and running the industries based on politics and desire for re-election instead of productivity and growth.

In the end someone has to amass resources, strategize, and dictate their use toward the most productive ends. Contrary to popular communist propaganda capitalism leaves those resources in the actual hands of the people while communism places them in the hands of the government (simply refered to as The People).

 

[rabbitweed]

True. We could have the government providing jobs and running the industries based on politics and desire for re-election instead of productivity and growth.

Those are the only two options you can envisage? Oh ye of limited vision.

In the end someone has to amass resources, strategize, and dictate their use toward the most productive ends. Contrary to popular communist propaganda capitalism leaves those resources in the actual hands of the people while communism places them in the hands of the government (simply refered to as The People).

Care to share what logic you applied to designate private corporations as "the people", and government as something comprised of something wholly different?

Also, please share your own private definition of 'Communism', as everyone seems to have their own.

 

[MissSilvy]

You think that in order for someone to generate ideas, that generate jobs, they need to own land and resources (usually inherited)?

I rest my case. There's no arguing with people who are making up imaginary windmills to tilt at. Ever heard of entrepreneurs? And, by the way, a large portion of the largest and richest companies today were all started in the internet age, which is arguably in the last 30 years. If you're trying to convince us that there's some sort of dynasty behind Microsoft or Google, well... that says enough.

EDIT: I'm out and not checking this train wreck of a thread again.

 

[rabbitweed]

EDIT: I'm out and not checking this train wreck of a thread again.

Two down...

Fish. In. A. Barrel. =D

 

[avant-garde]

Hey I have a quick question. Would a perfect democracy lead to communism?

 

[CRGreathouse]

So, assuming that this does happen and everything changes... would you still be working as hard as you do?

Not a chance. I'm fairly altruistic, but I'm still motivated by incentives. Socialism decreases those. For example, under pure socialism,* I wouldn't work a second job like I do now.

* Actually, under pure socialism I'd join the underground resistance and die rather quickly, since I lack skills for that sort of thing. But for the sake of argument...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Those are the only two options you can envisage? Oh ye of limited vision.

There are many variations on model but it seems to me that you inevitably wind up with either private persons or politicians being ultimately in charge of the resources.
edit: or a combination of the two which is possible even worse than either.

Care to share what logic you applied to designate private corporations as "the people", and government as something comprised of something wholly different?

Also, please share your own private definition of 'Communism', as everyone seems to have their own.

Corporations are not the only people in charge of resources in a capitalist society. That would be a corporatist environment which is a rather severely controlled form of capitalism. In most models of a capitalist society actual individuals are in control of resources and any individual with skill and knwoledge can amass and control resources.

The government are simply people who have been elected, or appointed, to an office. They do not necessarily have the skill and capacity to properly manage resources. A successful businessperson has shown themselves capable in these regards by mere virtue of being a successful businessperson. "The People" then are able to place their confidence, and resources, in the hands of those who have most directly and successfully shown their capacity to manage these resources.


As for my definition of communism, I am sure there are several. The form of communism I prefer is small scale and based on individual communities. As much as I would love to believe that people are intelligent and responsible enough to manage this I can see with my own eyes that they most often are not.

 

[MissSilvy]

Rabbitweed clearly considers frustrating your opponents to death proof of his superior reasoning :) *pats on the head*

 

[rootX]

Rabbitweed clearly considers frustrating your opponents to death proof of his superior reasoning :) *pats on the head*

EDIT: I'm out and not checking this train wreck of a thread again.

 

[MissSilvy]

The teeth of my parting riposte was edited out by MIH. I can't let uppity kids get off too easily, now can I?

 

[rootX]

The teeth of my parting riposte was edited out by MIH.

MIH didn't edit your post only:

Last edited by Math Is Hard; T at 07:47 PM.. Reason: rude comment #46

Last edited by Math Is Hard; T at 08:11 PM.. Reason: bickering, reponse to rude comment #49

I can't let uppity kids get off too easily, now can I?

Sure, if you like to spend/waste time/energy in "this train wreck of a thread".

 

[marmot]

i think the definition of "socialism" is problematic. however even if we suppose the USSR was socialistic , the USSR had some of the best scientists and technology and while scientists might not have been paid as much as american ones, they had much much much more respect and it was probably easier to get a job relating to the field. nobody studies physics for the money anyway. the whole question is silly because there is already empirical data to answer it.

the whole thread smells of stockholm syndrome. the funny thing is that this thread is probably full of grad students and miserable post docs that get exploited till their bones are dry as garbagety cheap research monkeys and yet they all get all squiggly in their pants when someone dares to question the present situation. just because people with capital might give the money for research and "take the risk", they are not the ones doing the research. workers take the risk all the time when their bosses do - when a company goes bankrupt you get sacked.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

i think the definition of "socialism" is problematic. however even if we suppose the USSR was socialistic , the USSR had some of the best scientists and technology and while scientists might not have been paid as much as american ones, they had much much much more respect and it was probably easier to get a job relating to the field. nobody studies physics for the money anyway. the whole question is silly because there is already empirical data to answer it.

In the USSR were the scientists not told to research what the government wanted them to research?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union
I know its wiki and there is probably bias butu I am sure most of it is grounded in fact if perhaps a bit sensationalised.

the whole thread smells of stockholm syndrome. the funny thing is that this thread is probably full of grad students and miserable post docs that get exploited till their bones are dry as garbagety cheap research monkeys and yet they all get all squiggly in their pants when someone dares to question the present situation. just because people with capital might give the money for research and "take the risk", they are not the ones doing the research. workers take the risk all the time when their bosses do - when a company goes bankrupt you get sacked.

The same can happen in government jobs and in a government job you may be sacked or have your entire department downsized/dismantled because it is politically expedient.

 

[Count Iblis]

The educational system in Russia today is still way better than in the US, thanks to their communist past. If someone has any doubts about this, then just let some US first year university students do these problems:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0605057