Hey, he asked a question(about what socialists think), I directed him where the answers are. :)

I can also accuse capitalism of being responsible for 2 World Wars and a hundred smaller ones, environmental destruction that is *still* not addressed as it should because corporations' interests always get in the way(but "greed is good", right?), and hundreds of million of children not even having clean water. But okay, since it personally "saved your life" and gave you the chance to buy a second house, all is forgiven and there's no reason for us to even question it or try to imagine a successor system.

Have Marxist states done better? They've caused more death/environmental damage (China). I guess you don't need to worry about children not having clean water when they're indentured for crimes their parents committed, right?

Those countries certainly have done better than what they *were* before their socialist revolutions. You really think Castro in Cuba is not better than the fascist Batista?

You seem to forget that there was a never a socialist revolution in any advanced capitalist country(like "orthodox" Marxism predicted). Russia was a poor agrarian country, with a huge amount of the population living in absolute dreadful conditions and fighting in the awful WW1 fronts. Socialism didn't bring poverty, it inherited it, and even the perverse version of it that was eventually implemented there at least brought the industrialization of the country, the defeat of Nazis and it made it a superpower, didn't it?

Also, you seem to forget that the capitalist countries didn't just say "okay, you Russians chose socialism over the tzar with a mostly bloodless and grass-roots revolution, we'll leave you to it and see how it turns out". They immediately sent their White Army to protect their interests and caused the hugely devestating Civil War. It's kind of hard to build a democratic socialism and keep your promise for "all the power to the Soviets!"(Soviet = city councils, created spontaneously by workers before the 1917 revolution, and *not* by the Bolsheviks), when you are encircled from all sides and you have to fight a civil war in order to protect what you've achieved.

But as I said, I don't consider them a model for the future, and many other socialists don't either. I'm certainly aware they commited crimes against even dissenting fellow socialists, Red Terror, Purges, Show Trials. Many socialists engage in "apologetics" for those, but I won't. I certainly wouldn't want to give up democracy and freedom of criticizng the State in a hypothetical future socialist society, and my opinion is that an undemocratic socialism is a perverted form of socialism that shouldn't be followed. If anything, I want *more* democracy(even direct one, to the extent that this is possible for a large population - technology can help with this today) than less.

I'm perfectly okay with critizing marxist(or so-called marxist) states for their crimes. Hell, I said, if you got any other proposal for a succeeding system to capitalism, I'm all ears. I'm not emotionally invested in the theory, and certainly not blind to the problems its implementation brought forth. I'm certainly not okay with "capitalism is as good as it gets and this is the end of history" though. As far as I'm concerned, capitalism built a great civilization(with great crimes commited in its way, of course, too), but now it has lost most of its positive power and has become detrimental to our further growth as a species. What *is* our future and our children's future under capitalism, exactly? We basically now just wait for the next great crisis, the next war, probably the next biblical Flood, and the next cool gadget to keep us occupied in the meantime.

The environmental issue, climate change, which is *amazing* we're still not addressing and putting the whole planet in danger, just because corporations' interests and they spend untold money in trying to discredit what is now well-accepted scientific facts, is the most glaring example I can cite. You are right that China is a major factor in this, but you are wrong citing it as a "marxist state" - China in the last 30 years at least is a major capitalist powerhouse that just doesn't waste time with parliamentary procedures. - http://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-went-from-communist-to-capitalist-2015-10/#the-country-is-in-the-process-of-transforming-itself-from-a-global-center-of-low-tech-manufacturing-into-a-major-hub-of-innovation-and-consumption-10

I think you being able to work in the currently profitable tech sector in the US and bying a second house doesn't really negate all this. We'll probably sing a different song when *our* jobs get automated and we get left by the side of the road because all we did was learning another slighly different programming language and API.

conquestor3:

That's why they'll pay above-mortgage prices to rent. It's a fair trade.

Ha-ha-ha... okay... now, that's bullshit.

Above-mortgage prices are about making someone else pay for your mortgage while also making a tidy profit.

Investors won't like hearing this, but this is an example of parasitical behavior in economics.

"Greed corrupts. Absolute greed, corrupts absolutely." -- Mike Man

:P

Never thought of it that way until now.

mikeman, on 24 Sept 2016, said:

... you have to explain where exactly your "right" to own a mountain or an oil well comes from.

• First is vacancy,
• Second is a willingness to defend,
• Third is an alliance with your neighbors (an agreement on territory).

The most absurd example of this is the Principality of Sealand. True story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

mikeman, on 23 Sept 2016, said:

What the hell! Now, if the "things they treat themselves with" are huge mansions, private islands and private jets, yes, I'm for banning those; that is, organize society in such a way so nobody is permitted to own such big property, for the sole reason that it can be put to much better use than one(or few) person's indulgences.

I am not for banning those. It is not my fault people overpopulate and have to subdivide what little property they inherit amongst themselves.

GTEgares, on 23 Sept 2016, said:

How come people here don't see the problem in that someone can make tens of millions of dollars, or billions, and yet someone can bust their ass and make barely enough to survive.

The main argument I have seen from the majority of people saying capitalism fails isn't that it has no place at all, but rather a 'pure' capitalism system isn't the best for the needs of all people.

There is no 'pure' capitalism.

GTEgares, on 23 Sept 2016, said:

The idea of government helping people with basic needs of people such as healthcare or a roof over the head of the homeless isn't a ridiculous notion.

The "Government" is people. Somebody has to do the work to provide any of this. Conservatism is about reaping what you sow, not being a burden onto others and others not being a burden onto yourself.

On a side note: Christianity is all about the burden, nothing but the burden, so help you burden (even though Jesus/Matthew said "My burden is light").

conquestor3:

That's why they'll pay above-mortgage prices to rent. It's a fair trade.

Ha-ha-ha... okay... now, that's bullshit.
Above-mortgage prices are about making someone else pay for your mortgage while also making a tidy profit.

Investors won't like hearing this, but this is an example of parasitical behavior in economics.

Hey, it's his house. As long as the tenants agree to pay the price, and nobody's breaking any laws, who are you to say it's parasitical behavior? He's providing a sevice...what was it...liquidity of living arrangements? Yeah. That. Tenants don't like it? They can go rent some place else. He's not twisting their arm or anything.

Good deal, conquestor3! :D

The "mortgage" and "income tax" replaced "serfdom" in a way no one could have imagined. I still can't believe serfdom ever existed, nevermind that it could evolve into its present form.

Mortgages are engineered to last the majority of your useful age (even though, a home may already be built or a new one built in a fraction of the time). They also have the added effect of diluting "wealth" each time a new loan is approved. An increase in the total number of dollars, devalues individual dollars. More dollars also means wealth can become that much more divisible. Now you can invest in the individual bricks themselves of residential properties https://www.brickx.com/ - this kind of parasitical thinking makes me sick, though.

Ownership among the middle class is in decline. It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of the next generation never move out of their parents' home.

For what its worth:

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." -- Charles Mackay

10 repetitions of "but greed is good, right?"

See, this is so typical for socialists. Take three words out of context, twist them, pervert them, and ridicule them. And yet, do not tell the truth.

You deliberately omit the part where I said "greed has its bad sides, but...". Yes of course, greed, and in particular excessive greed, can be bad. Nobody can deny that. But it also has good aspects. It drives people forward. Yes, it's not pretty, but it's a necessity. Without greed, we would have nothing (in fact, we would not even live).

Jealousy has no good aspects. It's just plain negative and destructive. Socialism is jealousy.

Socialism has no good aspects (in theory, it sounds like a good idea, yes...). Socialists take from those who work and produce (the "thieves who only steal") and direct their earnings into their own pockets. You know, it's not like socialists are against possesion. No, no... they just want to possess the same stuff as the others (and more), without working. What is yours is also mine, but stay away from my stuff.

I challenge you again: What about those good socialists that take 6-digit euro sums from the needy and even bigger 6-digit euro sums from the industry? What about the good socialists who waste close to 10k euros of tax money (per month, not per year!) on hosting their own permanent "coiffeur royal" in the style of Louis XIV? That, and eating from golden plates and having parades with gilded toy soldiers doing their ceremonial dance, but at the same time telling the people (mind you, those are the exploited workers, damn those capitalists!) that there is not enough money to pay for their retirement, and not enough money to build schools. There's also not enough money to repair those holes in the main street. But yeah, there's always enough money for me to bathe in champagne in a golden bathtub. From tax money.

Wasn't the French revolution exactly about abolishing that kind of thing? Now tell me why every mayor in France wears the Royal honor band? Every minister wears it, too (but on the opposite shoulder, for some reason?). Why do people who disapprove of nobility want noble titles and dress Napoleonesque? Why does a socialist need a medal on a ribbon? And what for, anyway? Did any single one of them save a million lives or find a cure for cancer? Did any single one of them ever produce anything but... words?
Why does every fucker in Germany get the order of merit, solely for doing a more or less ordinary, meaningless job for more than two years (and not even doing it good!), such as consul or minister? How can 30 orders or merit be reserved for haphazardly selected members of the parliament per legislative period, regardless of any actual merits, just like this? What have these people done? And why would they even want (being good democrats and socialists, after all) a symbol of totalitarism?

How can socialist ministers who (apart from being liars in every other respect anyway, like every politician) were caught lying not only about their imaginary PhD, but also about their imaginary highschool grade simply say "Yeah, you know what, fuck you. I'm not resigning, I'll still cash in 18k per month for the rest of my life"? If I did that kind of thing, I would not only be fired, but I would have to fear going to jail for unlawful assumption. But hey, for as socialist, that's perfectly OK.

If you want an example of why socialism/communism is evil, look at the very example that you have given yourself at the beginning: China.

Why are people in China so unhappy? I mean, it's the paradise, is it not? Why have people been fleeing from Russia (or the DDR, if you will) ever since the end of the second world war? I mean, it's just great there, isn't it. Why would you risk being shot by border guards? They must be crazy.

Why do the border guards shoot at them at all? After all, if they are fleeing from the paradise, they must obviously be mentally ill. No sane person would flee, would they.

Been to China recently and taken a deep breath? I hear there's people going to China for treating lung diseases. Try it. I've heard the water is really good there, too.

This thread has devolved into name calling and cherry picking on both sides.

Obviously, capitalism is in its current form is deeply unfair and the cause of great suffering in the world.

Equally obviously, totalitarian communism has spectacularly failed.

But hey, instead of thinking of lessons each could learn from the other system, let's just make stupid points about how poor people are lazy or mortgages are the new slavery.

Mortgages are engineered to last the majority of your useful age (even though, a home may already be built or a new one built in a fraction of the time). They also have the added effect of diluting "wealth" each time a new loan is approved. An increase in the total number of dollars, devalues individual dollars.

Well, first off mortgages are designed to make the acquisition of a durable good (property) affordable. 25 years is not the majority of your useful age (you sound young, like you have no idea how anyone can live past 30 without a walker for their frequent bathroom trips). I did not buy my first house until I was in my 30s and now I own my 25 ha outright and unencumbered. It works like it should, as long as you don't get greedy.

Second, increasing the money supply does not dilute wealth as long as the increase in the money supply keeps up with an increase in wealth. When it does, it's called 'inflation' and got pretty bad for a while there in the 1980s (when I graduated, I had student loads charged at a 25% p.a. interest rate, inflation was over 10%, and youth unemployment around 25%) but for the most part since the rampant unfettered capitalism of the XIXth century was tamed by more progressive socialist policies of the XXth, it's been pretty much neck-and-neck.

Bregma:

25 years is not the majority of your useful age (you sound young, like you have no idea how anyone can live past 30 without a walker for their frequent bathroom trips).

Of course the avg. life expectancy has risen. And the retirement age is increasing in some countries.

I feel young, so thank you. "Ow." Actually, I take that back, I don't feel young anymore.

Bregma:

I did not buy my first house until I was in my 30s and now I own 25 ha outright and unencumbered. It works like it should, as long as you don't get greedy. Second, increasing the money supply does not dilute wealth as long as the increase in the money supply keeps up with an increase in wealth. When it does, it's called 'inflation' and got pretty bad for a while there in the 1980s (when I graduated, I had student loans charged at a 25% p.a. interest rate, inflation was over 10%, and youth unemployment around 25%) but for the most part since the rampant unfettered capitalism of the XIXth century was tamed by more progressive socialist policies of the XXth, it's been pretty much neck-and-neck.

I'm happy for anyone who achieves self-reliance because of a system. But the system won't boost everybody's prosperity. Now that automation is set to have another revolution: A.I., there are serious concerns that need to be addressed. Debt plays a major role in the economy. It may not affect people like you & I but that doesn't mean it isn't worth finding a better answer for.

ChaosEngine:

But hey, instead of thinking of lessons each could learn from the other system, let's just make stupid points about how poor people are lazy or mortgages are the new slavery.

Lessons from each system is what's being discussed, they are not "stupid points".

ChaosEngine:

Obviously, capitalism in its current form is deeply unfair and the cause of great suffering in the world.

Equally, totalitarian communism has obviously spectacularly failed.

Does discussing this topic make you uncomfortable?

Chaos Engine:

This thread has devolved into name calling and cherry picking on both sides.

I don't see it that way at all. I see a healthy discussion. I wouldn't discourage a person from talking just because they have a strong opinion on something or a different perspective that challenges preconceived notions. Now the elections... there you might have a point --but this isn't about the current elections, and as long as that subject stays out of this topic, it will remain on point.

....another rant...

Dude, you know, if I can't convince you that the poor are not lazy, I sure as hell can't convince you about the merits of socialism, and that socialism isn't "jealousy"(lol) and that they want to "steal money from those that work and produce"(lol). :)

You make valid points about socialist politicians, but they're hardly new. Politicians are politicians. Men with power. Power corrupts. That's why they should be accountable to the people every step of the way, and that's why I have spoken in this thread against the evils of totalitarianism and how it should definitely not be a model for future socialists. Thing is, I don't think you are of the opinion that the markets should be accountable, every step of the way, to the people. Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you propose any mechanism on how we should strongly regulate the markets and keep those "golden boys" from running it into the ground every 15 years or so? Considering you basically blamed the last crisis on the working class and poor people, somehow I doubt it.

But, like I said, you can't be convinced even that poor people are not lazy slackers that don't want to work and don't know how to save money. So talking about socialism to you seems to me like an exercise in futility. Staying in favour of capitalism but just getting rid of your raw contempt of poor and underprivileged people would be a tremendous progress for you. I mean, it's just unbelieveable. In your view, people that lay bricks, make your clothes and shoes, gather the fruit you eat, people that build roads, sewage workers, people that serve you your food, people that dig holes and install your water pipes and internet cables are nothing more than minimal effort slackers that should get off their lazy asses and get a job that adds *real* value to the economy. Like trading stocks or advertising jewelry or writing the next stupid smartphone app or something.