Anything that has a chance of increasing survival rates in t

[RandomCasualty]

1170116379[/unixtime]]
Humans being competitive by nature is also something you've been repeating for years which is total horse shit. Read some anthropology or something. Ugh. The only real competitive desires I've felt are leftover macho bullshit that I'm trying to throw away. That's it. I have never desired to compete with another human for food. Even when I was a die hard anarcho-capitalist dumbshit, I knew I was lying to myself. I only wanted to compete with other men who I hated for being corporatist or statist or something. It's all a fvcking crock. Humans cooperate.

Are you fucking shitting me? We can cooperate, but our base nature is to trample others to get ahead. Sure, we may be loyal to certain people, but as a whole, other human beings are there trying to take our resources, whatever those may be.

When you go out to apply for a job you really want, are you thinking about all the other applicants or about who deserves the job? Are you likely to step back and let someone else get the job because you feel they're more qualified? HELL NO. You're going to represent yourself as best you can and try to beat out the competition.

And the same is true about getting anything humans want, whether it's women, money, possessions or status. Fuck man, we live in a finite world. There can only be one president, and there are only X number of job openings for specific positions. That's just how all of life is. Whether you're a wolf hunting for some food or you're a human being looking to laid, the only way you're going to succeed is if you beat out everyone else.

As far as laziness, we do work for reward. It's that simple. Some people are rewarded simply by helping others. But most people prefer some kind of monetary reward. Assuming you give people two choices.

A) You can work at whatever job you want and get minimum wage.
b) You can get a big fund of wealth and never have to work at all, and can live in luxury without doing shit. If you do so however, you realize that nameless others will be losing a share of goods to make you a rich man.

Almost everyone is going to choose B. Seriously, I don't deny it, I'd choose B to.

How many people vote? Not a heck of a lot... People seem pretty damn lazy to me. They work because they have to work.

Now, you can argue all you want about bullshit theories of cooperation, but at the end of the day, most people wouldn't pay their taxes if the government didn't threaten to put them in jail if they didn't. Imagine if paying taxes was optional... I mean seriously... almost nobody would pay.

Cooperation... yeah right. We only cooperate when there's a gun to our heads or when it serves our own self interest.

[Username17]

We can cooperate, but our base nature is to trample others to get ahead.
...
But most people prefer some kind of monetary reward.

Random, there is a fundamental flaw in your argument. You see, the existance of money at all is a form of cooperation. Seriously, it's just rag paper with guarantees of cooperation printed on it.

If people weren't constantly cooperating, constantly allowing other people to have their way, constantly giving others access to resources there would not, could not be any money. The very existance of a monetary reward as a concept destroys your argument for why people want it.

Money isn't worth anything. It's not a resource, you can't eat it, it doesn't get you from place to place. We all just agree that these arbitrary numbers in banking systems correspond to the willingness of others to do favors for you.

Our entire economic system is based, not on wealth, but on cooperation and favors. We've all agreed to give favors and hand over goods to whoever happens to have a pile of "dollars" - but it's still just an agreement and a system of distribution. We could have a better distribution system quite easily, but claiming that our system somehow disproves the ideal of cooperation is insane.

The system is cooperation. At every level. And indeed, there isn't anything else that allows it to persist.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1170273348[/unixtime]]
Random, there is a fundamental flaw in your argument. You see, the existance of money at all is a form of cooperation. Seriously, it's just rag paper with guarantees of cooperation printed on it.

If people weren't constantly cooperating, constantly allowing other people to have their way, constantly giving others access to resources there would not, could not be any money. The very existance of a monetary reward as a concept destroys your argument for why people want it.

There's a difference between being competitive and being anarchic. Being competitive doesn't mean we're going to take to the streets and riot over the smallest thing. It doesn't mean any old human is going to spitefully ignore any attempt at cooperation. Remember that there's also the element of laziness and being a raiding barbarian is a lot of work and risky business. We want some stability, so we can keep what we win. Nobody likes living in fear from day to day that some guy may come into our house with a gun and start robbing us.

Humans are willing to cooperate for things that benefit everyone and don't hurt them. Money and economic systems as a whole exist because humans don't want to make everything themselves.

We don't want to hunt our own food, we don't want to sow our own clothing and so on. It's also too dangerous to constantly try to steal that shit. So now we start trading with people, well barter is a fucking pain in the ass, because you're wasting time trying to figure out what crap to barter with who.

So we came up with the money system as a convenience. And we do that because it improves our quality of life.

But that doesn't mean we're a cooperative race. There's just nothing to be gained by not accepting money aside from screwing yourself. We accept money because it makes our own lives easier. Do you really want to waste your time bartering with the owner of every supermarket for a bag of apples?

Human kind can cooperate, we can make governments and economies and all kinds of other stuff that we think improves our own lives, but that's just because there's more to be gained from living within the government than living in chaos. But hey, we still hate paying taxes regardless and the majority of people would be perfectly happy taking the benefits of government while letting someone else handle the bill.

We are innately greedy.

[OrionAnderson]

"Sure, we may be loyal to certain people, but as a whole, other human beings are there trying to take our resources, whatever those may be."

Througout history, people's loyalties have been *expanding* from the family, to the tribe, to the city, to the nation. At some point, I hope we'll be loyal to the world.

"When you go out to apply for a job you really want, are you thinking about all the other applicants or about who deserves the job?"

Yes, actually. IN any situation where I know the other people invovled, and I know their talents, of course I try to to let everyone do what they're good at. It's called leadership.


"And the same is true about getting anything humans want, whether it's women, money, possessions or status."

Status isn't a physical possession. You can't mug someone for his status. In functional communities, altruism is a good way to *gain* status. In my social circle it is, anyway.

Incidentally, women aren't possessions either.

"fvck man, we live in a finite world."

Oh really? Ever heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Because even the most misnathropic interpretations allow that the size of the pie is not fixed.

"There can only be one president"

Why on earth couldn't there be more?

" and there are only X number of job openings for specific positions. That's just how all of life is. Whether you're a wolf hunting for some food"

Bullshit. There are plenty of job openings in wolf packs that exist *only* because the wolves work together. some wolves are big, some are fast, some are alert; whatever. Cheetahs, on the other hand, can all accept skin grafts from each other, because they're all the same. Biologists have a word for that: it's called failure.

"or you're a human being looking to laid, the only way you're going to succeed is if you beat out everyone else."

I'm sorry, but sex is most definitely a renewable resource. You can fvck a girl today, and I can fvck her tomorrow, or, heck, we can fvck her at the same time, if she's game. In fact, the less jealous everyone is, the more sex everyone can have.

[RandomCasualty]

1170287393[/unixtime]]
I'm sorry, but sex is most definitely a renewable resource. You can fvck a girl today, and I can fvck her tomorrow, or, heck, we can fvck her at the same time, if she's game. In fact, the less jealous everyone is, the more sex everyone can have.

The thing is that the majority of humanity is possessive and jealous. It's the reason that people want exclusive sexual relationships and such in general.

We don't want to split our resources even if we could, and that's my point.

I mean if you're not alright with someone else fucking your girlfriend, then why on earth would you want to share your money and food with others for nothing?

Greed is part of human nature.

[OrionAnderson]

"I mean if you're not alright with someone else fvcking your girlfriend"

It's her approval you'd need, not mine; I could care less.

"then why on earth would you want to share your money and food with others for nothing?"

A: Conditioning/Force of Habit. I have often been told that generosity is good, I am praised for generosity, and therefore I have incorporated generosity into my value system. People are susceptible to conditioning.

B: Win Friends: Reputation is important. Whether you'r e looking for money, status, or sex, being known for kindness is a major edge.

C: Lose Enemies: Screwing others over is a bad idea in the long run. When people have less than you, they get jealous. When they're starving, they're dangerous. Sharing what you have is the best way to make sure nobody hates you.

D: None of the above. I, for instance, started volunteering as a self-help strategy. I had suffered from depression so extreme I wasn't sure why I should go on living. I strongly suspect that my belief that others depended on me was all that kept me alive.

[PhoneLobster]

Some days I'd enjoy living in RCs world.

'Cause frankly I could beat most people up no problem.

It would totally rock to be like taking all their junk and sleeping with all those women with my hot no holes barred defeating the enemy powas.

It'd be all "Hey baby is that your boyfriend... SMACK" "You totally dig me now right?" and all "Hi there are you applying for the same job as me? BAM... Welcome on board Mr KICK YOUR ASS!"

And even in the brutal monkey interpretation of society where you inexplicably AREN'T allowed to hit people I totally rock at beating people at all sorts of stuff. But oddly you don't actually get rewarded for being better at doing things. You get rewarded for doing things with the right people.

[RandomCasualty]

1170293496[/unixtime]]Some days I'd enjoy living in RCs world.

'Cause frankly I could beat most people up no problem.

It would totally rock to be like taking all their junk and sleeping with all those women with my hot no holes barred defeating the enemy powas.

Competition doesn't always mean beating people up. It can just mean trying to have a better appearance than them, or outdoing them in certain areas. It's not always physical, most of the competition nowadays tends to be more intellectual and social, because people decided that it would be better not to have to constantly worry about someone beating you up and taking your shit.

Because as I said, nobody likes anarchy. It's awesome for a while, until someone bigger than you starts to take your shit, or the lesser guys team up.

Everytime you apply for a job position, you are competing, because you've got to show the employer that you're better than everyone else who applied. Everytime you try to get a girl you're competing because you have to show her that you're better than the other guys who she can choose from. Believe it or not, almost everything you do is a competition. Hell, a lot of powergamers even compete in D&D which is supposed to be a cooperative game, by building more powerful characters than everyone else or just trying to annihilate the DM's encounters using super combos.

Nowadays we compete with some rules, but we still compete, and compete a lot.

[OrionAnderson]

Well, If that's the kind of competition you mean --basic "only one perosn can have this exact position" then of course you're right.

Competition will probably never go away, but inequality cna be minimized.

Imagine a society in which absolutely everyone made between $50,000 and $100,00. There's plenty of room for competition there-- I mean, you could make TWICE as much money as the next guy.

It would still be much better than our current system, where CEOs make a hundred times a worker's salary and people starve in the streets.

Or to use another example: you're right. If two people each want a monogamous relationship with the same person, they can't both get what they want. But that doesn't mean all three shouldn't get free healthcare.

[Catharz]

1170297067[/unixtime]]

1170293496[/unixtime]]Some days I'd enjoy living in RCs world.

'Cause frankly I could beat most people up no problem.

It would totally rock to be like taking all their junk and sleeping with all those women with my hot no holes barred defeating the enemy powas.

Competition doesn't always mean beating people up. It can just mean trying to have a better appearance than them, or outdoing them in certain areas. It's not always physical, most of the competition nowadays tends to be more intellectual and social, because people decided that it would be better not to have to constantly worry about someone beating you up and taking your shit.

Guess what? People compete at being better at working together. What kind of a fucked up crazy 'every man for himself' kind of Survival of the Fittest is that?

[Endovior]

Re: Russian Death Rate: The statistics you have provided indicate that the reason why the mortality rate has increased is because people can now afford to kill themselves (with Alcohol and Tobacco). Indeed, it specifically notes that the two other areas considered (Heath Care and Diet) are unlikely to have caused this, leaving the only explanation offered to be the effects of Alcohol and Tobacco. This is clearly the fault of Capitalism; how dare it allow people to access goods that may be harmful to them! After all, a proper society should have an all-powerful government looking over everyone's shoulder all the time, carefully regulating their actions in accordance to the will of the leadership. No, not really; freedom is much better.


Re: Socialist Inefficiency: I've mentioned a number of things, here, specifically targeting the distribution system. Since you seem to have missed it, I'll go into more detail.

The main problem with Socialism is the lack of a working price system. Under Socialism, the advantages of a free market pricing system are abandoned due to government decree: assuming money is permitted at all, prices and wages are set to arbitrary sums by bureaucrats. The results of this depend on how the amounts set are different from the actual results that would occur under normal supply and demand: if the given prices are too high, there will be a surplus of goods, as people cannot afford to buy all of the goods available. If the prices are too low, there will be a shortage, as all available goods are quickly acquired by anyone who wants them. The same holds true for wages: a mandated high minimum wage leads to unemployment, as government and industrial concerns find that they cannot afford to pay everyone minimum wage for what needs to be done without running out of money. The common solution to this is to print more money, which totally wrecks the value of that money.

Incidentally, this isn't some crazy Capitalist scare tactic, as you might claim: this is standard, accepted economic theory. (Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_ceiling )

You suggest Environmentalism as a good argument against Socialism... ...Come to think of it, I really don't want to touch Environmentalism at all, please don't mention it again. Suffice it to say that I disagree strongly, and leave it at that; if you really want to discuss it, make a new thread for it (don't let this one get even more off-topic).


Re: Government Statistics: Yeah, the US government isn't perfect, I make no claims to such. At least they tell the truth most of the time (lest they be caught lying), as opposed to the Communists, who lied constantly. That's what politics does, and a good argument against statism.


Re: Competition/Cooperation: It is the nature of the current system to be competitive; there are at any time a finite amount of resources, and as each person wants as many of those resources as possible, all must compete for resources. However, we are rational beings, not animals. We realize that, if we work together, we can produce more resources then we can alone, which we can then trade amongst each other as we decide is fair. This leads to currency, and that leads to banking, and so on and so forth until you get the whole of the economic system. This cooperation is beneficial for some, but those with which you are cooperating are still competing with others. If you run an auto repair shop, you're competing with the one down the road; if you run Ford, you're competing with Toyota. At any level you may care to examine, you are likely cooperating with a group of individuals; but your group is in competition with other groups. That this competition does not (usually) take the form of savagely killing each other is called Civilization, and is our greatest achievement so far.


As an afterthought...

1170301377[/unixtime]]Imagine a society in which absolutely everyone made between $50,000 and $100,00. There's plenty of room for competition there-- I mean, you could make TWICE as much money as the next guy.

It would still be much better than our current system, where CEOs make a hundred times a worker's salary and people starve in the streets.

Do imagine your society, and remember what I said about government-mandated prices. Price floors create surpluses; so if you insist that absolutely everyone must be paid at least $50000, then guess what? All the janitors in your country will starve to death, because nobody can afford to pay a janitor $50000.

(Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_floor )

[User3]

The only thing you've illustrated with your examples, RC, is that humans behave in certain ways in a capitalist society. You proved nothing about their nature.

The truth is that humans are hungry by nature, and forced to compete by capitalism for food.

When you go out to apply for a job you really want, are you thinking about all the other applicants or about who deserves the job? Are you likely to step back and let someone else get the job because you feel they're more qualified? HELL NO. You're going to represent yourself as best you can and try to beat out the competition.

You are forced to do this by capitalism. Without a job (a capitalist job), you don't eat. So you can either bow out of the competition, or eat. The only thing we can derive from this example is that humans like to eat.

There can only be one president, and there are only X number of job openings for specific positions. That's just how all of life is.

No, it's how bourgeois democracy and a capitalist economy are. Fuck the presidency. A society can decide exactly what kind of division of labor it wants.

As far as laziness, we do work for reward. It's that simple.

That is circular. You define work as anything done only for reward. Anything done for it's own sake is not work. Meaningless horse shit.

Almost everyone is going to choose B. Seriously, I don't deny it, I'd choose B too.

Given the choice today, so would I. However, in a cooperative society in which there existed social bonds between you and your community, you can't say what you would do. Once again, you have set up your example within a capitalist framework. I am in complete agreement that people behave this way under capitalism. Why the fuck do you think I want to be rid of it?

How many people vote? Not a heck of a lot... People seem pretty damn lazy to me.

And again, we're talking about voters in the US system. That says almost nothing about human nature. Workers voting in their own economic interests is bad for capitalists, so voting is actively suppressed (because capitalists have the power to do that). Eight hour lines in poor districts, scare tactics to immigrants, and a public political discourse that's a meaningless farce at best. You can't even tell what the fuck positions are held by candidates any more. This is deliberate. You and I both know that the political debate in the US is completely phony. We know what real political discussions sound like. For fuck's sake, THEY SOUND LIKE THIS. You will almost never see a discussion like this in the US unless some major changes take place.

That doesn't even address the fact that the entire system alienates you from your power. Since when have you felt that your vote made any difference whatsoever in your life? When people actually have the power to affect their own lives, I bet you see a hell of a lot of participation.

After that you appear to have lost your mind. I thought we were arguing whether or not humans were competitive with each other by nature. Are you seriously trying to put forth the idea that humans don't cooperate unless faced with starvation?

We LOVE cooperating. It makes us feel warm and squishy inside. It is literally it's own reward, or rather social bonds are that reward. People do shit all the time just to deepen their social bonds. To deny this seems to me insane.

The crux of the matter is this: You seem unable to see what effects the constraints artificially imposed by capitalism have on human behavior. Workers and consumers compete with each other because they must in order to survive. Capitalists compete with each other because they must or else their business will be lost. People whack off in their free time because they spend almost half their waking hours having their productive energies appropriated by a totalitarian institution. Workers are politically apathetic because their power is dangerous to capitalism, so their participation is actively discouraged and their power is marginalized. People are greedy because the system requires it and actively rewards it. Capitalists must continue to expand or their business will be eaten by other capitalists worried about being eaten, thus "greed" is a necessary trait. Workers must continue to consume more in order to sustain that expansion, thus "greed" is a necessary trait.

Observing that people are shitty under capitalism tells you very little about their nature. The system is bigger than you.


Anonymous Coward

[User3]

...as each person wants as many of those resources as possible...

This is easily the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read. Do you even know any other humans? Are you channeling Ayn Rand?


Anonymous Coward

[Draco_Argentum]

1170323022[/unixtime]]The truth is that humans are hungry by nature, and forced to compete by capitalism for food.

You and RC have pretty much missed the boat here. Society since farming has zero to do with human nature. Yet you're both talking about it like there is a connection.

Human nature evolved well before farming and there hasn't been time for much change since. It was evolved to ensure the efficient proliferation of genetic material in pre-historic times.

Humans weren't made for the modern world, that comes from socially transmitted software patches.

[OrionAnderson]

"The main problem with Socialism is the lack of a working price system. Under Socialism, the advantages of a free market pricing system are abandoned due to government decree: assuming money is permitted at all, prices and wages are set to arbitrary sums by bureaucrats."

I'm pretty sure that's NOT how European Socialist countries work, for the most part. You might want to look into the EU a little more.

"This cooperation is beneficial for some, but those with which you are cooperating are still competing with others. If you run an auto repair shop, you're competing with the one down the road; if you run Ford, you're competing with Toyota. At any level you may care to examine, you are likely cooperating with a group of individuals; but your group is in competition with other groups."

The thing is that free-market capitalism isn't really about competition in the long run. Eventually someone gets enough money to buy their competitiors, or buy the government, or both. Capitalism is a lousy system for insuring competition, but a good system for allowing the rich to consolidate all the wealth and power.

"Do imagine your society, and remember what I said about government-mandated prices."

Well, first off, remember that this was a very crude example.

"All the janitors in your country will starve to death, because nobody can afford to pay a janitor $50000."

Not so much-- the unemployed get $50,000 too.

[OrionAnderson]

Hate to double post, but using economic theory to justify capitalism is total bullshit. here's why:

A: These theories don't necessarily correspond to anything real. Some Econopmic theories seem to hold up pretty well when compared to evidenc,e but tohers don't. Most of them are just plain made up, and do stupid shit like assuming everyone is a rational actor.

B: Even standard economic theories don't really justify free market capitalism.

You see, a free market promises ideal distribution fo goods only sometimes. There are many, many things, which economists will agree can interferere with it.

Monopolies and Monopsonies unfairly raise profits, thus causing too little of a product to be bought. But some products, which are efficiently produced in bulk, a re"natural" monopolies.

"Externalities" occur when my actions affect your well-being. If I pollute, it hurts me, but it hurts you too, but since I don't have to pay for that, I end up polluting too much. If, on the other hand, I vaccinate my kids, that makes *your* kids healthier. But since I don't get paid for that, everyone is undervaccinated.

"Free Rider" problems arise when somethgin is basically a public good that can't be owned. Clean air is the obvious one, and town festivals. But there's more. Healthcare, for instance, is basically a public good, because plagues and whatnot ar ein nobody's interest.

Finally, you have goods which simply don't work right under a free makret because the demand is messed up. Liek drinking water. You need it to live, so you should be willing to pay all your wealth for it, but in practice most people don't want that to happen. Health Insurance is another one-- the better we get at predicting illness, the harder getting health insurance becomes for those who actually need it. The healthy people drop out of the program and premiums rise until sickly people aren't getting insurance so much as a financning plan.

Finally, this economic theory keeps score in exactly one way: total profits. People can starve to death, and this theory is completely okay with that. But the fact is, poverty itself is the most toxic form of pollution, and costs the rich huge amounts of money to pay for prisons, police officers, emergency rooms, and more.

[Zherog]

1170323310[/unixtime]]This is easily the stupidest fvcking thing I have ever read.

You've never read anything by Skip Williams, have you?

[Zherog]

1170319406[/unixtime]]
As an afterthought...

1170301377[/unixtime]]Imagine a society in which absolutely everyone made between $50,000 and $100,00. There's plenty of room for competition there-- I mean, you could make TWICE as much money as the next guy.

It would still be much better than our current system, where CEOs make a hundred times a worker's salary and people starve in the streets.

Do imagine your society, and remember what I said about government-mandated prices. Price floors create surpluses; so if you insist that absolutely everyone must be paid at least $50000, then guess what? All the janitors in your country will starve to death, because nobody can afford to pay a janitor $50000.

(Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_floor )

Aside from Orion's own reply, there's another flaw here.

Remember that in Orion's simplified system, there's also a ceiling on wages. So, rather than a CEO making $2mil like they do now, they make $100,000. That's a "savings" of $1,900,000. That money could, in theory, be used to increase the salary of the janitor from his current measly $18,000 to the floor of $50,000.

[RandomCasualty]

1170333894[/unixtime]]
Not so much-- the unemployed get $50,000 too.

Well shit, then who would ever work? I can be a janitor and make 50k or I can sit on my ass and make 50k... gee hard decision.

This gets back to the inherent problem of socialism, and that's laziness. If I accept that I'm going to make $50,000 (which really ain't bad, it's only half what I'd get if I was the CEO), then I don't have to even care if I get fired or not. I mean whatever, if I'm horrible at my job and show up late and shit, then I just get fired and then I can sit home drinking beer and hiring hookers all day long (well actually not sure how hookers would work in a socialist economy... but that's beside the point).

It's what I've been saying all along, there's really no incentive to work.

There's this really odd socialistic belief that somehow socialism gets everyone to cooperate and stop caring about themselves and work because it benefits society. People don't do that shit. Maybe they did before when the world consisted of small villages that actively needed every hand they could get. But this is the modern age. This is the age of can't somebody else do it. The world really doesn't need anyone, so the only reason people do what they do is because of personal gain.

That doesn't even address the fact that the entire system alienates you from your power. Since when have you felt that your vote made any difference whatsoever in your life? When people actually have the power to affect their own lives, I bet you see a hell of a lot of participation.

Socialism alienates you a lot from your power. In fact you have very little impact at all, you don't even have the potential for power. All the businesses are government run. All the salaries are government set. All the jobs are government controlled. I mean shit, you can't even open up your own hotdog stand if you wanted to without government approval. You're just a helpless worker drone. Capitalism may suck ass for some people, but at least it offers the hope that they may one day rise up to another level. In socialism, fuck, you've got nowhere to go, ever. You're born, you go to school, you work then you die. It's pretty depressing.

We LOVE cooperating. It makes us feel warm and squishy inside. It is literally it's own reward, or rather social bonds are that reward. People do shit all the time just to deepen their social bonds. To deny this seems to me insane.

We love social bonds, yes, but then there is social competition too. Even the struggle to be accepted among your peers is a form of competition.

[User3]

You and RC have pretty much missed the boat here. Society since farming has zero to do with human nature. Yet you're both talking about it like there is a connection.

I'm standing right here on the fucking boat with you, sailor. The entire point of my crappy diabtribes was that the nature of humans is to be socialized. If I implied that cooperation and not competition was our nature, I apologize. There is obviously potential for both.


Then we get back to the same straw-manning of socialism that pissed me off in the first place.

Socialism alienates you a lot from your power. In fact you have very little impact at all, you don't even have the potential for power. All the businesses are government run. All the salaries are government set. All the jobs are government controlled. I mean shit, you can't even open up your own hotdog stand if you wanted to without government approval. You're just a helpless worker drone. Capitalism may suck ass for some people, but at least it offers the hope that they may one day rise up to another level. In socialism, fvck, you've got nowhere to go, ever. You're born, you go to school, you work then you die. It's pretty depressing.

There's some serious bullshit in this about Actually Existing Socialism (for example, what do you think joining the CP meant? That's how you get to Moscow, with the nice apartment and some consumer goods), but forget that for now.

You're right, that does sound pretty fucking horrible. Which is why I want worker management of enterprises, and as much input into whatever planning goes on as possible. I am not against people opening hot dog stands, however, it's going to be hard for you to make a profit in a socialist society, seeing as how we can get food at cost. They had better be damn good hot dogs.

I am not advocating equal compensation for those who don't do any work. You should get more if you produce more. I do, however, want to meet the basic needs of the unemployed. This has tangible material (as well as social) benefit beyond anything you could buy with your tax money.

You need to stop having a conversation with Stalin and start talking to me.


Anonymous Coward

[fbmf]

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
A long time ago on a message board far, far away there was a discussion about socialism that didn't go well. Maybe I'm jumping the gun a bit because I remember the fallout of that thread all too well, but if I see this thread get any more heated, I'm shutting it down.

Fair warning to all.
[/TGFBS]

[Draco_Argentum]

1170364242[/unixtime]]If I implied that cooperation and not competition was our nature, I apologize. There is obviously potential for both.

I was mostly annoyed that you hadn't called RC on it. Pointless side arguements are for Fox News.

[Crissa]

You know, where I grew up, the original population had a Gift Economy. There's many different models for an economy to run...

...And guess what? Capitalism isn't the only one. However, Capitalism is immiscible with things like a Gift Economy, which means as long as Capitalism rules the world, other variants can't exist.

So RC is obviously wrong, because natural tribal sources show a variety of economies - and Capitalism was much more rare than any other.

Now that I've gotten past that...

Socialism alienates you a lot from your power. In fact you have very little impact at all, you don't even have the potential for power. All the businesses are government run. All the salaries are government set. All the jobs are government controlled. I mean shit, you can't even open up your own hotdog stand if you wanted to without government approval. You're just a helpless worker drone. Capitalism may suck ass for some people, but at least it...

That's BS, RC. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and come down to Earth.

In Capitalism you can't open your hotdog stand because the megachain already owns all the hotdog stands. They also already own all the restaurants. And you know what? You know that's not true because you live is a Capitalistic society and know there's tiny cracks.

But if it weren't for Socialistic laws from the Government, there wouldn't be any cracks. Why can you open a hotdog stand? Because it's not legal for megahotdog to undersell hotdogs to keep you from entering the market or overcharging you on the stand or blocking your supplies. Or from making their hotdogs (or your hotdogs) from people and dogs instead of pigs and cows.

And just like in socialism, you need a permit to sell hotdogs. Why? To make sure that you're selling them within our agreed upon rules.

...What? You didn't know that under true Capitalism they had 1% People and ??% Pig in their 100% Beef Hotdogs?

Not only in True Capitalism does it require n% people starving on the street, or toiling in dead-end jobs... It requires that other people be kiilled, for profit.

-Crissa

fixed the link... and my markup

[Zherog]

Your link is pooched, Crissa. It's replacing all the slashes ('/') with %2f. It's not hard to fix it after clicking it, of course, but just to let you know...

[User3]

While instituting a price floor AND a price ceiling is nice for workers and does allow them to lead a better lifestyle, what about the effects on the cost of goods and services?

I could see a policy like this being relatively bad for entrepreneurship and for small businesses in general (like Mom and Pop stores). Of course, I'm most likely overlooking something and I'd like to hear the counterargument for why it wouldn't be as damaging as I'm thinking for such businesses.