I keep bashing socialism because they both center on creating economic equality.
So logically I should argue against State Capitalism, since that is no where near what you are arguing but they both focus on inequality and all the negatives of capitalism while adding in all the negatives of socialism, like having everything be state operated. Since apparently we are not actually arguing political ideologies, but ideologies that are close to the political ideologies, correct? Wow I am tired.
"Well, I just read a quote that contradicts what you are saying and therefore it must be right and you must be wrong." - That's the logic you are implying by quoting that.
Is it now? It is good to know that you can tell what I am implying.
Regardless, men are created equal. It's called equal opportunity. Communism seeks to promote equal outcome. It does not say in the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was inspired by Adam Smith and advocated small government, that all men are equal.
No, but it says that all men should be treated equally under the law.
Are you saying that rich people are somehow better then poor people? Poor people hardly have equal opportunity under a capitalist system, poor people are likely to stay poor since they don't have much to invest, are likely to be poorly educated, and have little chance of getting better jobs. If your born a poor capitalist, your in a horrible situation. On the other side the rich stay rich, thanks to inheritances, great education, and connections. A capitalist economy hold back both freedom and equality, while a communist one promotes both.
People are different in almost every aspect. Not to mention the immoral aspects of Communism, it is illogical to believe the economic equality will create social equality. As long as ignorance and intolerance exists, there will be discriminat
Being different does not mean you should get different pay. What aspects are immoral about communism? That it feeds everyone? That it heals everyone? I don't see how you could call it immoral.
Why would you suggest that economic equality would not create social equality? I can think of a dozen of instances across history where the most extreme acts of racism where influenced by money. Blacks where discriminated against in the Americas because they where often slaves bought from Africa, making them poor and poorly educated, as well as all the traits that appear on someone after a life time of slavery. Even once they where freed, many where still poor and looked down upon. Then in the Holocaust, Hitler blamed the Jews for the money problems of Germany. After all, many of them where richer then the rest of Germany, and Germany was extremely poor coming out of WWI. Economic instability under capitalism breeds hate and distrust, and makes people hate other people that they can manage to classify, rich or poor. Are you saying it would do nothing to help social stability?
The next bit is difficult to read.
Regardless, social equality is impossible and immoral. You squander individuality and diversity in favor of the collective. The only respect I have towards any socialist are Anarcho-Communists because they actually know what they are talking about instead of Marxists.
Squander individuality and diversity? How so? Under a capitalist government you can only do what makes you money. You "willingly" submit yourself to losing your diversity, after all if your work has any difference in other peoples in many poor jobs like farming or manufacturing, it is useless. Under a true communist government, you truly have freedom and individuality. You can do what you want, and hopefully it benefits the rest of your nation, giving you far more diversity (After all, no one wants to gamble on failure) and individuality. For example, lets say that there are two kid's movies. Under a capitalist economy, the movie most likely will be extremely similar to other movies, with many cash grabs like making a lot of marketable characters. You can pick two movies and barley tell the difference between them. However under a communist economy, you have the freedom to make whatever kind of movie you want, without fear of failure if it was not exactly like the movie before it. This would lead to greater diversity.
You admitted it was Socialist. So I ask you, if Socialism and Communist both value economic equality and equal outcome, then what is the difference if it has a government or not? The logic goes that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck, right? The minute difference, though very large and important, is government, but the fundamental principles are still there. After all, Socialism is just the transition into Communism. So if you're going to go against Socialism, which I think you are, then why are you not against Communism?
You seem to like free market capitalism. So logically you must like state capitalism. You are taking a very minor thing, like a value of equality, and then assuming that they must both be similar, no matter how much else is different. Like I said, it is the same difference with state capitalism and free market capitalism.
1. Greek philosophers don't innovate in the sense that they create newer and better products for profit. They practice philosophy, which does not create newer and better products for profit. Most philosophers lecture or write books for profit. They spread their ideas for profit. They do not "think" for profit.
Of course. They do it, even though they don't get profit. What you don't seem to get is the fact that we did get many things from the philosophers, considering the fact that they where basically scientists, they did come up with many things. The thought, but made no profit from it.
2. Competition creates innovation. Companies compete to create better products for their customers so they can maximize profits.
They create "Better" products as in products that bring them in more money. If the focus was on helping people, rather then helping yourself, not only would innovation leap forward, it would leap in the direction people want to go in. In a capitalist economy, you can pay an extra 50 cents for toothpaste in the exact same formula as the other one, simply because it is "for sensitive teeth" with literally no difference. In a communist economy, it would be perfected so that it actually does what it says it does, rather then just being a cash grab.
3. Your only example would be relevant if we lived thousands of years ago. Many inventors say they want to create inventions so they can profit off of them.
And many say they want to invent to help out the world, if the culture was changed to what would be in a communist society that would be the main focus.
4. If you look at old videotapes of the USSR, you see how people would wait in line for two hours if they wanted to buy bread. Monopolies do not create better products. If you are forced to buy from one supplier who has no competition, what incentive does he have to manage resources efficiently if he will gain a profit either way? Monopolies, whether state or not, do not manage resources efficiently. Innovation for innovation's sake is fallacious and all you do is provide phrases that are not even provided by any logical evidence.
Oh yeah? But under a state run capitalist system, it is a monopoly! Your doing it again. I keep saying "Communism" but you keep hearing "Socialism". I am not suggesting socialism, I am suggesting communism. Innovation for innovation's sake could easily be a cultural value, especially in a nation that takes pride in it's innovations. All your doing is using logical fallacies and comparing your ideal of socialism (We are arguing communism, remember?) an comparing it to what you think of humanity, with nothing to back it up. So pot calling the kettle black.
This is a debate between non-market and market ideas. You provide no substantial evidence for your opinion that not having a market is just.
And you have giving no opinion on why having a market economy is just. At the very least, under a communist economic system no one starves, no one is left to die, crime decreases, and everyone is equal, and free.
More laws, more offenders. Do you even know what Anarcho-Capitalism is? It is the purest form of capitalism!
How about I say crime from a western moral standpoint? In a communist government, there are no poor, so there are less crimes done by desperate people. In a capitalist economic system, the poor often turn to crime in order to get rich, like robbing a gas station. Such would be unlikely in a communist system.
Many people will sell books in order to make money. What's your point?
People turn to crime to make money. That doesn't happen when they don't need to make money.
You are cherrypicking dyer situations that occur in a mixed economy, even though the murder rate in many mixed economy countries is relatively low. You speak of it as if it is an epidemic. You also make the assumption that if one does not have the lifestyle he desires, he will murder another for it. Most murders are crimes of passion. If anything, one would steal.
Isn't even one murder one to many? I admit that murder is an extreme, though gangs formed by capitalism don't seem to have a problem with it. That is why I used drug dealing as an example first, then went into the more extreme crime of murder. In any case, it is far less likely that crimes will happen in a communist economy, if it even stops one murder, isn't that a good thing?
I'll give you an example of how a free market society where the currency is backed by gold through a genuine gold standard would work.
Yay! I love examples.
So, let's say I am poor. Well, I know that I can easily steal money, but then I would have to face the problem of imprisonment by a defense firm. I don't have any money to pay for a defense firm myself so I know that if I steal from a rich person, I am likely going to get caught and imprisoned with no chance of being found innocent. I know this because a rich person would probably have invested his wellbeing in a good defense firm. Stealing is out of the question.
Yes! Of course! That is why the theft rate in capitalist countries is 0%! I forgot that no thefts actually happened in capitalist countries, after all, no one wants take that risk, right? It isn't like capitalist countries have lost millions in stolen goods? Enough sarcasm yet?
Because there is a lot of economic opportunity, I can start a small business. I will take out a loan from a bank for the amount of money I've calculated I will need to start a small business. I will buy "X" amount for apples from a supplier of apples at "Y" cost. I don't have enough money to start in a business so I begin selling my apples in the street. The apples I sell are very cheap and have a low markup, but at least I'm making enough money to grow my business a bit.
Wow! I am impressed that you managed to get a loan for such an extremely small business in a throughout capitalism economy. Why did the bank give you a loan? You literally have no collateral. The bank is just gambling on you.
I could also take the alternative route and be an employee. I am poor but determined and friendly. I decide to wait tables for my favorite restaurant. The pay is not much, but I like the independence and the experience it gives me. I decide to place the money I earn into an education fund. With this education, I will be able to get into a better paying job. Because colleges are competing to provide a better education at a better price, the cost of education will go down, allowing low income people, like me, to have the possibility of a better job.
Ah yes, don't you just love the independence, doing exactly what someone else tells you to do! And you must be a lucky son of a gun, because somehow you managed to get a job that often pays minimum wage in our world, but in a world with no minimum wage how much do you think such a job would pay? I would assume not enough to go to a decent collage, especially not if you plan on doing things like "Eating". And after years of work just to get into collage, you get the prestigious award of...another gamble, this time to get a better job.
Or, I could just work at a factory as a janitor and ask for some training in another skilled job. Or I can be an apprentice for someone and gain skills that will benefit me in the future. The list goes on an on to what I can do and what I have the choice to do.
Yeah! You can work a low paying job as a waiter! You can work a low paying job selling oranges on the streets! You can work a low paying job in a factory! You can work a low paying job as a janitor! The options are endless! Yeah freedom that capitalism brings!
Under Communism, if I know that I can get the same standard of living for doing a less technical job than being a pharmacist, then what incentive do I have to become a pharmacist?
Healing your fellow man? Commiting to the common good of society?
