3 ms·

> most jobs that pay enough that you could spend less time at work don't give you the option of doing so. In most countries outside of the West jobs pay much l

> most jobs that pay enough that you could spend less time at work don't give you the option of doing so. In most countries outside of the West jobs pay much less and you'll be forced to work much more to merely survive. Want to trade with them? > Folks, this is not some unintended side effect of capitalism- this is the way the system is supposed to work. You're not supposed to be happy. So an economic system where private enterprises produce goods and services based on what they believe will make profit (and not through coercion) and where you, the consumer, as a result have more options to choose from is somehow designed to make you unhappy? What would make you happy? "Democratic Socialism"? Would you prefer to work in forced labour camp? Because that's how Socialism inevitably ends every single time. Even in case of the poster child of Socialism, Venezuela, which recently passed a forced labour law.

merpnderp 10y ago
I often wonder if anyone who believe that the freedom to sell your goods and services is a bad thing can be rationalized with. Where do you even start with someone who disagrees with free trade? I mean their stance is basically that slavery (to the state) is a good thing. That's such a philosophical starting point based on intrinsic values, where do you start?
- randomgyatwork 10y ago
  Doesn't a disagreement with free trade mean that you think products from other countries should be taxed? If thats the case than local goods have a completive advantage in price, thats a good thing for a community isn't it? Free trade is an advantage to these who have the capital to move around, and to the idea of consumerism because unnecessary goods can be cheaper.
  - merpnderp 10y ago
    I meant free market.
projektir 10y ago
Some places being worse to live doesn't have any effect on his argument. There's a fairly wide range of states that can make a person unhappy.
randomgyatwork 10y ago
Generally the places we call socialist are state capitalist, meaning the state owns the means of production. The evolution from capitalism isn't to communism, it would be something new, something different. What we should want is a better system that is more fair to everyone and doesn't by its very purpose destroy the world.
- tbihl 10y ago
  I'm responding because I hate when people think that down-voting is a signal for disagreement, and because I think half of your second statement can be addressed. State ownership of capital is the definition of socialism. In as much as anyone uses your term 'state capitalist', they use it to refer to the heavy-handed control of markets by government in places like China. As to the departure from capitalism: when you depart from free markets without some seriously strong restraints to prevent further movement, you're always moving toward the same endpoint of non-choice and stagnation, but there are plenty of trajectories to get there. In the US, we enact well-meaning policy to protect our hallowed institutions or to protect the disadvantaged. The resulting distortions in knowledge conveyed by prices create arbitrage opportunities. Organizations/companies that can find and exploit those opportunities can grow powerful, and then they can sink in their talons to further distort and fossilize the market to their advantage. In the middle term, we have a different small group of people who get rich at others' expense, but it's a race to the bottom just like any other. Our confidence in preventing that decline is a finesse, just like in bridge: we're handing over control in the hope that we can both effect an intended change and regain control. That's a good trick for as long as you can keep it up. Having said that, I think it's bizarre to say that any system's purpose is to destroy the world, even if that is the probable end state.
  - randomgyatwork 10y ago
    According to Wikipedia: "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;"[1] "social ownership" refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.[2] As far as the meaning of socialism, I'd see an evolution of capitalism leading to the employee/cooperative ownership with less government interference. It makes sense that the people doing the work have a say in the company they are a part of. There could be problems, there are always problem with any system. But a fairer situation for all workers seems overall more beneficial to society as a whole. The issues you are describing in the US don't seem to be socialist, they are consequences of capitalism. As a process capitalism focuses on concentration of power, rent-seeking, limitation of competition (through corporate lobby). Basically what we have now is capitalism, there is no perfect ideal capitalism that we would be better with, and should move towards, we've already gone down that path and these are the consequences. This to me is the reason why we should be honestly talking about trying something else, something better. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership

merpnderp 10y ago

I often wonder if anyone who believe that the freedom to sell your goods and services is a bad thing can be rationalized with. Where do you even start with someone who disagrees with free trade? I mean their stance is basically that slavery (to the state) is a good thing. That's such a philosophical starting point based on intrinsic values, where do you start?

randomgyatwork 10y ago
Doesn't a disagreement with free trade mean that you think products from other countries should be taxed? If thats the case than local goods have a completive advantage in price, thats a good thing for a community isn't it? Free trade is an advantage to these who have the capital to move around, and to the idea of consumerism because unnecessary goods can be cheaper.
- merpnderp 10y ago
  I meant free market.

projektir 10y ago

Some places being worse to live doesn't have any effect on his argument. There's a fairly wide range of states that can make a person unhappy.

randomgyatwork 10y ago

Generally the places we call socialist are state capitalist, meaning the state owns the means of production. The evolution from capitalism isn't to communism, it would be something new, something different. What we should want is a better system that is more fair to everyone and doesn't by its very purpose destroy the world.

tbihl 10y ago
I'm responding because I hate when people think that down-voting is a signal for disagreement, and because I think half of your second statement can be addressed. State ownership of capital is the definition of socialism. In as much as anyone uses your term 'state capitalist', they use it to refer to the heavy-handed control of markets by government in places like China. As to the departure from capitalism: when you depart from free markets without some seriously strong restraints to prevent further movement, you're always moving toward the same endpoint of non-choice and stagnation, but there are plenty of trajectories to get there. In the US, we enact well-meaning policy to protect our hallowed institutions or to protect the disadvantaged. The resulting distortions in knowledge conveyed by prices create arbitrage opportunities. Organizations/companies that can find and exploit those opportunities can grow powerful, and then they can sink in their talons to further distort and fossilize the market to their advantage. In the middle term, we have a different small group of people who get rich at others' expense, but it's a race to the bottom just like any other. Our confidence in preventing that decline is a finesse, just like in bridge: we're handing over control in the hope that we can both effect an intended change and regain control. That's a good trick for as long as you can keep it up. Having said that, I think it's bizarre to say that any system's purpose is to destroy the world, even if that is the probable end state.
- randomgyatwork 10y ago
  According to Wikipedia: "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;"[1] "social ownership" refers to the various forms of ownership for the means of production in socialist economic systems; encompassing public ownership, employee ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity[1] and common ownership.[2] As far as the meaning of socialism, I'd see an evolution of capitalism leading to the employee/cooperative ownership with less government interference. It makes sense that the people doing the work have a say in the company they are a part of. There could be problems, there are always problem with any system. But a fairer situation for all workers seems overall more beneficial to society as a whole. The issues you are describing in the US don't seem to be socialist, they are consequences of capitalism. As a process capitalism focuses on concentration of power, rent-seeking, limitation of competition (through corporate lobby). Basically what we have now is capitalism, there is no perfect ideal capitalism that we would be better with, and should move towards, we've already gone down that path and these are the consequences. This to me is the reason why we should be honestly talking about trying something else, something better. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ownership