PDA

View Full Version : I've posted this on other boards - so how about here: Why is Capitalism better?



SarasotaRepub
03-06-2010, 09:13 PM
:D WOOT! Good stuff tonight in DUmmyLand. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7858686)



Taverner (1000+ posts) Sat Mar-06-10 05:06 PM
Original message I've posted this on other boards - so how about here: Why is Capitalism better?


Edited on Sat Mar-06-10 05:07 PM by Taverner
I don't think it is. It's what we have for now, and so one should do their best within the system they've got, not the one they want.

Honestly, for most people, Socialism is better. I am not talking Marxist Leninism, Rousseau, or any specific theorist.

Socialism is simply the economic model where the public or direct worker owns and administers the means of production and allocation of resources.

As a broad concept, why is this not better than Capitalism?




ThomWV (1000+ posts) Sat Mar-06-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #2 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7858686#7858717)
12. There is not one single example of socialism having worked anywhere for more than a few years Edited on Sat Mar-06-10 05:33 PM by ThomWV
And nowhere in europe today is there Socialism, every single country operates under a capitalistic model.




Fool Count (67 posts) Sat Mar-06-10 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #12 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7858686#7858814)

52. Not one single example? I will give you one.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/images/transparent.gifSocialism worked just fine in USSR for over 70 years, turning a backwards illiterate
desperately poor peasant country into the second most powerful military-industrial
empire in the world. That happened also in the face of relentlessly aggressive
hostility from the rest of the world, and despite USSR having to fight several
costly wars, most devastating of which (WWII) left the country in complete ruin
and 25 million less in population. And, please, don't give me that crap, about how
terrible a totalitarian dictatorship USSR was. I was born and spent 25 years of my life
there, and it was nothing of the sort. It was a dynamic vibrant society full of happy, free
and creative people - it would not have been able to compete with the US for so long
otherwise. All the propaganda lies drilled into the brains of the gullible western
mass media consumers is just a reflection of how afraid the capitalist masters are
of people finding out that a human society can exist, thrive and progress without
a profit motive.


Tee,Hee. :D

Dan D. Doty
03-06-2010, 09:21 PM
Ain't it cute'; they deny over and over again that they're not Socialist, then this silly pops up :rolleyes:

movie buff
03-07-2010, 09:30 AM
"Socialism worked just fine in USSR for over 70 years, turning a backwards illiterate
desperately poor peasant country into the second most powerful military-industrial
empire in the world."
Never mind that there were massive deaths from famine and government crackdowns on dissent, and also never mind that in the 70 years that Russia suffered under the scourge of Socialism, over 10 million Christians were tortured and executed for committing the horrible crime of refusing to deny Christ and convert to atheism.
Of course, that DUmmy would probably regard such a genocide as a wonderful improvement which should be implemented everywhere in the world.

Constitutionally Speaking
03-07-2010, 09:45 AM
This takes a one word answer.


FREEDOM.

Wei Wu Wei
03-07-2010, 02:39 PM
This takes a one word answer.


FREEDOM.

empty signifier

Wei Wu Wei
03-07-2010, 02:40 PM
capitalism is better for the capitalist class.

BadCat
03-07-2010, 03:21 PM
capitalism is better for the capitalist class.

And you're not in that "class"?

Apache
03-07-2010, 03:23 PM
capitalism is better for the capitalist class.

Don't you have some Legos to play with?

Constitutionally Speaking
03-07-2010, 03:27 PM
capitalism is better for the capitalist class.


Capitalism is better for EVERYONE who is willing to work.

Constitutionally Speaking
03-07-2010, 03:31 PM
empty signifier


Only if you are ignorant.

Wei Wu Wei
03-07-2010, 03:45 PM
And you're not in that "class"?

0.5% of the population owns 49% of all privately-owned corporate stock.

the top 1% holds about 35% of wealth.

These are the people in that class.

Wei Wu Wei
03-07-2010, 03:46 PM
Only if you are ignorant.

No it's a structural necessity. It's called a master-signifier.

Look up Jacques Lacan

Wei Wu Wei
03-07-2010, 03:46 PM
Capitalism is better for EVERYONE who is willing to work.

lol

Apache
03-07-2010, 03:58 PM
lol

Says the welfare Queen...:rolleyes:

CueSi
03-07-2010, 05:14 PM
I am an exotic dancer. . .so I'm VERY much in the capitalist class. I am my own capital. When I fork over $40 a month for a gym membership that I use with regularity, I am investing in myself , and I get it back every night I step forward to work. I and my clients are protected by law, so they know what they're getting when they ask for a lapdance or a private room with me.

I've talked to dancers who have worked in former Communist Bloc countries. There, a dancer could be used and abused with no recourse: her tips taken from her leaving her with no money, forced into sex work or drug use in order to keep the bosses happy; and when she wanted to go to authorities it was useless because they were often in cahoots with the club owners.

In a capitalist society for the most part - - a dancer kept as a sex slave is a product of diminishing returns, and probable cause to have the club raided and/or shut down.

~QC

Wei Wu Wei
03-07-2010, 05:22 PM
I am an exotic dancer. . .so I'm VERY much in the capitalist class. I am my own capital. When I fork over $40 a month for a gym membership that I use with regularity, I am investing in myself , and I get it back every night I step forward to work. I and my clients are protected by law, so they know what they're getting when they ask for a lapdance or a private room with me.

1. That's not what it means to be in the capitalist class. If anything, the owners of the club you work in are closer.

2. Laws protecting you and your clients? You don't believe in deregulation of the free market and letting the invisible hand take care of you? Sounds kinda socialist to me.

CueSi
03-07-2010, 05:25 PM
1. That's not what it means to be in the capitalist class. If anything, the owners of the club you work in are closer.

2. Laws protecting you and your clients? You don't believe in deregulation of the free market and letting the invisible hand take care of you? Sounds kinda socialist to me.

The owners won't have shit w/o the dancers. They need us far more than we need them. I can move on to another club if I don't like the one I'm at. Even in a big city like the one I'm in, there are clubs that are short staffed and trying their damnedest to keep dancers.

Laws to preserve the integrity of the product and keep the highest quality, ensuring repeat buisness. There's nothing more capitalist than that.

You may want to check your hearing. :)

~QC

Wei Wu Wei
03-07-2010, 05:27 PM
The owners won't have shit w/o the dancers. They need us far more than we need them.

I completely agree.




Laws to preserve the integrity of the product and keep the highest quality. There's nothing more capitalist than that.

The free market is supposed to take care of quality. If some other club is dirty and awful, and yours is clean and fun, well the free market should handle it.

CueSi
03-07-2010, 05:51 PM
The free market is supposed to take care of quality. If some other club is dirty and awful, and yours is clean and fun, well the free market should handle it.

And they do to a degree. . .one other place not far from me went out of buisness, then reopened as part of a national chain.

But there's also a force at work in my business that's more powerful than economics: the libido.

~QC

Wei Wu Wei
03-07-2010, 05:53 PM
government regulation saying what I can or can't do with my dollar or with the club I own?

sounds like socialism to me

-Joe the poster

Troll
03-07-2010, 06:52 PM
Personally, I think capitalism is better because I reject the idea that the government is entitled to take things from me or anyone else in an effort to make life more "fair" for other people.

I also prefer capitalism because most of the people who employ people in this country seem to be capitalists who are driven by profit.

I've also noticed that whenever I'm waiting on the government to provide me with any good or service, I seem to wait longer and get crappy service. Government websites are also a lot harder to use than private sector ones.

To make a long story short, government can't do anything that the private sector couldn't do better. If you took away the government power to tax and made federal agencies compete for business in the free market as they are, Social Security and the USPS would evaporate in a year with Medicare and the FDA not far behind.

Socialism is like masturbation. It sounds like a good idea, but in the end, you're just screwing yourself.

3rd-try
03-07-2010, 07:22 PM
0.5% of the population owns 49% of all privately-owned corporate stock.

the top 1% holds about 35% of wealth.

These are the people in that class.

..and millions work for this top 1%. We manage to earn salaries that allow us to live better than the vast majority of people elsewhere.

Remember, many of our poorest people are overweight. It's exclusively an American problem.

In the winter, you have heat, summer A/C. Flick the switch and the lights come on. It ain't that simple all over. You have a comfortable existence. So comfortable that you have time to sit around and manufacture problems for yourself. If you were being shot at, or had to ration your goods, you'd be less involved in social statistics.

Pardon me if I don't share your outrage over these class inequalities.

Wei Wu Wei
03-07-2010, 07:26 PM
..and millions work for this top 1%. We manage to earn salaries that allow us to live better than the vast majority of people elsewhere.

Remember, many of our poorest people are overweight. It's exclusively an American problem.

In the winter, you have heat, summer A/C. Flick the switch and the lights come on. It ain't that simple all over. You have a comfortable existence. So comfortable that you have time to sit around and manufacture problems for yourself. If you were being shot at, or had to ration your goods, you'd be less involved in social statistics.

Pardon me if I don't share your outrage over these class inequalities.

Yes there's a difference between third world starving countries and the worlds most wealthy nation, but why is it that other nations who are also fairly wealthy do not show such staggering inequality?

BadCat
03-07-2010, 07:43 PM
Yes there's a difference between third world starving countries and the worlds most wealthy nation, but why is it that other nations who are also fairly wealthy do not show such staggering inequality?

What do you do for a living?

3rd-try
03-07-2010, 08:11 PM
Yes there's a difference between third world starving countries and the worlds most wealthy nation, but why is it that other nations who are also fairly wealthy do not show such staggering inequality?



Staggering inequality? If Europe can be used as an example, then "middle class" moves down a few notches as far as expendable income is concerned. Lowering the higher levels may bring about equality, but your life doesn't improve. So, unless you're obsessed with envy, your existence doesn't improve. So, what's the point.
Look at true day-to-day life. Let it be a guide. It's not just starving third world countries. This is a great place to be even if you're lower middle class. You'll still exist in a humane environment, with reasonable creature-comforts, transportation, food EVERY day. And, because of America's economic system, you've always got a shot at moving yourself up the ladder. No guarantees, but it happens every day. It's hard to live without hope. And, the true reality is, you don't have to here.

CueSi
03-07-2010, 08:42 PM
government regulation saying what I can or can't do with my dollar or with the club I own?

sounds like socialism to me

-Joe the poster

The free market also says quite a bit about it too. . .if a club charges too much for a drink or for a dance, the managers are pricks, no one wants to go or work there...and the club either suffers majorly or goes out of business.

~QC

aerojarod
03-08-2010, 11:58 AM
A completely unregulated capitalist economy is about as dangerous as a direct democracy. There is no cognitive dissonance to be both a fervent capitalist and also wish to regulation in the market. The scope and magnitude that the Federal Government should play in that role is the age-old dissagreement between the left and right.

Just like our Founders warned that this experiment in Liberty would fail if the people lost their moral and religious guidance... the Capitalist market is also dependant on the integrity of those that participate.

Which side of the aisle is it again that seems to be slowly and methodically pushing the country away from our common ethical and moral underpinnings again? Or at least trying to equivocate them away with multi-cultural relativism?

Hmmm...

noonwitch
03-08-2010, 12:52 PM
"Socialism worked just fine in USSR for over 70 years, turning a backwards illiterate
desperately poor peasant country into the second most powerful military-industrial
empire in the world."
Never mind that there were massive deaths from famine and government crackdowns on dissent, and also never mind that in the 70 years that Russia suffered under the scourge of Socialism, over 10 million Christians were tortured and executed for committing the horrible crime of refusing to deny Christ and convert to atheism.
Of course, that DUmmy would probably regard such a genocide as a wonderful improvement which should be implemented everywhere in the world.



I know, that one is either really young and doesn't remember the days of the Iron Curtain, or is totally deluded. The numbers of citizens of the USSR that starved to death during WWII is probably higher than the number of jews the nazis killed in their concentration camps.


If one wants to overlook their human rights' record, one could make a case that communism brought China into the 20th century. But what made them a 21st century economic power had a lot more to do with backing away from straight-out communism and adapting a level of capitalism in their economy than it did with communism or socialism.


But China and Russia had one major thing in common that led to communist takeovers-they are huge geographical areas that encompass many cultures within their borders. This caused most of both nations to miss out on the industrial revolution, and be very far behind the large western nations and economies like the US, Britain and Germany. It was a situation that communists could exploit for their own benefit.

Constitutionally Speaking
03-08-2010, 07:07 PM
Yes there's a difference between third world starving countries and the worlds most wealthy nation, but why is it that other nations who are also fairly wealthy do not show such staggering inequality?


YES!!!


Let's bring most people DOWN to the lowest level instead of bringing the majority to higher levels.