Many people believe that the concept of socialism is quite a good idea. Others would beg to differ, and think that the implementation of socialism could mean serious trouble.
This article presents an argument between myself (SharQ) and a stout capitalist (John) - the result is what appears to be a moral discussion over the impacts of socialism.
Arguing over socialism
Author: John
Socialism has proven to be a failure in economic
terms. Capital is not allocated as efficiently as in laisser-faire economic
systems - witness the US economy’s strength, as compared to the snail’s-pace
growth of the "social democracies" of Europe
Socialism and profit tend not to mix. Profit
is what makes the world go round. People accuse capitalist of "greed"
and obsession with money, but what is socialism other than an obsession
with others’ money?
Are you, Mr SharQ, willing to go to college, spend
lots of money on building a company and go through a lot of personal
time and effort so that you can pay 58% taxes to someone who is too
lazy to get a job? Or would you prefer to pay less tax and get rewarded
for your efforts? We are all innately selfish, so the majority of socialists
are "red" in name only, as when it comes to the crunch, they
generally are in well paid jobs and unwilling to put their money where
their mouths are.
Traditional socialist policies, like trade barriers
penalise countries in, for example, Africa, which cannot export due
to large tariffs (cotton, tobacco, etc). Trade liberalisation is the
way to make these countries richer and opponents who cause havoc at
WTO meetings impede these countries’ development. These anti-globalists
tend to be red flag-waving bums, who incidentally have no problem in
using the internet - surely globalisation’s greatest success - to organise
their gatherings and disseminate their viewpoints.
Author: SharQ
Just to clarify: Socialism is a system refined
from communism in many senses. Although socialists consider themselves
"red", they are not communists.The ideology of Socialism - or in "my"
form of it: Socialist Democracy - makes sense, because it takes care
of everybody who is part of a society.Unfortunately, this also means that someone who
is right-wing will never be able to understand socialism, just like
I am completely unable to understand what drives someone who is right-wing.Okay, now that has been said, over to socialism
itself:
The core of socialism is the belief that a society
cannot be stronger than its weakest link, and that it is the responsibility
of the society to make sure that everyone have their basic needs covered.Socialists, then, believe that education should
be free (myself, I believe all knowledge should be free, and so should
education - up to and beyond University level). Health services should
be free. Personally, I believe that there should be no competition about
the basic needs: No private schooling and no private healthcare. The
money invested in such institutions should instead be poured into the
existing state-driven health and educational facilities, to make sure
that the quality of these are increased.A result of this is that taxes should be high.
Don’t get me wrong, everybody fucking hates taxes, but that is mainly
because they believe they don’t get back enough for what they pay. Which
is fair enough, but these are not weaknesses in the socialist system.Say that you were to work for Microsoft in a
global economic socialist society. Microsoft makes billions and billions
of dollars, and Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Instead
of that scenario, imagine how it would be if the dividents would be
devided among the people working for Microsoft. Give everybody a decently
high salary (it will come in handy because of the higher taxes), and
even after tax, 90% of the people will be better off - from the person
actually writing the software, to the person putting the CDs in their
jewel cases.{mosgoogle center}
The true socialist ideal would be that all workers
own an even part of the company, and hence, that all the workers have
equal interest in the company running well. Because of this - in theory
- the people will work harder, and the company will run better.I don’t believe that an even distribution is
too great of an idea, but a more even distribution would definitely
be in place.As I said, 90% would be better off. The problem,
then, are the remaining 10% - the bosses and managers who currently
are on obscene payrolls. For these people (likely right-oriented in
their political views), the feeling of contributing to the community,
by realising they are taking a pay-cut in favour of the people doing
the actual work - the workers - whom they are reliant on.The ideology of "giving if you can, and
taking if you need" is applicable here.
Author: John
Individual ability should be rewarded. Why look
after the collective? Is it a "moral" thing? "I’m better
than you because I’m not selfish". It’s easy to argue in favour
of socialism. It’s fashionable. It’s "nice". But as a theory,
it is totally flawed. In pratice, it is totally flawed. It is inefficient
and it caters to laziness and lack of ambition. Why work or go to college
when the state (that is, the successful peoples’ taxes) will allow you
to sit at home all day?"obscene payrolls": obscene to whom?
Us? Because we don’t earn obscene wages? It’s called jealousy. Given
the chance, we would all love to earn huge money. Capitalism - which
rewards individualism - offers us the best chance to make money. American
has more millionaires per capita than the majority of countries in the
world (tax havens such as the Cayman Islands aside). Go to Sweden and
count em - itwon’t take you long, Because there is no incentive there
- the welfare state takes people’s money from them.
Author: SharQ
"Socialism has proven to be a failure
in economic terms. Capital is not allocated as efficiently as in laisser-faire
economic systems - witness the US economy’s strength, as compared
to the snail’s-pace growth of the "social democracies" of
Europe"It depends how you measure success. Economically,
you are completely correct. The socialists would rather leave the economics
be, and concentrate on something far more important to us: The quality
of life. Let’s take the example of the health system.In a strictly anti-socialist community (such
as a pure capitalist country) there would demand for all its inhabitants
to have health insurance - because of the way the insurance companies
work, the system is safe for those who have health insurance, because
the insurance company steps in to pay the hospitals (thay want to earn
money) and aftercare (such as nurses), as needed.If you don’t have health insurance - for example,
if you cannot afford one because you cannot work, because of injury,
mental illness, mental disability or otherwise - you cannot afford to
go to a hospital. If you were to sustain an injury, you could not afford
to have your leg mended. And you would have to somehow put your leg
together yourself, hoping it healed well. Probably, you’d be crippled
in the process, and you would be even less likely to be offered a job.
Which means no money. Which means no insurance. Which means that your
life is basically at a dead-end, with no means of escape.In a socialist society, the community would chip
in some money (in total less than the insurance, because numbers only
have to ADD UP - nobody needs to run a profit), in case anybody is in
need of hospital care.Socialism and profit tend not to mix. Profit
is what makes the world co round. People accuse capitalist of "greed"
and obsession with money, but what is socialism other than an obsession
with others’ money?The point is that profit is not part of the equation.
Why do people want money? To buy things. Somebody who has more money
than someone else can buy more things or nicer things than someone else.I don’t think that people should not be allowed
to earn more money than others, but I do believe that today’s ridiculous
wages for leaders and the puny shit you get paid washing the stairs
don’t make sense.Another example: There are 1116 McD restaurants
in the UK. Let’s say that each restaurant has 30 employees. That is
33480 employees. In 2000, after tax, the McD corporation made £1,513
million profit.If half of this money had been distributed among
the workers (let’s say that the other half is wages for the bosses and
for further investment), that would mean that each of those employees
would get a £ 45000 bonus. Because without the employees, there
would be no money. (see http://www.bized.ac.uk/compfact/mcdonalds/mccorp.htm)To a socialist, this makes perfect sense. HAPPY
employees equals more money, because the employees take pride in their
work.
Author: John
Nobody believes in the viability red-toothed
capitalism. Laisser-faire is a misnomer - in practice most economies
are mixed (those that aren’t, North Korea and Cuba, show the feebleness
of left-wing economics).Health-care is an area where capitalists (yes,
even them) can stomach government involvement. Nobody is advocating
a system where people end up cripples. Other areas, such as education,
should not be treated as "public" goods. Why do people get
educated anyway? To better themselves…with the end goal of… EARNING
MORE MONEY.The old saying, "Capitalism is the exploitation
of man by man. Under Communism it is the exact opposite", is entirely
true. Socialism is not Communism, but it’s in that ballpark. Success
is penalised under Socialism. Why should success be forsaken to compensate
those too lazy to improve themselves?
Author: SharQ
Are you, Mr HJK, willing to go to college,
spend lots of money on building a company and go through a lot of
personal time and effort so that you can pay 58% taxes to someone
who is too lazy to get a job? Or would you prefer to pay less tax
and get rewarded for your efforts? We are all innately selfish, so
the majority of socialists are "red" in name only, as when
it comes to the crunch, they generally are in well paid jobs and unwilling
to put their money where their mouths are.Actually, I would love to build up a company
and see people get jobs under me. I would also be quite happy to pay
a lot of taxes, because I know that if something were to go wrong with
me, the system would take care of me.I am not for people who are "too lazy to
get a job", however. I imagine a system where you can be on the
dole for only a certain time. I don’t know about the details, but, say,
max a year. After that, your pay is cut to a bare-bones minimum. You’d
still be able to live okay, eat decent food, have enough money for a
roof over your head and take your g/f to the cinema every once in a
blue moon, but not much more than that.The system would be there as a backup unit only
- people who abuse the system would have to be punished. The beauty
of it is that when the state is running more companies (health, roadwork,
police, security, renovation, etc), there is a larger chance that one
of these people who are abusing the system could be offered a job in
one of the community services - if only collecting garbage. Eventually,
they will find a "proper" job that they actually like.Traditional socialist policies, like trade
barriers penalise countries in, for example, Africa, which cannot
export due to large tariffs (cotton, tobacco, etc).Trade liberalisation is the way to make these
countries richer and opponents who cause havoc at WTO meetings impede
these countries’ development. These anti-globalists tend to be red
flag-waving bums, who incidentally have no problem in using the internet
- surely globalisation’s greatest success - to organise their gatherings
and disseminate their viewpoints.Hmm, I am not sure what you mean here. The socialist
policies mentioned here are sanctions for policies in the countries
that are being penalised. South Africa was under a penalty from several
countries while Apartheid was in effect, with the hope that SA would
recognise that if they got rid of Apartheid, their opportunities for
trade would be better. When Apartheid was cancelled, the trade embargos
were lifted.There are many sources on the topic of the WTO
and the world bank, and I am not sure how related this topic is to our
discussion, but both of them - especially the world bank - have clauses
in their so-called "help briefs" that basically enforce capitalism
on the countries they are "helping".There are numerous examples of countries that
got help from the world bank but later went bankrupt because of the
policies imposed by the world bank. (if you want sources for this, I’ll
have to search a little, but try a web search on "unfair"
and "world bank", and I am sure you’ll find more than you’d
ever want.)Obviously, violent protests are not exactly kosher,
and certainly not in the name of socialism (nihilists and anarchists,
perhaps, but socialism is generally very pacifistic in nature).Furthermore, Internet is certainly an effect
of globalisation, but not necessarily of economical and cultural globalisation.
Author: John
The strange thing about the all-inclusive nature
of socialism is that it doesn’t apply to this thread’s title. Even though
it’s a socialism-capitalism debate, the title focuses exclusively on
the word socialism and that, my friends, shows that even its disciples
are inherently capitalist!
Author: SharQ
"obscene payrolls": obscene to whom?
Us? Because we don’t earn obscene wages? It’s called jealousy. Given
the chance, we would all love to earn huge money. Capitalism - which
rewards individualism - offers us the best chance to make money. American
has more millionaires per capita than the majority of countries in
the world (tax havens such as the Cayman Islands aside). Go to Sweden
and count em - itwon’t take you long, Because there is no incentive
there - the welfare state takes people’s money from them.Obscenely high - the fact that Bill Gates has
a meelion gazeelion dollars, while the CD’s shipping his operating systems
are made in Taiwan, by people who earn $5 a day - if they are lucky,
may seem fair to some people. I think it is rubbish.I am not against some people earning more money
than others. I just believe that the difference between the bosses and
the workers shouldn’t be more than 20x. In other words, if the lowliest
worker earns 15 grand, there is no reason in the world why the top boss
should earn more than 300 grand. Instead, I believe the lowliest worker
should get a massive payrise to, say, 30 grand, and then the top boss
can take out 600 grand if he wants.The point here is that it makes no sense for
there to be such a massive difference in pay. And this is one of the
things I believe we will never agree on - it is a difference in the
way we see the world, rather than a difference in facts. Factually,
we are both right. Morally, I think you are not.I could never run a company earning $10m a year
if there were people beneath me on less than £10.000 a year. I
would rather take a drop in pay, and give them more money.You say that "American has more millionaires
per capita than the majority of countries in the world", and compare
it to sweden.Fair point.
But in America, there are more people living
below the poverty line than any other industrial nation. Go to sweden,
and do the same counting - it won’t take you long - the welfare state
makes sure of that.I guess it just comes down to what you think
is most important.
Author: John
Why has the socialism creed been abandoned? The
third way in the UK, new democracy in the USA, die neue Mitte in Germany:
these are all right-wing systems dressed up to appease the left of their
parties. It has been abandoned because capitalism is a proven winner
and the best way for countries to progress and develop.
Author: SharQ
Health-care is an area where capitalists (yes,
even them) can stomach government involvement. Nobody is advocating
a system where people end up cripples. Other areas, such as education,
should not be treated as "public" goods. Why do people get
educated anyway? To better themselves…with the end goal of…EARNING
MORE MONEY.Perhaps in the eyes of capitalism. I would say
that it is to get a job that doesn’t suck, so you have a better chance
at not falling off your chair with boredom while serving the community
in the best way possible.
Author: John
Morally, I am pondlife. You win the debate on
moral grounds, no doubts. In fact, I must confess to be a pseudo-capitalist,
who has done this to reinforce my belief in the greatness of socialism.
Being schooled on it by a liberal Dutchman is quite strange, mind. I
won’t be earning any more than 30,000 a year in my life, so I am quite
happy to get media moguls like yourself to "redistribute" (socialism’s favourite word) your vast earnings to me. And as I have
it in writing, I’ll hold you to it!
Author: SharQ
Why has the socialism creed been abandoned?
The third way in the UK, new democracy in the USA, die neue Mitte
in Germany: these are all right-wing systems dressed up to appease
the left of their parties. It has been abandoned because capitalism
is a proven winner and the best way for countries to progress and
develop.I think I know the answer, but explaining what
it is automatically means that I will doing an attack on you as a person.
Forgive me.In one word: Egotism.
People have skewed perspectives on life. In the
McDonaldised world with 5 minutes of commercial breaks every 20 minutes,
there is no time for compassion and love of "the next man"
(in a non-homosexual and non-religious sense of the word).The world - in what I believe is a persistent
hammering of US cultural imperialism - has lost the values that once
were, and has gotten egotistical at the same time. It is no longer important
if your neighbor is okay, but it is important what type of car you drive
and how many channels you have on your television. In this loss of feeling
of community - accelerated by globalisation, in which you lose the perspective,
and are lulled into the belief of thinking that whatever you do doesn’t
matter in the grand schale of things - people have become introverted,
watching only over themselves and their own. This means voting for a
party that will protect what is theirs - rather than looking beyond
the banter of lower taxes and cheaper beer, to realise what effects
these election-slogans have on the life of the community.I think this will be my last post in this
threadWhy? Because I have navigated myself into a corner.
In answering your question, I have become bitter and depressed. I see
why people vote right-wing parties, and it saddens me no end. My personal
belief is that only as a community - both smaller communities (towns
and counties) and larger communities (nation-states and continents)
and eventually the global community, working together towards raising
the level of living-standard, can on the whole make life better for
everyone, rather than just for the ones who make thousands of pounds
between going to bed and getting back up (and I am not talking about
prostitutes, here)
The sad part is that I realise that socialism
is not going to work, until people realise that the world is bigger
than their villa in the hills or the windshield of their Mercedes AMG.Untill then, I think I will just live in my own
little world with my own little socialist friends, and dream of a world
that could have been, if people would only give a fuck about each other.
Author: John and SharQ
And with that, SharQ and John ram home the last nail in the coffin
of both socialism and capitalism.With both political systems crippled, they start on a search for something
that works. And if their search fails, they’ll just have to make one
of their own, which could incorporate jobs for arty people - like entertainers
- paid for by government.For example, posting on forums and talking shite all day and getting
paid per post. Hell, it’s as efficient as anything (capitalism) and
fosters community like nothing else (socialism)SharQ and John