capitalism vs. socialism

May 2019
244
26
US
Do you disagree with Reich's characterization of modern right wing/right libertarian philosophy?: Allow the virtuous rich to keep more of their earnings and pay less in taxes, and they'll be even more virtuous. Give the non-virtuous poor food stamps, Medicaid, and what's left of welfare, and they'll fall into deeper moral torpor.

If so, how is Reich off base? I hear the right wing say things like this all the time.
I do disagree. It was the larger portion of my original post which went largely ignored. I reposted it for you
 
Dec 2018
2,565
1,555
Unionville Indiana
The point I made was awhile ago, and you would likely prefer to continue ignoring it in favor of your masterwork of demonstrating that there was a social darwinist who liked charity. Nonetheless, here is my point again, just in case you ever decide to address it:


Most conservatives don't fear making the virtuous wealthy less virtuous by taking wealth. They simply view transfer of wealth as more vicious than virtuous.

There may be slightly more of an argument for the other part though. Some conservative positions are concerned with enhancing the vice of those on the receiving end of public assistance.

However, the conservative position is only seen as an embrace of social Darwinism from the left looking right (to disparage rather than engage). The religious right tend to be exceedingly charitable, which undermines the idea that they embrace social Darwinism From their perspective. Prodominant views anyway. Spencer notwithstanding.
I disagree that most social Darwinists opposed private charites. Spencer didn't oppose them and he defined and advocated the "moral" philosophy for decades. I understand you find the term unpleasant, but I didn't coin it. By the way, the religious right and right libertarians aren't the same people.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2018
1,507
885
Oregon
Most conservatives don't fear making the virtuous wealthy less virtuous by taking wealth. They simply view transfer of wealth as more vicious than virtuous.
Well, to bring this all back to a conversation that more approaches the subject of the thread, I'll just say that the appropriation of most of the gains resulting from productivity increases over the last 40 years for the top 0.1% is a much more vicious transfer of wealth that should have been shared with the working class. And since that legal theft did happen, then the best we can legally do about it now is to tax the hell out of that top 0.1% to claw back much of that appropriated wealth and apply it to social solutions and benefits to social problems that are long overdue for fixing.
 
Sep 2019
2,216
874
Here
You can't if you've never seen it "lead to" anything.


You seem to have some ridiculous idea that i think it's about free stuff. THAT is insulting. Is that what you need to stoop to to defend your position? If so, you have a shitty, bullshit position.


Wrong. An RBE best describes communism, not socialism. But you confuse them because you don't know the difference, yet you want to argue it insteat of trying to learn something.


You didn't look into WSDEs or Mondragon. You're wrong.


Your hate and fear show in your name-calling, Mr. Trump.
You lose. I win.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
40,200
28,065
La La Land North
Gentlemen, lets have some content in the posts or there will be active moderation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kode
May 2019
244
26
US
Well, to bring this all back to a conversation that more approaches the subject of the thread, I'll just say that the appropriation of most of the gains resulting from productivity increases over the last 40 years for the top 0.1% is a much more vicious transfer of wealth that should have been shared with the working class. And since that legal theft did happen, then the best we can legally do about it now is to tax the hell out of that top 0.1% to claw back much of that appropriated wealth and apply it to social solutions and benefits to social problems that are long overdue for fixing.
In order to support your position, you have to articulate how the wealth was "appropriated". You said this wealth resulted from the gains in productivity. Most of those gains result from technology. If I created or purchased the technology to lower my production costs, thus allowing me to produce more with less human capital, have I stolen anything? No. Is there a crime? No.
When the technology of the tractor replaced the horse. There was demand for less and less labor on farms. Farmers became fewer and fewer, while those that remained grew richer and richer. This is not an uncommon phenomenon with new technology. We live in a time of unprecedented amounts and kinds of new technology.
There are certainly situations where in the wealthy have utilized scams we're government coercion to acquire wealth. But the assertion that wealth production and acquisition is primarily theft, derived from the long ago disproven and defunct labor theory of value.
The prospect of taking specifically from those at the financial pinnacle is more emotion based then rooted in practicality. What you will gain is slightly more inefficient and ineffective government-funded works. What you will lose is slight amount of innovation resulting from I'll eat less investment. The biggest difference will be in your feelings of inequality.
If you want to make a moral argument for government taking of property from some to give to some others, you need to either demonstrate the immoral means by which this property has ended up in the wrong hands, or you have to argue against property as such. You haven't argued against property. Neither have you supported your claim of theft.
 
Feb 2018
1,507
885
Oregon
In order to support your position, you have to articulate how the wealth was "appropriated". You said this wealth resulted from the gains in productivity. Most of those gains result from technology. If I created or purchased the technology to lower my production costs, thus allowing me to produce more with less human capital, have I stolen anything? No. Is there a crime? No.
Oh, gosh, of course it's all legal. Hell, it's a capitalist system, codified into law.

But where did that money come from with which the technology was purchased and funded? Labor.

When the technology of the tractor replaced the horse. There was demand for less and less labor on farms. Farmers became fewer and fewer, while those that remained grew richer and richer. This is not an uncommon phenomenon with new technology. We live in a time of unprecedented amounts and kinds of new technology.
There are certainly situations where in the wealthy have utilized scams we are government coercion to acquire wealth.
Sorry. I don't understand.

But the assertion that wealth production and acquisition is primarily theft, derived from the long ago disproven and defunct labor theory of value.
Whatever. But a logical discussion would prove this one point: that labor shared in the technology, the acquisition of technology, and payment for the technology, and the productivity resulting from the technology and yet the capitalist appropriated most of the gain for himself "because he can". He/they didn't share fairly, proportionately, with their labor partners in most cases, and still don't.... --because it's legal. But it's still highly unfair exploitation.

The prospect of taking specifically from those at the financial pinnacle is more emotion based then rooted in practicality. What you will gain is slightly more inefficient and ineffective government-funded works.
huh? You're going to have the arrogance to predict what a government would do with additional revenue? Why is funding for the Defense Department and for space research increased regularly? Are they becoming more inefficient and ineffective, or did they need the increase to do a greater job?

What you will lose is slight amount of innovation resulting from I'll eat less investment. The biggest difference will be in your feelings of inequality.
If you want to make a moral argument for government taking of property from some to give to some others, you need to either demonstrate the immoral means by which this property has ended up in the wrong hands, or you have to argue against property as such. You haven't argued against property. Neither have you supported your claim of theft.
I just did.

I need prove nothing. Taxes on the top tax brackets were from 50% to more than 90% from 1945 to 1980 and times were better for the middle class. The right wing trick has been to cut taxes, complain that we can't afford some programs, cut taxes again, complain that we can't afford more programs, and gradually dumb-down the USA to where we now have one of the worst educational systems, the highest healthcare costs with idiotic objection that "we can't afford to develop a less expensive system", and threats of more cuts to more programs like the EPA. I have news for you: you can't cut your way to prosperity.
 
May 2019
244
26
US
But where did that money come from with which the technology was purchased and funded? Labor.
Yeah? Ask the lineman to create your next cell phone.

Sorry. I don't understand.
I know. Technology has a tendency of reducing the need for labor as it did with tractors. Taking advantage of technology in this way reduced the need to share ones wealth production with others, as there are less others required to assist in said production. That's not theft. It's not even immoral. And there's unprecedented labor reducing technology.

Whatever. But a logical discussion would prove this one point: that labor shared in the technology, the acquisition of technology, and payment for the technology, and the productivity resulting from the technology and yet the capitalist appropriated most of the gain for himself "because he can".
You keep saying "logical". I don't think that word means what you think that it means.
When you say labor shared in production, was it your labor? If so, was there an agreed on amount that you were paid for your labor? If the labor was not yours, then whose was it? Were they paid an agreed on amount? If they were, then they weren't screwed over. They weren't stolen from. They sold their labor in exchange for their asking price. And if they had any clue how to design what they are building, they could sell their ideas for a lot more than their labor. That's because ideas are worth a lot more.
The capitalist didn't appropriate wealth "because he can". He traded his money for their labor at an agreed on price. That's an honest transaction just like any at a local grocery store.
He/they didn't share fairly, proportionately, with their labor partners in most cases, and still don't.... --because it's legal.
You're like the shoplifter who wants to pretend the local store owes you because you don't like their prices. Yeah, the asking price is "legal"...Those bastard grocers...

But it's still highly unfair exploitation.
The only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited. There are two types of unemployed people, those who need a handout and those who need a job. The most despicable person is the one who could take the job, but will take the handout instead, "because they owe him"....In some unspecified way.

huh? You're going to have the arrogance to predict what a government would do with additional revenue? Why is funding for the Defense Department and for space research increased regularly? Are they becoming more inefficient and ineffective, or did they need the increase to do a greater job?
It's not arrogance to state the status quo. The government pays themselves and their friends with money that doesn't belong to them. It is necessarily the least efficient way to spend money. And the answer to your question is both.
I just did.
Not on this forum. Go ahead and copy and paste exactly where you think you did.
I need prove nothing.
That's what I thought. But at least you feel nice about yourself.
Taxes on the top tax brackets were from 50% to more than 90% from 1945 to 1980 and times were better for the middle class.
The rest of the world had destroyed itself in WWII. We were the only game in town. So yeah we did pretty well. Fiscal and monetary blunders notwithstanding.
The right wing trick has been to cut taxes, complain that we can't afford some programs, cut taxes again, complain that we can't afford more programs, and gradually dumb-down the USA to where we now have one of the worst educational systems, the highest healthcare costs with idiotic objection that "we can't afford to develop a less expensive system", and threats of more cuts to more programs like the EPA. I have news for you: you can't cut your way to prosperity.
Actually, the right wing trick is to say we can cut taxes and cut deficits, only to dip further into deficits. The left wing trick is to say we can have way more free stuff and you wont have to pay for it, while in the meantime they too dip further into deficits.
As for our healthcare, there are a growing number of doctors who start private practices that simply refuse all health insurance, that way they don't have to pay all the costs associated with the government regulations in the healthcare world. They do this so that they can provide inexpensive care to low income families. These doctors can afford to charge 2 cents for the aspirin that is $20 at the hospital. It has to be $20 to pay for all the people who manage all the paperwork and cover all the red tape to insure that aspirin won't kill someone, because regulations save lives...
Now pretend to say something "logical" in response.
 
Feb 2018
1,507
885
Oregon
Yeah? Ask the lineman to create your next cell phone.
You seem to think that's an answer to something. Are you having difficulty tracking and comprehending the conversation? I'm serious. I mean, if I can reword something to make it more clear, let me know.

I know. Technology has a tendency of reducing the need for labor as it did with tractors. Taking advantage of technology in this way reduced the need to share ones wealth production with others, as there are less others required to assist in said production. That's not theft. It's not even immoral. And there's unprecedented labor reducing technology.
Your refusal to see the point I'm making doesn't obviate the point. ... --Which is that ALL wealth production, ALL profit, in fact ALL business revenue results from the joint efforts of the business elite (CEO, Board, etc.) and the employees. But instead of acknowledging that this means that the employees LOGICALLY have a fair share interest in the new technology because they participated jointly with the business owners to produce those revenues and assets, you hide behind law that says expropriation is legal and therefore the business owners own the revenue and the technology it pays for. Legal expropriation is still expropriation.

You keep saying "logical". I don't think that word means what you think that it means.
You seem to value insults.

When you say labor shared in production, was it your labor? If so, was there an agreed on amount that you were paid for your labor? If the labor was not yours, then whose was it? Were they paid an agreed on amount?
The capitalist always wants to make the question one of individuals. It's a "divide and conquer" strategy. But employees don't usually work as individuals. Each one depends on the other to each do their share of work, their precursive steps so they may do theirs; they commonly work as a team. But the capitalist seeks to weaken the position of the employee by making issues only about individuals when it serves their interests.

Hence your questions here are of no interest.

The capitalist didn't appropriate wealth "because he can". He traded his money for their labor at an agreed on price. That's an honest transaction just like any at a local grocery store.
Heh heh heh. Maybe, in economics, you've never heard the expression "what the market will bear" in pricing retail goods. The exact same expression applies in determining wages. No employers hires an employee if he doesn't believe the employee will produce more value than he is paid. So the "agreed upon price" becomes more similar to extortion under such conditions.

You're like the shoplifter who wants to pretend the local store owes you because you don't like their prices. Yeah, the asking price is "legal"...Those bastard grocers...
Again, we see your reliance on insults and hope of intimidating. Are you not up to the challenge of an honest, factual, and logical discussion?

The only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited. There are two types of unemployed people, those who need a handout and those who need a job.
--within the capitalist system.

The most despicable person is the one who could take the job, but will take the handout instead, "because they owe him"....In some unspecified way.
And to prove their contentious and exploitative perspective on employees, when the capitalist can't corral the prospective employee into their ideological world view, they attack him as you do here to try to make him to be an outcast, unacceptable, and unworthy.

(ME previously: Are they (Defense Department and space agencies) becoming more inefficient and ineffective, or did they need the increase (in revenue) to do a greater job? )
It's not arrogance to state the status quo. The government pays themselves and their friends with money that doesn't belong to them. It is necessarily the least efficient way to spend money. And the answer to your question is both.
Cool.

Not on this forum. Go ahead and copy and paste exactly where you think you did.
LOL!! I just did again, in my reply to the second quote block above. Now go ahead and pretend to be mystified.

That's what I thought. But at least you feel nice about yourself.
I'm not here to trade insults. If you wish to discontinue our conversation, feel free to continue the insults and I will bow out.

Actually, the right wing trick is to say we can cut taxes and cut deficits, only to dip further into deficits. The left wing trick is to say we can have way more free stuff and you wont have to pay for it, while in the meantime they too dip further into deficits.
I only see that as an unsupported fabrication with no factual truth to it. No one has said we can have more with no cost.

As for our healthcare, there are a growing number of doctors who start private practices that simply refuse all health insurance, that way they don't have to pay all the costs associated with the government regulations in the healthcare world. They do this so that they can provide inexpensive care to low income families. These doctors can afford to charge 2 cents for the aspirin that is $20 at the hospital. It has to be $20 to pay for all the people who manage all the paperwork and cover all the red tape to insure that aspirin won't kill someone, because regulations save lives...
I can't logically argue the idea of doctors selling drugs because they don't.

Now pretend to say something "logical" in response.
You should know you're walking on thin ice here. In your next reply I will expect an absence of personal attacks and insults.