Socialism or two-tier capitalism?

[doheochai]

And the aid provide has actually done what to help the vast impoverished peoples on the African continent?

We've set up schools, built roads, taught them how to farm properly and yet Africa still sucks. I personally think we should help the African nations that are willing to change themselves. Like Biafraland, the country with the pyraminds. Yes I cant spell its name.

Yes and still 3 billion live on less than $2 per day and the number is increasing all the time. Charity is a tiny stop gap measure that solves nothing.

[Sligoboy]

I was going to ignore this thread seeingas it was deliberately started by a known troll to stir ****, but when idiots like FT say 'Time' will cure all the ills of the world I couldn't let that go.

Capitalism has copperfastened poverty in the 3rd world, it will never ever ever cure it. Capitalism is about exploitation, the accumalation of wealth and profit. Inequality is necessary to sustain this. The amount of profit to be made on a global scale is 'finite' as in one big pie as are global resources, the west through capitalism takes by far the biggest slice, leaving over 3 billion people to starve and live in squalor.

Socialism is not a failed ideology because it has never been implemented in its truest form in any country

Capitalism is about encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation. The desire to better oneself economic encourages enterpreneurship and job-creation. Increased profitability creates the context for a trickle-down to the poor in terms of wage-increases and increased rates of social-welfare. Low taxation rates provides the context whereby work is not disincentivised, leading to greater tax revenues to the govt to pay for infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, water etc. as well as increased social-welfare including for the elderly and the disabled. A competitive environment dominated by the private-sector keeps prices lower than would otherwise be the case by providing consumers with choice.

Meanwhile, Socialism denies consumer-choice by forcing them to avail of the services of state-owned monopolies that rip them off because they have no competitors to lose customers too. Party-hacks get appointed to state-boards on the basis of party-patronage rather than merit. These monopolies are inefficient and have a begging-bowl approach where the govt is expected to bail them out when they fail as a result of their inefficiency. This forces the govt to keep taxes high or raise taxes. Meanwhile the unions get the power to close down the country because the consumer has no option but to use the services of state-owned monopolies.

Socialism is a cancer on the body-politic.

You display such a chronic misunderstanding of Socialism its pointless discussing this. You are mistaking what went behind the Iron Curtain as Socialism. Those models are as much an affront to socialism as raw capitalism is.

[The Collective.]

Costomers want a hceap as posible product. Workers want to be paid for doing nothing.

[Sligoboy]

Costomers want a hceap as posible product. Workers want to be paid for doing nothing.

How did you arive at that arse about tit conclusion, a very poor view of humantiy?

[ibis]

So, when I've devised a product, and decide to try and sell it, and employ people to do so - in exactly what way am I "exploiting the majority"?

The only way you can make a profit is by (1) not paying the workers you employ the value of their labour and (2) charging customers more than the value of the product.

I charge the customer what the product is worth to them - if it is worth more to them than to me, I make a profit.

My workers charge me what it is worth to them to work for me - and if it is worth more to me than to them, I make a profit.

Both are by free association without coercion, and with everyone understanding how the system works.

Are you seriously saying that capitalism is as pure a model as you've advocated. Are you seriously suggesting there is no racketering, profiteering, exploitation of worker forces, race to the bottom fiscal policies supported by the capital system.

Obviously not. What I'm doing, though, is part of the capitalist system, so I just wondered exactly where I was exploiting the majority?

If the capitalist system wasnt about bottom lines and pure profit, why the migration of Mutli nationals eastward, why outsourcing to India?

Again, I didn't say it wasn't. I'm asking specifically about owner-operated small businesses, which constitute the vast bulk of all 'capitalist' enterprises.

[Sligoboy]

And the aid provide has actually done what to help the vast impoverished peoples on the African continent?

We've set up schools, built roads, taught them how to farm properly and yet Africa still sucks. I personally think we should help the African nations that are willing to change themselves. Like Biafraland, the country with the pyraminds. Yes I cant spell its name.

Farming is a skill that originated in Africa you idiot. Capitalist pillaging of their resources has left them in poverty.

[Sligoboy]

So, when I've devised a product, and decide to try and sell it, and employ people to do so - in exactly what way am I "exploiting the majority"?

The only way you can make a profit is by (1) not paying the workers you employ the value of their labour and (2) charging customers more than the value of the product.

I charge the customer what the product is worth to them - if it is worth more to them than to me, I make a profit.

My workers charge me what it is worth to them to work for me - and if it is worth more to me than to them, I make a profit.

Both are by free association without coercion, and with everyone understanding how the system works.

Are you seriously saying that capitalism is as pure a model as you've advocated. Are you seriously suggesting there is no racketering, profiteering, exploitation of worker forces, race to the bottom fiscal policies supported by the capital system.

Obviously not. What I'm doing, though, is part of the capitalist system, so I just wondered exactly where I was exploiting the majority?

If the capitalist system wasnt about bottom lines and pure profit, why the migration of Mutli nationals eastward, why outsourcing to India?

Again, I didn't say it wasn't. I'm asking specifically about owner-operated small businesses, which constitute the vast bulk of all 'capitalist' enterprises.

I wasn't personalising this. I was discussing the Capitalist system as a whole which is what the thread alludes to.

If you conduct trade in a fair way, good for you, but it is very much the exception rather the norm.

[DR Runts]

Well surely for Marxists it doesn't matter whether the trade is conducted in a fair way or not it is in the process of production that the exploitation takes place. Is this not the original of surplas value?

[ibis]

I charge the customer what the product is worth to them - if it is worth more to them than to me, I make a profit.

You charge a customer as high a price as you can get away with and still sell the product.

In fact, the customer will not pay me all that my product is worth to them, because they too wish to profit.

Essentially, you've just repeated what I said, in emotive language.

My workers charge me what it is worth to them to work for me - and if it is worth more to me than to them, I make a profit.

You pay your worker as little as you can get away with and still get someone to work for you. They don't call it a 'race to the bottom' for nothing.

Actually, that isn't the case at all. First, I have to attract people better than the next company. Second, I have to attract better people than the next business. Third, I want to attract people I want to work with. Fourth, I want to work with happy people who aren't constantly bitching about how little I pay them.

I take it you've never been an employer?

Both are by free association without coercion, and with everyone understanding how the system works.

Both are absolutely dependent on coercion - One with the customer needing the product

...or other similar product, or they can put up with the inconvenience of not having my product. Things that people actually need, such as health care, are better publicly managed. Things they don't need, but which would be useful to them, like my products, are better done privately.

and two with the worker needing the job.

Or other job, or unemployment payments.

Free association would only apply if (1) the customer didn't have to pay for the product

No, that's simply removing all cost from the association for one party.

and (2) the worker didn't need the wage to survive.

Which they don't, thanks to unemployment payments.

[doheochai]

Capitalism is about encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation. The desire to better oneself economic encourages enterpreneurship and job-creation. Increased profitability creates the context for a trickle-down to the poor in terms of wage-increases and increased rates of social-welfare. Low taxation rates provides the context whereby work is not disincentivised, leading to greater tax revenues to the govt to pay for infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, water etc. as well as increased social-welfare including for the elderly and the disabled.

Capitalism hasn't played a progressive role in human society since the middle of the nineteenth century. Inceased profitibility might have a trickle down effect in a booming economy but in periods of recession it ripes society apart in the drive to sustain profits, driving people into a pit of poverty that is impossible to get out of. The depression of the 1930's is an extreme example but Ireland in the 1980's wasn't far off the mark. Capitalism develops infrastructure for two reasons (1) necessity to maintain and grow profit and (2) to prevent a rising tide of opposition from working class people who would be forced to fight for the basic necessities of life.

A competitive environment dominated by the private-sector keeps prices lower than would otherwise be the case by providing consumers with choice.

the mantra of the PD's - unfortunately if this was the case we wouldn't have 5% inflation at the moment. As regards choice - do we really need 86 different types of shampoo?

Meanwhile, Socialism denies consumer-choice by forcing them to avail of the services of state-owned monopolies that rip them off because they have no competitors to lose customers too. Party-hacks get appointed to state-boards on the basis of party-patronage rather than merit. These monopolies are inefficient and have a begging-bowl approach where the govt is expected to bail them out when they fail as a result of their inefficiency. This forces the govt to keep taxes high or raise taxes. Meanwhile the unions get the power to close down the country because the consumer has no option but to use the services of state-owned monopolies.

In fact socialism is about providing the necessities of life free of charge thereby eliminating the rip-off culture of capitalism. The only people to appoint party hacks to state boards over the part 10 years were the PD's and FF. What did Bertie say 'I appointed them because they were my friends'. All state boards should be elected by those they serve. While the PD's in government have forced down taxes (primarily for those wealthy in society) they have also dramatically increased indirect taxes - bin charges, A&E charges, vat on electricity and gas etc. etc. - which have a significantly bigger impact on those on lowerincomes than anyone else.

Socialism is a cancer on the body-politic. In the same way that Stalin's collectivisation of farm was a failure, the Socialist prescription of collectivised healthcare has also failed. A new way is needed, in which the private-sector takes on a much stronger role in helping cope with population-pressures. As for the point of having to pay for healthcare - we are already paying for it via our taxes.

So you are suggesting that the current health service in this country has been operated on a socialist basis - get real. the PD way of healthcare is you get it if you can pay for it and if you can't pay for it lie in a trolly for 3 or 4 or 5 days while our overcrowed hospitals try and find some poor soul to throw out on the street before they should be. If private healthcare solved the problem the USA would ahve the best health system in the world - It doesn't - in fact it is well down the list of health providers.