31 May 21
@AverageJoe1
For our entertainment, I could rephrase the question. Would a country be better off under capitalism or would a country be better off under Marxism? Again this is just for entertainment, Courtesy of by marauder.
31 May 21
@averagejoe1 saidOr something in between......
I was being kind..... OK, to Marauder, would you rather be a Capitalist, or would you rather be a Marxist?
In the meantime, you might want to brush up on your knowledge on your topics.
I am quite certain that you don't even know what Marxism is.
Or what Socialism is.
You seem to interchange the use of the 2 terms all too frequently.
Meaning that you don't know the difference between the 2 ideologies.
31 May 21
@dood111 saidI would choose Capitalism in a heartbeat.
Answer the question, WHICH would you rather be?
That being said, I would venture to state that liberals are better at Capitalism than conservatives.
And you guys know it.
Just look at all those that have been very good at the Capitalism game.
They get labelled as "elites" or the "enemy of the people" or "big tech".
Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook. They are all the bad guys amongst the conservatives these days.
31 May 21
@averagejoe1 saidYour country would be better off under a healthy democracy.
@AverageJoe1
For our entertainment, I could rephrase the question. Would a country be better off under capitalism or would a country be better off under Marxism? Again this is just for entertainment, Courtesy of by marauder.
The voters will decide the path.
You live in a black and white mindset that there are only 2 choices.
Any option for a gray area is excluded in any narrative you put forth.
And yes, it happens at the other end of the spectrum too.
I think societies have become sophisticated enough to select other options besides the extremes.
That you are unwilling to consider any options in between is really your problem.
And once again I will state this......
The "cold" civil war that is currently underway in the US is not just about free market vs socialism.
It is more about the fabric of US society going forward, a liberal society or a conservative society.
That is the real battle !!
You can blather on all day about US moving towards Socialism or Marxism while you keep your Roe V Wade, same sex marriage, or the more extreme "sex is for pro-creation only" cards in your back pocket.
You're not fooling everyone.
31 May 21
@mghrn55 saidOh hell I think it was Maurader my question was directed to, I was responding to a post upon a post, or whatever.
I would choose Capitalism in a heartbeat.
That being said, I would venture to state that liberals are better at Capitalism than conservatives.
And you guys know it.
Just look at all those that have been very good at the Capitalism game.
They get labelled as "elites" or the "enemy of the people" or "big tech".
Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook. They are all the bad guys amongst the conservatives these days.
31 May 21
@mghrn55 saidI do, socialism being the least horrible of the two. But in asking the question of marauder, what difference would it be if I know the definitions or not? Here again another poster here, bespeaking liberalism by not staying with a simple question. And we have to debate with that mindset. What a downer.
Or something in between......
In the meantime, you might want to brush up on your knowledge on your topics.
I am quite certain that you don't even know what Marxism is.
Or what Socialism is.
You seem to interchange the use of the 2 terms all too frequently.
Meaning that you don't know the difference between the 2 ideologies.
31 May 21
@averagejoe1 saidI get your angst.
I do, socialism being the least horrible of the two. But in asking the question of marauder, what difference would it be if I know the definitions or not? Here again another poster here, bespeaking liberalism by not staying with a simple question. And we have to debate with that mindset. What a downer.
You want to start a narrative, but keep it on a very straight and narrow path.
Yes, debate management does work that way. There is a need to keep the debates on topic.
But valid responses to your narrative that you don't like or can't handle don't fall into a category of off-topic.
31 May 21
@dood111 saidI have explained my political and economic philosophy many times on this Forum, most recently on page 12 of the "How the Game is played" thread:
Oh hell I think it was Maurader my question was directed to, I was responding to a post upon a post, or whatever.
"The whole capitalist system is an arbitrary one imposed on the People; it is neither a necessary or terribly efficient way to organize an economy. What it mostly does is insure a relative few capture the vast majority of the benefits of a society (though progressive policies instituted in most "advanced" societies slightly ameliorate the worst aspects of the system).
Critiques of the capitalist system predate Marx. Bakunin and others correctly predicted that a system based on Marx's ideas would tend to be totalitarian. In principle, it would be accurate to describe me as a "libertarian socialist" or what was commonly known as an "anarchist" in the late 1800s (http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secA1.html#seca13). However, since the State is unlikely to be replaced any time soon, in practice you can all me a supporter of Lockean Natural Rights theory who believes Man's social structures should be compatible with his empathic, equalitarian nature."
So I'm not supportive of either a capitalist or Marxist system in principle.
@no1marauder saidBut please seeMGM post above, about staying on narrow path. This thread, about inflation, certainly begs a very clear question, which I just asked of you. Societies can have inflation, or deflation, or misery, or, prosper.
I have explained my political and economic philosophy many times on this Forum, most recently on page 12 of the "How the Game is played" thread:
"The whole capitalist system is an arbitrary one imposed on the People; it is neither a necessary or terribly efficient way to organize an economy. What it mostly does is insure a relative few capture the vast majority of the ...[text shortened]... qualitarian nature."
So I'm not supportive of either a capitalist or Marxist system in principle.
So my question is quite germane, and to honor MGM request, can you not say if a country would prosper more (its citizens, the ones on all ends of the spectrum and in the middle) under capitalism, or, prosper more under Marxism.
One thing to consider, if this will help, is that under capitalism you eat what you kill, and under Marxism, you eat what someone else kills. Cool idiom, don't you think?
@averagejoe1 saidNo, under capitalism someone else eats what you kill and takes what you produce (the capitalist).
But please seeMGM post above, about staying on narrow path. This thread, about inflation, certainly begs a very clear question, which I just asked of you. Societies can have inflation, or deflation, or misery, or, prosper.
So my question is quite germane, and to honor MGM request, can you not say if a country would prosper more (its citizens, the ones on all ends of ...[text shortened]... eat what you kill, and under Marxism, you eat what someone else kills. Cool idiom, don't you think?
It is impossible to answer such a question in the abstract. Some societies prospered greatly under capitalism though any significant benefits of that system rarely flowed to the workers until the progressive reforms instituted in the 19th Century and first half of the 20th. At other times, capitalism failed miserably.
There have been few Marxist societies but the ones commonly described as such at times created great growth and increased equality (USSR in the 1930s, Cuba in the 1960s, China in recent decades) while others have a miserable record (North Korea for example). So there is no simple answer esp. when you personally consider most of the progressive reforms made to ameliorate the worst aspects of capitalism "socialism" and would reverse them if you could.
@no1marauder saidYour liberal take on the idiom of eat what you kill is laughable. Under capitalism, your saying that 'someone eats what I kill' must be a reference to someone/entity taking something from me, as a tax, to run society. It could be one of my six harvested rabbits, or it could be money. We get that.
No, under capitalism someone else eats what you kill and takes what you produce (the capitalist).
It is impossible to answer such a question in the abstract. Some societies prospered greatly under capitalism though any significant benefits of that system rarely flowed to the workers until the progressive reforms instituted in the 19th Century and first half of the 20th ...[text shortened]... made to ameliorate the worst aspects of capitalism "socialism" and would reverse them if you could.
What I don't get, is that you say they take what I produce. You will have to explain that. I would still have 5 of my 6 rabbits, and may open a rabbit stand on the square and make money, selling rabbits. Capitalism. Plain and simple. You are sounding a lot like the effervescent Duchess with your prose, as it drifts into the senseless clouds, heading over to the philosophy forum.
I have written these several posts in plain english, you have not. I can't think of another way to phrase the question with your continual journey into left field. If Five countries are given options of going capitalism or going marxism, which do you think they would choose? Keep in mind that some people work harder than others, Marauder. My country, Leafland, would opt for capitalism, where the inhabitants would know that after taxes, they get to keep as many rabbits as they can shoot, and sell as many as possible , and probably get rich.
'To each according to his needs' would be a bit far-fetched in Leafland. Wouldn't fly with the ones who work harder, and take more RISK, than others. But, I digress.
So , what say you?
@averagejoe1 saidJesus, you aren't merely ignorant of socialism and Marxism but of capitalism, too.
Your liberal take on the idiom of eat what you kill is laughable. Under capitalism, that 'someone eats what I kill' must be a reference to someone/entity taking something from me, as a tax, to run society. It could be one of my six harvested rabbits, or it could be money. We get that.
What I don't get, is that you say they take what I produce. You will have to explai ...[text shortened]... the ones who work harder, and take more RISK, than others. But, I digress.
So , what say you?
In capitalism, 90% or more of the People work for someone else (the capitalist) who makes money from their production. Someone else shoots the rabbits in your example, but the capitalist "owns" the rabbits.
We've been all through your fairy tale that disparities in income and wealth exist only because some people "work harder" than others. In plain English, that is stupid.
@no1marauder saidGiven, about the 90%. But you said above that someone (else) takes what I produce. Do you mean that the guy I work for, for wages, takes what I produce? How can he 'Take' something from someone who does not own it? It is already his stuff, which I was paid to modify for consumption by his customers. And he does not 'take' my labor", since he paid, and I received, money, from him, for my labor. I am not involved in his relationship with customers, I simply modify, and get paid by him. I walk away with something of value (money, like the rabbits I shot in the woods) and I can invest it, start a similar business down the street.
Jesus, you aren't merely ignorant of socialism and Marxism but of capitalism, too.
In capitalism, 90% or more of the People work for someone else (the capitalist) who makes money from their production. Someone else shoots the rabbits in your example, but the capitalist "owns" the rabbits.
We've been all through your fairy tale that disparities in income and wealth exist only because some people "work harder" than others. In plain English, that is stupid.
So this shoots down your scenario. The capitalist worker makes money in a capitalistic society and does with it what he will. Can't happen in your Marxist society. Capitalism wins,,,,,and yeah, gosh durn it, Mr Moneypenny who owns the company does make more than he does. I think that this is the number one Underlying Factor that you just can't get a handle on, that you think is unjust. You mention disparities in income and wealth. You probably believe that Mr Moneypenny should divide up all his profits with all the workers. You marxist, you. What else can you be saying? In plain english, that is! 🙂