Appropriating from the appropriators, homes.
Right, but under a left wing dictator, you can’t do anything to try to improve your work conditions either. Denial of civil rights is a function of dictatorship period.
Another ‘I HATE capitalism, even if I don’t understand it. It is the sucks!!’ thread.
Venezuela is a resource rich nation. The ‘magic of capitalism’ would allow them to use that potential wealth as a spring board to all the cool shit that you folks in this thread all want for the workers and peasants, but are seemingly clueless about how those things are obtained. Little things like a better standard of living…stuff like that.
See such obscure nations as China and India to better understand how evil capitalism can help out there.
Oh, the horror! Foreign investment and capitalization. Infrastructure. Jobs. Gods, I see what you mean. And nationalizing everything has certainly worked out well for them (and everyone else who has tried this and, curiously, epic failed by doing so. I know…it remains a puzzlement).
Sigh…this is below econ 101. Venezuela has resources, in case you missed that. Resources that had already attracted foreign investment (which is, you know, that nasty ‘capital’ stuff). They were beginning to prosper due to the fact that they are swimming in oil. How’s that working out for them NOW?
Will those foreign companies import slave labor from somewhere else? Will they cart the oil out on mules and use wooden docks to put it on ships in the night? Will they extract the oil at gun point without any say by the government?? In other words :rolleyes:
Look up the terms ‘infrastructure’, ‘resource rights’, ‘jobs’ and ‘taxes’ sometime, then come on back and we’ll discuss.
Really? Where do we see this pattern again and again? Could you list some examples of where the local country with vast natural resources gets ONLY low paying jobs (low paying relative to what, exactly) and nothing else?? Because I can’t think of any real world examples, at least not since the period of European colonialism.
Poor compared to what? To the US? Well…yeah. Poor compared to how things were BEFORE their resources were being exploited? :dubious: Let’s see some examples so we can all judge the relative poorness. You could start with countries like India and China, or those in the ME. Or feel free to trot out some examples of your own, which I asked you for in the other thread.
If not examples are forthcoming I feel that ‘horseshit’ is an appropriate response.
Why do you suppose it has to be an either or? Most ‘socialist’ countries (such as those in Europe) have at least nominally socialist political systems…and they STILL use capitalism and market based economies. Why do you think that might be the case? China has a freaking COMMUNIST government, and THEY use a capitalist type economic system (and are moving towards a more market oriented one as well). India, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada…hell, even the US has aspects of ‘socialism’, even if it’s not everything the folks on this board would wish it to be.
But why capitalism over socialism from an economic perspective? Simply put because it WORKS. And socialism frankly sucks when you start talking about economics, command economies and nationalization of industry. It blows chunks and has pretty much failed miserably every time it’s been tried. As an adjunct to capitalism it has worked pretty well, softening what would otherwise be a harsh and unforgiving system. Where you set the bar is debatable, but I think the combination of capitalism and market based economies as the driving force for economic expansion coupled with socialism (plus, of course, democracy, which I think some folks are getting mixed up with all the other stuff) has been a winner.
-XT
http://www.democracyctr.org/bolivia/investigations/water/ I would never want unfettered capitalists to take over a country. Here is an example of Bechtel taking over the water supply of a large Peruvian city. They put in water meters and started charging exorbitantly for the existing water. They also charged when people tried to collect rain water. The result was a water riot with residents being killed .The people were poor and could not pay the prices demanded.
Corporations are designed to be without morals and a conscience. Their only reason to exist is to make money. That makes exploitation an easy justification for them.
Or, more likely not. You are obviously fantasizing that they’d actually keep a significant amount of the return from their own resources. “Foreign investment” in resource rich capital poor nations typically means that they end up exploited hellholes. The “jobs” the general public gets tend to be examples of near slavery or actual slavery. And nearly all the return from their resources will flow out of the country or to a tiny elite.
It depends on which slave labor is cheaper. We imported most of our labor in Iraq, for example.
They may well try. They’d use a government for the actual gunmen, of course. If we weren’t bogged down in Iraq we might be in Venezuela right now, trying to loot their oil at gunpoint.
That rather misses the point; it does the typical person in a country little good if a few collaborators or cronies make huge amounts of money while they work as near-slaves.
China and India aren’t examples of poor, weak countries with nothing but a resource like oil to offer. And the ME is a good example those hellholes i was talking about.
Because that’s the question the OP asked in response to Sage Rat.
That’s kind of confusing, there, XT. You’re willing to accept that a hybrid of capitalism and socialism might, in fact, be the superior “system”, while at the same time insisting that all the good stuff comes from the capitalism! But somehow corruption with socialism improves it. But if you are pleased to call that “capitalism”, well, I suppose we have no real objection, so long as the ball keeps moving forward, progressive wise.
Tell you what: how about we compromise? We’ll make the policy and you can decide what to call it!
The point of the OP quote, though, is that in a socialist state (where they stay socialist), they have no choice but to become authoritarian. The state would break down without strict oversight by the government. The capitalist might become authoritarian. He might become fascist. But he doesn’t have to. Your odds of coming out the other end sitting pretty when the coup takes place is better when it’s the capitalist.
I didn’t say that capitalists are infallible, nor did I even say they don’t put people up against a wall and shoot them. But the capitalist is less likely to trash the economy, and he’s less likely to become a tyrant. The socialist always does those things.
Unless he turns capitalist.
This is similar to where we all live in republics but the words have become blurred and everyone calls them democracies now.
Say that I live in a capitalist society and I (as the government) realize that people aren’t saving money for their retirement like they should be. As such, I impose a tax to collect money from those still working, and give only the minimum needed to survive to those who are retired. If someone saved up retirement money on their own, then they get far more than everyone else. This isn’t socialism as all I’m doing is looking at something where people are being stupid and correcting for it. I’m not doing it based on some grand view of the world, of human greatness, of the necessary benevolence of humankind. I’m simply recognizing the existence of a medical condition called hyperbolic discounting which causes people to not ask for as high a wage as they need to. People seem to enjoy calling this sort of thing “socialism” though.
When people talk about “socialism vs. capitalism”, they’re talking about a planned economy that ascribes to “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. It believes in universal benevolence. It believes that no one is better or worse than anyone else. And it thinks that we should all be so nice as to not care about personal property or possessions. Again, none of what happened in the case of setting up a retirement fund for poor planners has to do with any of that. If you feel like calling it socialism then sure, but all you’re doing by doing that is making conversation confusing. You’re giving people who ascribe to this silly, disproven economic scheme a chance to go, “Nyahah, see socialism is working! It just shows that we can still move towards the Marxist stuff!” But no, we’re not talking about socialism in cases like a retirement fund. We’re talking about the fine tuning of capitalism.
But the sole reason for that is that in a pure capitalist society the people trashing the economy and exploiting the labour force are going to be the Corporations, not the government. In fact the government would most likely be pawns of the Corporations. Sounds a little bit like the U.S. really.
It’s a poitless debate, both pure capitalism and socialist tyranny would be pretty shitty unless you happen to born the son of a Party Chairman or CEO. Free-market capitalism with the moderating influence of a lightly socialist government is best you can hope for at the moment.
As a rule no, they aren’t, unless they are people who like you who are trying to strawman the “socialist” position. You seem to be trying to define socialism a synonym for communism.
It’s amazing to me how the brilliant minds of the SDMB seem to lack even a basic understanding of economics. I look forward to a stimulating discussion that cherry-picks all the perceived pros of socialism and the negatives of capitalism.
What is it people don’t like about capitalism? The ability to but and sell goods and services for the best price you can negotiate? The freedom to decide what sort of work you will pursue? The whole private ownership thing?
Capitalism tends to make people less poor while Socialism tends to make poor people feel better about being poor. Centralized individuals and governments cannot plan and react to economic conditions as quickly as free markets can. Chavez is trying to do this in Venezuela with nationalizing industries and collectivized farms. Which predictably has led to shortages and gross inefficiencies and has done little to reduce poverty.
Buy hey, if I Am Sam supports him then he has my vote.
gonzomax is also correct. Corporations are simply engines for turning raw materials into goods and services people buy. Left to their own devices, they would care little for how it did that as long as it was profitable. Subjegation by a large corporate entity as bad as subjegation by a government, but with less accountability.
To function properly, free markets must exist within a framework of infrastructure, laws and security provided by a strong government.
That’s what it looks like to me.
The amorality. The cruelty. The neofeudalism. The wars. The poverty for the general population and the massive concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. The subjugation of government to the wealthy.
Nonsense. The natural end state of capitalism is mass poverty and slavery. Unless of course some evil socialist comes along and insists on uncapitalist things like labor laws and civil rights.
In other words…socialism. By the American usage of the term, at least.
It would be nice if the other side could also admit it’s own fallacies.
Socialism != Communism
Capitalism != Libertarianism
Capitalism is 100% compatible with limited Socialism. You can have a capitalist economy while still providing welfare and universal healthcare to your citizens. You could even nationalise some industry (like oil) while retaining an otherwise capitalist economy (especially if you ran the industry with free-market principles).
What people - of both sides - seem to do is compare the moderate version of their favoured ideology against the most extreme version of the opposition, which is hardly fair.
For the record, I would say that setting price controls (as Chavez has done) is incompatible with Capitalism and is verging on becoming Communism. But bear in mind that this has also been done in the US in very recent history, by a Republican.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I’ve seen India. It’s not the example you want to use here.
Oh xtisme, that was adorable. I hope you use Sierra Leone next.
You were also wrong that this is meant as an “I hate capitalism.” This thread was a direct response to Sam Stone’s “I’m scared of socialism” thread.
If anything this thread represents ambivalence. As I’ve said, I fail to see how capitalism would have left the people of Venezuela any better off. If BP and Exxon owned all the only, the people don’t benefit, unless they some how save enough to buy stock in the company.
And when the companies know the country is dependent on the scraps they provide, they end up with control and influence. Want to drill in a nature park, sure. Need to repeal environmental protections, sure.
Capitalism has it’s flaws, someday you’ll learn that.
Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t capitalists JUST destroy the economy? Or are we still blaming that on Obama the socialist?
[QUOTE=emacknight]
Capitalism has it’s flaws, someday you’ll learn that.
[/QUOTE]
And someday you’ll learn to both read a post for what it’s saying AND to try and use less straw. Mind, I don’t think it’s going to happen soon, but I’m still hopeful that you’ll find the way there. Someday…
(And, FTR, I’ve worked in India. Have you? It’s EXACTLY the example I was wanting to use, since it demonstrates perfectly the actual point I was making. Sadly, that point was lost on you in your haste to address the strawman you wanted to lock me into)
-XT
[QUOTE=emacknight]
Um, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t capitalists JUST destroy the economy?
[/QUOTE]
Hell man, that could turn into a full time position. The economy wasn’t destroyed, and since everyone (who is sane) in economics is a ‘capitalist’ that’s a rather silly statement to make.
You can feel corrected if you like.
Obama might have socialist leanings (though I think he’s just a left leaning centrist, personally), but he’s not an ECONOMIC socialist. Or, at least if he is, he is keeping it to himself, since he hasn’t exactly tried to implement central planning, command economies or nationalization of industry.
-XT
Well, we’ve got this thread that cherry-picks the negatives of socialism and the pros of capitalism. Is it so bad that we strive for balance?
There is a lot wrong with capitalism, it is far from a perfect system. The brilliant minds of the SDMB are trying to show you that. My hope is that in the future you’ll view capitalism with a hefty dose of skepticism, the same skepticism you view socialism with. Then step back and make an informed decision.
Well, you’re very wrong about all of that. Capitalism has no problem making poor people poorer. And it has lots of problems reacting to changing economic conditions.
Right, and the word this all hinges on his “strong” government. In a simplified version, we could view socialism-capitalism as a line with the strongest government on the left and weakest on the right.
The problems all stem from a government that is weaker than the corporations created under capitalism. When corporations can decide how elections go.
Chavez gave government control over the oil industry, in other countries the oil industry has control over the government.
Which would you rather?
Yes, when I think of economic success, I think of per capita incomes worse than 129 other countries’.