Just like Communism, is Socialism dying, leading to a collapse.

On the Wal-Mart comments above:

Yes, Wal-Mart does employ illegal immigrants. They're not supposed to, of course, but they have a track record of getting themselves into trouble that way. Do a Google Search for "wal mart illegal immigrants" and you'll see a bunch of stories on the subject.

Wal-Mart is also famous for doing anything and everything they can to resist unionization. They routinely fire workers if it looks like they might be thinking about unionization. They've been known to close stores rather than have to unionize.

As for only illegals having to work at Wal-Mart, that's just not true. Wal-Mart has a strong presence in rural areas around the US, and when they move into town they usually drive out of business the pre-existing retail establishments by temporarily cutting prices (dumping). Then they raise them when they don't have any more local competition. There aren't that many jobs in a lot of rural parts of the US to begin with, and with factories moving and closing down, a lot of people end up having to work for the local Wal-Mart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwitt

This articles seems to indicate that there may be some a parallels.

"Perhaps what we are witnessing in Europe, but what the politicians and the media dare not say aloud, is the implosion of the (welfare) state. The Soviet Union suddenly collapsed in 1989, when owing to the inability of communism to create wealth, the state went bankrupt, was unable to maintain its army and hold its empire together. In France, the same thing might be happening. The socialist welfare state is no longer able to maintain law and order and is abandoning entire neighbourhoods to anarchy."

LINK

---

I´d say the implosion of the European welfare state is still beter than an American flood. At least, we have it warm!

No that´s not an attempt to turn this into an America-bashing thread (honestly). What I want to say is that even the eruption of violence is not yet proof that a society is failing. It only indicates problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Once again, Capitalism is self-propelling. Socialism is not. Capitalism can work by itself--it has it's roots in the barter economies that all the ancient civilizations out there based their economies on. It's tried and true. Socialism, while a very good idea (who wouldn't pay half their money in taxes in order to get free healthcare for all, and other utopian stuff?), just does not work. And there is no successful example of it working.

~:handball:

---

Well if your definition of Socialism is free health care for all: Australia Check
Free Education right up to and including uni: Australia Check.
Half of your money in Taxes: Well my overtime is taxed at just under 50%

And Australias economy is doing pretty well on a world scale. So ergo Socialism works. ~:eek:

The problem with Socialism is that it relies on a surplus. This surplus requires either investments, real estate, or plain raw people power... a work force.

It can work, it just requires people to pull their fingers out. Also welfare should not be a lifestyle choice anymore then hospitals should be used as free accommodation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

The best way to maximize your profit is minimizing your costs. So they start with workforce.. All hail to Capitalism !

---

Who said the best way to make a profit is to cut costs. I actually thought the equation is this.

SALES - COSTS = PROFIT

therefore, increasing sales will also increase profit. As it is that accountants and analysts are now running a lot of companies, they can only analyse costs as they do not understand sales.

A good company has a balanced view of Sales (Marketing, Products, Advertising) and Costs (Raw Materials, Personnel (I hate the term Human Resources) Transport).

Some of the most successful companies (Microsoft, etc. ) are those who sell the most.

OOPS ... I have just hijacked my own thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That's the problem. You still view capitalism as a movement that requires nudges here and there. It doesn't. Its nudges like that which have led to many of the thing capitalism has been villified for. The conditions in early industrial-era factories, being one, and the constant outsourcing of our business being another. Both the result of the government intervening, albiet in different ways.

---

And that's exactly why capitalism needs socialism. Society wont accept the social differences provoqued by capitalism, it needs a pillow.

Quote:

---

It's not as easy as "throwing in" some "socialistic ideas to maintain order, stability, and coherence." That's taking away self determination. That's throwing responsibility to the wind. That ruins the whole idea--heck, that's what we have now!

---

Of course it's taking away self determination, that's the problem.

Quote:

---

A half-truth. That class warfare was facilitated by the 19th century governments, which did not allow the workers to hold strikes or form unions, which are the great equalizer of capitalism.

---

Class warfare has always existed, in various forms, measuring wich is stronger and wich was weaker, is a trivial and pointless research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LEN

I'd like to see in poor districts where governments does not give a f*** then, if gov does not pay any attention on you, why don't they work out their own way for their own good? Human nature prevents anarchy from macro-applications. That's a dream (not mine)..

---

That's the problem seeing all macro. Why do we've to force some kind of nation. If we as people feel so united then there's no need to form an state, give it powers, and force military action upon a minority that doesn't want to form part of the whole "nation". The Vasque republic is a fine example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GC

McDonalds? lol. Man, maybe you should stick to your own country. You don't know what you're talking about. The Fast Food industry is a great gig for entry level applicants.

---

It's the same here.~:joker: ~:mecry:

Is communism dead ?? China is today the worlds 2nd largest economy. Doesn't seem very dead to me ?? ~;)

Only because their economy is becoming increasingly less communistic, and they're the world's source for cheap labor.

Alos, I'm not sure they are currently the second largest.

Crazed Rabbit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Is communism dead ?? China is today the worlds 2nd largest economy. Doesn't seem very dead to me ?? ~;)

---

That's because they never were communist. They will be the first in that case~;) .

kiwitt

It's the best way to maximize profits. I did not tell you what profit equals to. This is a business life fundamental: The best way to maximize your profit is minimizing your costs.

Every additional sale may equal to additional production. And additional product's marginal profit does diminish after a certain point - that is many sales do not always mean many profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

*sighs*

I hate how the argument against capitalism is always that whole "The rich will exploit the poor!" schtick. The bottom line for me is that if the oppressed worker is not willing to fight for better conditions, he deserves to subjegated. That's not a popular line of thinking, but that's the way I see it.

---

Very Hobbesian. Consent under duress remains consent.

An excellent standard of debate on this one. For me Adrian's points about the size of the state are the most telling. The modern state, whatever it's ideological claims, gets larger and larger. The intricacies of modern inter and intra state relationships means that intervention is inevitable.

We are seeing what is apparently anti-statist thought growing on both sides of the pond. I am highly suspicious however. I think what we are seeing is not some ideological struggle but merely a material one. While capitalists see profits grow they don't care about the political claims of governments. However when those profits start to slow they make a lot of noise about big government and stifling regulation - and get rewarded by a new government which grows just the same and regulates just the same but dishes out the big contracts and shelves a few policies that big business doesn't like.

Just to remind, I did not blame anything over Capitalism.

In fact, the HUGE difference between the practicality of Capitalism and Communism is that Capitalism fits into human nature and his social nature : It can handle all affairs, mind games, foreplays of human beings while taking advantage of their genetical and environmental background. That's nearly the way all humans live. However this is more of an economical structure - so that including money - so that is exposed and is contributing to corruption (that is inevitable where human beings exist).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

*sighs*

I hate how the argument against capitalism is always that whole "The rich will exploit the poor!" schtick.

---

Communism is pretty good in exploiting the poor, just look at China.... :bow:

I think that ultra freemarketeer ideology makes interesting reading. But in reality it's an economic wet dream. Business is not a gentleman's sport - it's ruthless and will exploit every advantage, legal, illegal, immoral etc, so needs control.

In situations where the government didn't intervene (say because it was too weak at the time, or simply because there was no government) people got together and formed a 'class' of rich people, creating an aristocraty, or one very rich and powerful guy paid a lot of people off and got to be king, or people formed guilds so they could teach the trade to their children (and only their children) creating a whole class of uneducated people.

Capitalism needs limits, just like any other system it can get out of hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

In fact, the HUGE difference between the practicality of Capitalism and Communism is that Capitalism fits into human nature and his social nature : It can handle all affairs, mind games, foreplays of human beings while taking advantage of their genetical and environmental background. That's nearly the way all humans live. However this is more of an economical structure - so that including money - so that is exposed and is contributing to corruption (that is inevitable where human beings exist).

---

Only if you see humans as a bunch of egocentric bastards, menions of God and money. Capitalism doesn't appeal to the social nature of the human, it separetes by capitalizing, neoliberalism will take this to the other extreme. Contrary to what GC might believe "letting it flow" will lead to an unbearable extreme of desocialization, as much as despotism leads to uber-socialization.

Edit: spelling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Only if you see humans as a bunch of egocentric bastards, menions of God and money. Capitalism doesn't appeal to the social nature of the human, it separetes by capitalizing, neoliberalism will take this to the other extreme. Contrary to what GC might believe "letting it flow" will lead to an unbearable extreme of desocialization, as much as despotism leads to uber-socialization.

Edit: spelling

---

Your going to have to clarify what you actually meant with the bolded statement.

Despots are those who gather the power of government onto themselves - sometimes for the good of the people - but always for the self-serving of the despot. How this equates to leading to uber-socialization does not make sense.

Soulforged, take a closer look at the bold quotes :

Quote:

---

In fact, the HUGE difference between the practicality of Capitalism and Communism is that Capitalism fits into human nature and his social nature : It can handle all affairs, mind games, foreplays of human beings while taking advantage of their genetical and environmental background. That's nearly the way all humans live. However this is more of an economical structure - so that including money - so that is exposed and is contributing to corruption (that is inevitable where human beings exist).

---

You know genetical heritage (like creativity, being easygoing, capability of making instant-accurate decisions and etc.) or the environmental backgrounds (like where they grew up, what was their first job, which university they graduated from etc.) adds up to diversification of human characteristics substantially. And capitalism evaluates "being different".

Well if you can see all humans through pink glasses only, I can understand how cute and cuddly anarchism or communism sound to you. No need to discuss any further then. ~:)

P.S. I'm not a capitalism fighter. That's the REAL thing happening around only - not an over-failed utopia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Your going to have to clarify what you actually meant with the bolded statement.

---

My pleasure Red ~D . Neoliberalism is an extremist theory, just as communism. Neoliberalism takes subjective law (prerrogative of the individual to demand others to do something) to an extreme putting it almost as a replace for objective law (just social order). That's why letting it flow without state control will reduce order and justice, less objective law, more subjective law. With theories such as the communist, in it's first stage (socialism), objective law is the absolute one, justice is also left apart because the system ignores individual rights. Also it has been said many times that "free market" is not at all free, and it's only a benefit if you take all from the utilitarian point of view.

Quote:

---

Despots are those who gather the power of government onto themselves - sometimes for the good of the people - but always for the self-serving of the despot. How this equates to leading to uber-socialization does not make sense.

---

Uber-socialization is when the person looses all individuality becoming another number in society. Despotism can achieve that, as well as a high bureaucracy. A society that respects itself should respect individual rights as if every individual is at the same time the representation of all the others, this includes that the others also respect each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

My pleasure Red ~D . Neoliberalism is an extremist theory, just as communism. Neoliberalism takes subjective law (prerrogative of the individual to demand others to do something) to an extreme putting it almost as a replace for objective law (just social order). That's why letting it flow without state control will reduce order and justice, less objective law, more subjective law. With theories such as the communist, in it's first stage (socialism), objective law is the absolute one, justice is also left apart because the system ignores individual rights. Also it has been said many times that "free market" is not at all free, and it's only a benefit if you take all from the utilitarian point of view.

---

Well and fine - I don't buy into this arguement - but I understand where you are coming from.

Quote:

---

Uber-socialization is when the person looses all individuality becoming another number in society. Despotism can achieve that, as well as a high bureaucracy. A society that respects itself should respect individual rights as if every individual is at the same time the representation of all the others, this includes that the others also respect each other.

---

Uber-socialization then runs counter to Despotism. Despotism is not about the society but about the individual who controls all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Uber-socialization then runs counter to Despotism. Despotism is not about the society but about the individual who controls all.

---

Not at all. One could say that there's society or there's nothing. But for didactical means I used that expression, meaning that all individualities mix in one body resting importance to each of them. Wheter that body is actually a single person or an ideal being is indiferent.

Edit: Spelling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Not at all. One could say that there's society or there's nothing. But for didactical means I used that expression, meaning that all individualities mix in one body resting importance to each of them. Wheter that body is actually a single person or an ideal being is indiferent.

Edit: Spelling

---

I see you have bought into the arguement of the Despotism of the masses - Edit: Which has lead to actual Despotism by an individual.

I still cannot fathom how socialism, in any form, could continue without some form of brutal inforcement. Humans, by nature, desire for things they don't have and will try to achieve it in almost any concievable fashion.

It's just an extension of the long hand of power Dave. No different then other laws not directly connected to economics. If we humans are left to our own devices and have ultimate freedom to gain as much power as possible we can only do so by overstepping over our fellow humans. Socialism tries to correct this to some extent through economic means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

It's just an extension of the long hand of power Dave. No different then other laws not directly connected to economics. If we humans are left to our own devices and have ultimate freedom to gain as much power as possible we can only do so by overstepping over our fellow humans. Socialism tries to correct this to some extent through economic means.

---

But by default, someone still has to be in charge and somebody still has to be in power to maintain and enforce the lifestyle of its citizens. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely as they say. My point is that by the nature of man, there can never be this type of utopian society where everyone is equally financially equal AND socially equal. It’s just not possible. That is why socialism, like communism, is a failed theory for society guidelines...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

In that situation it is the fault of peasants, for not changing their situation. The lower classes always outnumber the upper classes.

---

..and that's why they've been oppressed time and time agains thorughout history. ~:confused:

The rich can afford better weapons, can get soldiers with better training, and can buy mercenaries.

Getting better at the expense of your fellow man is very human, that's why communism doesn't work of course, it completely ignores this. But unlimited freedom (like you seem to suggest as True Capitalism) doesn't work either. Capitalism only benefits society if there is a free, competitive market that isn't dominate by one or a few players. It's simple economic theory. Any other situation disturbes the balance between the players and allows one (or a few) players to gain more than the others, an advantage which can again be used to gain an even bigger advantage, etc.

Capitalism is inherently unstable in the medium-run (in the long run, others will gain the advantage or a revolution will happen).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DevDave

I still cannot fathom how socialism, in any form, could continue without some form of brutal inforcement. Humans, by nature, desire for things they don't have and will try to achieve it in almost any concievable fashion.

---

Socialism isn't about stopping people form achieving their goals (allthough it can be an obstavle for some) it's about a *limited* redistribution of the wealth as a way to combat poverty, deaths by deseases that can be cured, etc. It's mostly about helping people get out of poverty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

But by default, someone still has to be in charge and somebody still has to be in power to maintain and enforce the lifestyle of its citizens. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely as they say. My point is that by the nature of man, there can never be this type of utopian society where everyone is equally financially equal AND socially equal. It’s just not possible. That is why socialism, like communism, is a failed theory for society guidelines...

---

Even the US has some socialism within it. Without it it would be a horrible place. I mean that. Poverty would be much worse, and people would be dying all around you. Communism is only worse in that EVERYONE becomes victim to poverty. Even the party leaders were not as well off as you might think. They would only pass as middle upper class.

But socialism is not about financial equality necessarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I see you have bought into the arguement of the Despotism of the masses - Edit: Which has lead to actual Despotism by an individual.

---

Despotism of the masses is an authoritarian form of "democracy" in wich the majority opresses the minority, feared by Aristotele.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DevastatinDave

But by default, someone still has to be in charge and somebody still has to be in power to maintain and enforce the lifestyle of its citizens. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely as they say. My point is that by the nature of man, there can never be this type of utopian society where everyone is equally financially equal AND socially equal. It’s just not possible. That is why socialism, like communism, is a failed theory for society guidelines...

---

That's false. Not always a single person or a single corporation has to be in power, or even a group of them. Power could be handled horizontaly rather than vertically. The second part is false too. The problem is that today's society values some kind of works and possitions over others, to the point of leaving true work, true production, to the lower classes and rewarding it with the less possible. The state separetes people by assigning possitions and roles, by cohercion to keep it like that, and by laws to keep a rational fiction of an opressive status quo, the best way to achieve equality is to get rid of the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GC

Absolutely correct, Dave. That is why Capitalism is superior to Socialism. Capitalism propels itself, because humans have always and will always understand and faciliate the idea of "I give you this, you give me that." and even "I give you this to do that, and you give me more of this back."

---

Huh? And how do you think that socialism works in the contracts?~:confused:

Quote:

---

Socialism, on the other hand, requires a strong government to enforce the ideals. Communism is even worse. Strong Governments inherantly fall prey to corruption. Corruption skims off the resources necesarry to keep the system running. Eventually, the resources run out and the government falls.

---

Incorrect. By your statement above, capitalism needs an strong government to ensure the Rule of the Law and the execution of contracts. Communism needs it too in it's first stage. Everything skims out the resources, the real deal is to destribute those resources equaly between equal humans, don't look at the genes, look at the social value of the word human. Great multinationals don't only skims out resources, but they also manage the force of work like they please, you've to understand that with capitalism there was a separation of two worlds that were united in past times, the politic one and the economic one, so no people understand that the power in a society is only exercised by formal means and that's false, in reality a Great Multinational can have and actually many have as much power as an state, the same as other criminal organizations.

Edit: Spelling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Nay. In a society without a strong government to fall back on, your reputation would be very important. A business that becomes notorious for failing to meet it's end of the bargain will quickly become a non-entity.

---

Not at all. In fact what you're proposing is to give political power directly to the economic forces and bring us back to feudal age. It's like a kind of mafia... ::scared: :eeeek:

Good job backing up your preposterous claims, Soul. ~:rolleyes: