• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Way I See Socialism And Conservatism

RGacky3 said:
The vast majority of mankind works hard, there are very very very few that control significant amounts of capital.
Click to expand...

So? Just because the majority never become super-wealthy doesn't mean that people don't get what they earn. You seem to have unrealistic goals.
 
Cephus said:
So? Just because the majority never become super-wealthy doesn't mean that people don't get what they earn. You seem to have unrealistic goals.
Click to expand...

What they "earn" depends on rules and standards that are set by the economically powerful, which intrinsically favors them, I don't think goldman sachs executives "earn" their bonus' but according to the standards and rules set by them they absolutely do.

I don't have unrealistic goals, democracy is the only goal.
 
Peter, thank you for your thoughtful response. You bring up good points.

Peter Grimm said:
Just a couple notes:

- You make the assumption that government can adequately counterbalance the natural phenomenon of "bad luck." How does the government adequately determine who really deserves a handout (who is unlucky) vs who is willfully unproductive?
Click to expand...

That's what the democratic process is for. We, as a society, have to determine how much inequality we are willing to tolerate -- as the result of a fair and legal process all sides have a say in.

I'd say most of the time, this works quite well. At least in Germany, I don't have the impression that results in absolute, radical demands by either side, as extreme lobby groups and parties from both ends of the spectrum are marginal. There is a large center that acknowledges both employers and employees have legitimate demands and try to find compromises.

- You assume that dignity is a function of economic means. I know many working class people who are very dignified, and many wealthy people who are anything but. Giving a poor man money will not bring him dignity, that is something he either has, or he doesn't have. I would go so far as to say that accepting charity causes one to lose dignity.
Click to expand...

The latter sentence is crucial: It's undignifying to force people to rely on charity, forcing them to be beggars, by denying them other options. I also think it's undignifying when people have to work in several low paid "McJobs" to even survive -- think of that single mom living in a container, working 18 hours per day, without any time left to properly raise her child.

That's why I think the ideal is to create a situation where everybody can make a good living of a good job. Unemployment is bad, so is wage dumping.

But since markets alone cannot provide that, I'd say we need certain social safety nets, such as unemployment support. Such a system wouldn't be "handouts", but basically an insurance: When you have a job, you pay into this system, and the moment you're unemployed, you get money out of it.

- you claim that, in capitalism, you are paid for your possessions. I would argue that you are paid for your net capital contribution to society, in other words, you are paid for your production.
Click to expand...

Okay, let's not debate about semantics -- point being, you can easily make money without much work when you have much (capital, factories, tools, land).

- You claim that, in socialism, you are paid for your work. What mechanism exists, within the socialist construct, to determine the value of one's labor?
Click to expand...

You are right, there is no sound mechanism to determine that. That's one of the reasons why I don't think genuine socialism is a feasible system. The market is superior in determining the value of labor -- but as it often yields undignifying, unfair results, it should be cautiously corrected here and there.

- You explore the hypothetical that if everyone were equally talented and hard-working, there would still be stratification in the labor market. First, what value is a hypothetical situation to us? We will never all be equally talented or hard working. However, that you bring it up highlights the very real observation that while capitalism is pragmatic and based on the accumulated knowledge of the realities of human experience, socialism is an impractical fairy tale dreamed up in the ivory towers of lala land.
Click to expand...

Yes, socialism is impractical. Capitalism may be realistic, but normatively problematical. That's why I think the best system is a capitalism that gets regulated and complemented by a reasonable level of social systems, ideally efficient social systems that target people who are really in need, does not eliminate good incentives and doesn't burden the economy too much.

Second, even if this hypothetical situation were somehow reality, you show a lack of understanding when it comes to capitalist labor markets. If everyone were equally valuable to the labor market, the demand curve for labor would be perfectly elastic. In plain English, what that means is that every stock broker, doctor, lawyer, or CEO would be easily replaceable... Therefore they would not be paid a single penny more than your local janitor.
Click to expand...

Good point.

At any rate, I guess my point is that everybody should participate in our common wealth to some extent, even when he has a "bad" job. That's a demand based on the normative idea of the equal value of human life and dignity; capitalism is just an efficient system, but does not care about this value we attach to human life because of moral and ethical considerations.
 
Last edited:
RGacky3 said:
Actually no it isn't based on performance, it's based on control of capital, and beating the competition in the terms of profit, not counting externalities, internally it's determined by class struggle, i.e. you pay your workesr the least you can, and yourself the most, whereas the workers fight for more pay.

In Capitalism it's mainly control of capital.
Click to expand...
If you control the right skill, you can extract capital. Ask Lady Gaga.
 
RGacky3 said:
What they "earn" depends on rules and standards that are set by the economically powerful, which intrinsically favors them, I don't think goldman sachs executives "earn" their bonus' but according to the standards and rules set by them they absolutely do.

I don't have unrealistic goals, democracy is the only goal.
Click to expand...

How do they not earn it? Their stockholders certainly think they do or they wouldn't give it to them. What you're really arguing is that you don't like it, therefore it's wrong.
 
Cephus said:
How do they not earn it? Their stockholders certainly think they do or they wouldn't give it to them. What you're really arguing is that you don't like it, therefore it's wrong.
Click to expand...

Stockholders generally hold stocks for a very short time, and dont' really take part in governance, boards are selected by the CEO which is appointed by the board ... So really shareholder dont' think they do, shareholder care about short term capital gains, and have very little actual stake in the company.
 
RGacky3 said:
Capital begets capital, that comes before skill.
Click to expand...
There are countless examples of people with no capital selling a unique skill to earn millions, if not billions. American professional athletes are the rawest form of that exchange. At odds of tens of millions to one, a Lebron James emerges to earn nearly a Billion Dollars. He earns that money because of his unique skill...and, perhaps a certain flair for marketing.

Of course, that skill must be marketed to someone with capital.
 
calamity said:
There are countless examples of people with no capital selling a unique skill to earn millions, if not billions. American professional athletes are the rawest form of that exchange. At odds of tens of millions to one, a Lebron James emerges to earn nearly a Billion Dollars. He earns that money because of his unique skill...and, perhaps a certain flair for marketing.

Of course, that skill must be marketed to someone with capital.
Click to expand...

It's also marketed by someone with capital in due to a product (The NBA) that has required billions in capital to create.

The NFL/NBA/MLB would just be some local guys playing a local league if it wasn't for the decades and billions of dollars required to create a brand and market a game.
 
iliveonramen said:
It's also marketed by someone with capital in due to a product (The NBA) that has required billions in capital to create.

The NFL/NBA/MLB would just be some local guys playing a local league if it wasn't for the decades and billions of dollars required to create a brand and market a game.
Click to expand...
I agree. But, also, let's not forget the TV broadcasts that go over public airwaves. Suddenly there's now a mix of socialism and capitalism...add to that the free publicly funded farm system which is college athletics and we're darn near talking a Marxist utopia. ;)
 
iliveonramen said:
It's also marketed by someone with capital in due to a product (The NBA) that has required billions in capital to create.

The NFL/NBA/MLB would just be some local guys playing a local league if it wasn't for the decades and billions of dollars required to create a brand and market a game.
Click to expand...

But there are consumers who are ready, willing and able to pay for that form of entertainment, where do you think the NFL/NBA/MLB got their money to begin with?
 
German guy said:
Peter, thank you for your thoughtful response. You bring up good points.



That's what the democratic process is for. We, as a society, have to determine how much inequality we are willing to tolerate -- as the result of a fair and legal process all sides have a say in.

I'd say most of the time, this works quite well. At least in Germany, I don't have the impression that results in absolute, radical demands by either side, as extreme lobby groups and parties from both ends of the spectrum are marginal. There is a large center that acknowledges both employers and employees have legitimate demands and try to find compromises.



The latter sentence is crucial: It's undignifying to force people to rely on charity, forcing them to be beggars, by denying them other options. I also think it's undignifying when people have to work in several low paid "McJobs" to even survive -- think of that single mom living in a container, working 18 hours per day, without any time left to properly raise her child.

That's why I think the ideal is to create a situation where everybody can make a good living of a good job. Unemployment is bad, so is wage dumping.

But since markets alone cannot provide that, I'd say we need certain social safety nets, such as unemployment support. Such a system wouldn't be "handouts", but basically an insurance: When you have a job, you pay into this system, and the moment you're unemployed, you get money out of it.



Okay, let's not debate about semantics -- point being, you can easily make money without much work when you have much (capital, factories, tools, land).



You are right, there is no sound mechanism to determine that. That's one of the reasons why I don't think genuine socialism is a feasible system. The market is superior in determining the value of labor -- but as it often yields undignifying, unfair results, it should be cautiously corrected here and there.



Yes, socialism is impractical. Capitalism may be realistic, but normatively problematical. That's why I think the best system is a capitalism that gets regulated and complemented by a reasonable level of social systems, ideally efficient social systems that target people who are really in need, does not eliminate good incentives and doesn't burden the economy too much.



Good point.

At any rate, I guess my point is that everybody should participate in our common wealth to some extent, even when he has a "bad" job. That's a demand based on the normative idea of the equal value of human life and dignity; capitalism is just an efficient system, but does not care about this value we attach to human life because of moral and ethical considerations.
Click to expand...

-You say that the democratic process is the answer for how we determine who deserves a handout, and who does not. However, the democratic process only decides whom we elect. Somebody still has to practically manage the actual process of redistribution. In other words, we still have to trust our elected officials to oversee some sort of redistribution program, we dont do this democratically. How do our elected officials determine, regardless of who we elected, which people deserve handouts, and how much they deserve? What is the actual process?

-You agree that relying on charity can cause one to lose a bit of dignity, but what is the actual difference between a private charity, and charity provided by the state? Both are simply a means of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. Stare run welfare programs are nothing but a charity. The only difference is psychological...the state is a faceless, nameless entity that people are less likely to feel gratitude toward or feel like they owe anything to.

-You say that welfare is similar to insurance, however they differ in this respect: contributions are always are before insurance can be collected, and insurance prices are individually set based on the buyer's assessed risk. Are you saying that those who pay more in to the system should receive more "insurance benefits?" What of those that have never paid in, or who would be much too risky to insure?

-You say that the best system is capitalism with certain elements of socialism mixed in, and i agree completely. But isn't this what we already have? Pure capitalism does not work, and does not exist anywhere in the world. The same can be said about socialism. So aren't we just debating about minutia, ie where the middle ground should be?

-you portray socialism as the more "humane" system, yet empirically this has not proven correct. Historically, the poor have fared much better in capitalist leaning countries. As a German, would you rather have been poor in East Germany or West Germany?

Capitalism can be characterized as a system that rewards economic productivity with economic rewards. If you contribute to the economy, you are rewarded with money.

Granted, there are many ways to contribute to society that are not economic contributions, for example feeding the hungry, making scientific discoveries, or providing spiritual leadership. However, is money really the best way to reward these ventures?
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
-You say that the democratic process is the answer for how we determine who deserves a handout, and who does not. However, the democratic process only decides whom we elect. Somebody still has to practically manage the actual process of redistribution. In other words, we still have to trust our elected officials to oversee some sort of redistribution program, we dont do this democratically. How do our elected officials determine, regardless of who we elected, which people deserve handouts, and how much they deserve? What is the actual process?
Click to expand...

The process is that the different parties and candidates present a platform prior to the elections (i.e. for creating, changing or skipping social programs) and then the voter decides about it. Depending on the outcome of the elections and the different systems, the different parties and candidates then have to work out a compromise. You know, just like all other political decisions are supposed to take place.

-You agree that relying on charity can cause one to lose a bit of dignity, but what is the actual difference between a private charity, and charity provided by the state? Both are simply a means of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. Stare run welfare programs are nothing but a charity. The only difference is psychological...the state is a faceless, nameless entity that people are less likely to feel gratitude toward or feel like they owe anything to.
Click to expand...

Charity is undignifying, because the recipient has to beg for it and is totally dependent on the goodwill of the giver. Public social programs are different, A) because you're entitled to it when you meet the criteria, B) required to contribute when you are on the better side again and C) you had a say in the creation of these social programs, along with your fellow citizens, in the political process. This elevates you from the status of a beggar to the status of an acting individual.

-You say that welfare is similar to insurance, however they differ in this respect: contributions are always are before insurance can be collected, and insurance prices are individually set based on the buyer's assessed risk. Are you saying that those who pay more in to the system should receive more "insurance benefits?" What of those that have never paid in, or who would be much too risky to insure?
Click to expand...

The details depend on the democratic political process to be made. When we, as a society, agree a certain program is fair, we implement it. And the process in which everybody has a voice, as well as constitutional limits, make sure that one side does not brutalize another.

-You say that the best system is capitalism with certain elements of socialism mixed in, and i agree completely. But isn't this what we already have? Pure capitalism does not work, and does not exist anywhere in the world. The same can be said about socialism. So aren't we just debating about minutia, ie where the middle ground should be?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think so. I didn't say the existing systems aren't ok. I just wanted to reply to the OP dichotomy between "conservatism" and "socialism".

-you portray socialism as the more "humane" system, yet empirically this has not proven correct. Historically, the poor have fared much better in capitalist leaning countries. As a German, would you rather have been poor in East Germany or West Germany?
Click to expand...

You must have misread me. I don't think socialism is the more humane system, due to the reasons you mention. But I think a "mixed" system, capitalism with a few public social safety nets, is the best option. (West-)Germany had/has such a system since the 1950s; we call it "social market economy". It's obviously superior to the East German socialism, as it combines the strengthes of free markets with social safety.

Capitalism can be characterized as a system that rewards economic productivity with economic rewards. If you contribute to the economy, you are rewarded with money.
Click to expand...

Yes, but as you mentioned empirics, I'd say I don't think the measurable distribution of wealth yielded by a system leaning too much towards the capitalist side is normatively desirable. Now you may disagree and say this distribution pattern is perfectly fair; in that case, we have to agree to disagree.

Granted, there are many ways to contribute to society that are not economic contributions, for example feeding the hungry, making scientific discoveries, or providing spiritual leadership. However, is money really the best way to reward these ventures?
Click to expand...

Again, I think that's a question every society should decide about in a free and fair, democratic political process.
 
German guy said:
The process is that the different parties and candidates present a platform prior to the elections (i.e. for creating, changing or skipping social programs) and then the voter decides about it. Depending on the outcome of the elections and the different systems, the different parties and candidates then have to work out a compromise. You know, just like all other political decisions are supposed to take place.



Charity is undignifying, because the recipient has to beg for it and is totally dependent on the goodwill of the giver. Public social programs are different, A) because you're entitled to it when you meet the criteria, B) required to contribute when you are on the better side again and C) you had a say in the creation of these social programs, along with your fellow citizens, in the political process. This elevates you from the status of a beggar to the status of an acting individual.



The details depend on the democratic political process to be made. When we, as a society, agree a certain program is fair, we implement it. And the process in which everybody has a voice, as well as constitutional limits, make sure that one side does not brutalize another.



Yes, I think so. I didn't say the existing systems aren't ok. I just wanted to reply to the OP dichotomy between "conservatism" and "socialism".



You must have misread me. I don't think socialism is the more humane system, due to the reasons you mention. But I think a "mixed" system, capitalism with a few public social safety nets, is the best option. (West-)Germany had/has such a system since the 1950s; we call it "social market economy". It's obviously superior to the East German socialism, as it combines the strengthes of free markets with social safety.



Yes, but as you mentioned empirics, I'd say I don't think the measurable distribution of wealth yielded by a system leaning too much towards the capitalist side is normatively desirable. Now you may disagree and say this distribution pattern is perfectly fair; in that case, we have to agree to disagree.



Again, I think that's a question every society should decide about in a free and fair, democratic political process.
Click to expand...

Good answers, and I apologize for the weird formatting, I am on an iPhone and it's impractical on this blasted device to cut and paste quotes from various parts of your response.

You say political platforms determine how money is redistributed, but I have two issues with this. First, in the real world, politicians lie about their platform. It's one of democracy's failings, in my opinion. Choosing between Romney and Obama, for instance, is choosing which used car salesman you trust more. They will tell you anything you want to hear, just to get elected. Therefore, we can't fully trust the platform we are sold prior to an election.

Second, I was talking more about the practical, day to day job of selecting who gets a piece of the goverment's money. Even if we were to assume that every politicians sales pitch were 100 percent truthful, we are still left with the problem that they are extremely general and vague.

-recipients do not have to beg for charity. The Catholic Church operates several soup kitchens to feed the needy. Anyone can simply walk in and eat. There is no begging. However, both state provided welfare and charity do foster dependence. In tht way they are similar.

-you say that going from a beggar to an "acting individual" is the determining factor of why welfare recipients would have more dignity than charity recipients. However, even a thief is an acting individual. Rather than passively beg, a thief can use a knife and force contributions. Does a thief have dignity?

-whether the current distribution pattern of wealth is fair depends on your definition of fair. I think everyone is entitled to food and shelter. I don't think everyone is entitled to a paid vacation...that is a luxury and luxuries should be earned.
 
calamity said:
There are countless examples of people with no capital selling a unique skill to earn millions, if not billions. American professional athletes are the rawest form of that exchange. At odds of tens of millions to one, a Lebron James emerges to earn nearly a Billion Dollars. He earns that money because of his unique skill...and, perhaps a certain flair for marketing.

Of course, that skill must be marketed to someone with capital.
Click to expand...

He earns that money because he's a human billbord (thanks to his skill), but the fact that a few people get somewhat rich without large capital is the exception that proves the rule, and as you said, yeah its marketed to someone with capital who is going to make MUCH MORE than the person with the skill.
 
iliveonramen said:
It's also marketed by someone with capital in due to a product (The NBA) that has required billions in capital to create.

The NFL/NBA/MLB would just be some local guys playing a local league if it wasn't for the decades and billions of dollars required to create a brand and market a game.
Click to expand...

Not if the economic system was changed, look at teams like the Packers and Bercelona, not dependant on some guy, but collectively owned by the city.
 
Cephus said:
But there are consumers who are ready, willing and able to pay for that form of entertainment, where do you think the NFL/NBA/MLB got their money to begin with?
Click to expand...

Monopoly practices, and state sponsorship.
 
RGacky3 said:
Not if the economic system was changed, look at teams like the Packers and Bercelona, not dependant on some guy, but collectively owned by the city.
Click to expand...

Very true....when cities are already bankrolling 100's of millions of dollars for sports arena's you'd think more would own their teams.
 
Cephus said:
But there are consumers who are ready, willing and able to pay for that form of entertainment, where do you think the NFL/NBA/MLB got their money to begin with?
Click to expand...

Of course.....which is the whole point...capital is provided, labor is acquired for production to meet demand. Capital begets capital because capital is required component for making more capital.
 
iliveonramen said:
Of course.....which is the whole point...capital is provided, labor is acquired for production to meet demand. Capital begets capital because capital is required component for making more capital.
Click to expand...

But that's exactly how the market works, someone has a product and others are willing to pay them for that product. That's how every business transaction is supposed to operate.
 
Indeed said:
The difference between conservatism(right-wing) and socialism(left-wing), in my mind, is that conservatism holds that individuals are typically virtuous people and can usually work out their own problems for themselves. Socialism, imo, holds that individuals tend not to be virtuous on their own, but rather need a strong government to keep them in line, to make them virtuous. Socialism dictates that the average individual is not bright enough to make the best decisions for themselves and that the individual isn't strong enough to make rightous decisions.
Click to expand...

These are boneheaded definitions of conservatism and socialism.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Good answers, and I apologize for the weird formatting, I am on an iPhone and it's impractical on this blasted device to cut and paste quotes from various parts of your response.
Click to expand...

Everybody seems to be using a smartphone these days... guess I should get one too! :D

You say political platforms determine how money is redistributed, but I have two issues with this. First, in the real world, politicians lie about their platform. It's one of democracy's failings, in my opinion. Choosing between Romney and Obama, for instance, is choosing which used car salesman you trust more. They will tell you anything you want to hear, just to get elected. Therefore, we can't fully trust the platform we are sold prior to an election.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I guess ideally, the media should be independent and play a constructive role at disecting the proposals of the candidates, filter it to the public and holding them responsible once elected. Now that's maybe not as it is today. But I believe a functional democracy should and can deliver that.

Second, I was talking more about the practical, day to day job of selecting who gets a piece of the goverment's money. Even if we were to assume that every politicians sales pitch were 100 percent truthful, we are still left with the problem that they are extremely general and vague.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm too German for that question. ;) My impression is that at least in Germany, the laws are very clear and strict, and when a bureaucrat oversteps his limits, he can even be legally held responsible.

As for the vagueness of candidates before elected; that's what the elections are for. Once elected, politicians need to be held responsible by the voter, in the following elections (and not just a President in the presidentials; you often see the midterms serve that purpose too).

-recipients do not have to beg for charity. The Catholic Church operates several soup kitchens to feed the needy. Anyone can simply walk in and eat. There is no begging. However, both state provided welfare and charity do foster dependence. In tht way they are similar.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. But you can't sue the Catholic Church if you don't get your meal from them.

-you say that going from a beggar to an "acting individual" is the determining factor of why welfare recipients would have more dignity than charity recipients. However, even a thief is an acting individual. Rather than passively beg, a thief can use a knife and force contributions. Does a thief have dignity?
Click to expand...

The difference is that in the former case, the individual acts legally in a democratic-republican government, while in the latter case, it's illegal.

-whether the current distribution pattern of wealth is fair depends on your definition of fair. I think everyone is entitled to food and shelter. I don't think everyone is entitled to a paid vacation...that is a luxury and luxuries should be earned.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a matter of definition and preference. Personally, I'd say no income should be more than 15 or 20 times the lowest income. As many studies have shown, this more or less reflects the natural instict of fairness most people believe in.
 
Indeed said:
The difference between conservatism(right-wing) and socialism(left-wing), in my mind, is that conservatism holds that individuals are typically virtuous people and can usually work out their own problems for themselves. Socialism, imo, holds that individuals tend not to be virtuous on their own, but rather need a strong government to keep them in line, to make them virtuous. Socialism dictates that the average individual is not bright enough to make the best decisions for themselves and that the individual isn't strong enough to make rightous decisions.

Conservatives believe that everyone should be powerful, while socialists believe that average people can't be trusted with power, that it must be given to an elite group dedicated to ruling the rest of the population. Socialists want to take away guns because they give you too much power, power that you might abuse. Conservatives want more guns because they make everyone powerful in equal measure. When everyone is just as powerful, average people can defend themselves. People who desire power over someone will find it much easier to obtain if everyone else is powerless. This is pretty much the whole controversy about weapon free zones.

Socialists believe that average people can't be trusted to run their own lives, so the government should place someone more capable to run your life for you, if not only financially. Leaving the economy in the hands of incompetent people would be unwise, so the gov't takes the wheel.

If any of this isn't true, tell me your opinion.
Click to expand...
Socialism is a kind of economy. Conservationism is not. The two are not comparable. Both could exist at the same time, a conservative socialist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom