Socialism vs Capitalism is a stupid Dichotomy

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 141
#121
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
I don't quite understand the application of this citation. Are you citing it to convey that there will always be a threat of overuse and "selfish" interests countermanding the "common good"? Are you suggesting that examples of commons in the article serve as an example of regulated public goods? What is the "common good"?
River water is a good example.

Do upstream farmers "own" the river?

If upstream farmers divert the flow of the river to irrigate their crops and thus deprive downstream farmers of adequate water for their crops, is it "stealing"?

If upstream factories dump chemical waste into the water making it dangerous to plants and animals downstream, is that "vandalism"?

Who is the "owner"?
#122
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Capitalism is more unfettered { unrestrained } than socialism on all issues.  You dont seem to get that.

We all co-share and co-inahabit a finite planet with finite resources

What is old indian saying,  how can you sell the sky? Or something like that.

We all own the Earth and we need to act accordingly so as we govern Earth to sustain the ecology for longest possible term.

Some may be greeted more areas usage than others as is deemed neccessary by elected body or otherwise.

Checks and balances ex   Self enterprise { innovations } >< Government { governance } >< Spiritural integrity { moral-intellectual-energy }

You dont seem to get that all other systems of governance have been chasing or attempting to prove their system is better..Free market capitalism allows the smallest few to do most damamge to ecology via their greed and greed of all peoples.
#123
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
You dont seem to get that all other systems of governance have been chasing or attempting to prove their system is better..Free market capitalism allows the smallest few to do most damamge to ecology via their greed and greed of all peoples.
#124
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
You dont get it that no one owns the Earth or the sky. It is non-sense way of thinking.

The Royal { God-divine } King granted some ownership of land.  God/Universe does not grant any set of person{s} onwer-ship of Earth and sun.

This the basic system for checks and balances,

Self enterprise { innovations } ...begins with basic need ex air, water, food shelter...
 
Government { governance } ...elected etc by what ever amount humanity can agree upon....

Spiritual integrity { moral-intellectual-energy }...begins with basic needs ex air, water, food shelter...



#125
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
You dont get it that no one owns the Earth or the sky.
Well, some people are really good at "pretending".
#126
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,923
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, some people are really good at "pretending".
That correct it is a pretense.  Your finally begining to get it.

Did the N.A. indians deed the land to the white Europeans? No.

The white Europeans brought their systems of Royal { real-estate } Divine God given individual land rights  to N. America and forced it upon the indians.

It is absurd.  Some human owns a mountain and they sell water that flows from melting ice to all the people along the stream of run-off?  Its absurd.




#127
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
HOLACRACY
First, wouldn't this necessitate that everyone who participates in this system to (willingly)  subscribe to some code or principles? Second, how is compensation determined in Holocracy? Is pay equally distributed? Is pay subject to referendums? If there are no "managers," with whom do workers negotiate? Third, how is this different from other theories of the firm where management is simply decentralized?

Most corporations are controlled by a 51% stakeholder.
The stakeholder doesn't have to be an individual. It can be a company, foundation, hedge funds, etc.

You can get arrested for sleeping in a "public" park.
Wouldn't the absence of "state regulation" also create a "tragedy of commons" as it concerns use of the park? How does it get managed?

Who does the State rent from?
No one.

Who does the State rent to?
Everyone else.

Please present your personally preferred definition of "public".
2a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state public law
b : of or relating to a government
c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation

River water is a good example.

Do upstream farmers "own" the river?

If upstream farmers divert the flow of the river to irrigate their crops and thus deprive downstream farmers of adequate water for their crops, is it "stealing"?

If upstream factories dump chemical waste into the water making it dangerous to plants and animals downstream, is that "vandalism"?

Who is the "owner"?
What would be your proposed solution or mechanism which regulates the use of river water so no farmer in proximity will be deprived of adequate water?
#128
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias

Who does the State rent from?
No one.

Who does the State rent to?
Everyone else.
Doesn't this make the State de facto OWNER?
#129
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
The stakeholder doesn't have to be an individual. It can be a company, foundation, hedge funds, etc.
I agree.

However, there is usually some individual who wields outsized control.

Either a CEO or a Chairman, or a 51% stakeholder (Corporate Raider).

The point here is that the workers themselves do not get a vote.
#130
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
c : of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation
So, DEFINITELY NOT "THE STATE".
#131
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
River water is a good example.

Do upstream farmers "own" the river?

If upstream farmers divert the flow of the river to irrigate their crops and thus deprive downstream farmers of adequate water for their crops, is it "stealing"?

If upstream factories dump chemical waste into the water making it dangerous to plants and animals downstream, is that "vandalism"?

Who is the "owner"?
What would be your proposed solution or mechanism which regulates the use of river water so no farmer in proximity will be deprived of adequate water?
Primarily I'd like people to UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.

Putting a single organization (river-corp or river-authority) "in charge" of the river can often be WORSE than "nothing".

Doing "nothing" is obviously very bad.

AND policing water usage and dumping is ridiculously resource intensive.

What you'd hope would be that people would "respect the river" and "play nice" and "only take what they need" and "not be idiots".

But what we end up with is THE FREE-RIDER PROBLEM.

More specifically, if the cost of a resource is shared, then people who don't use that resource or under-use that resource are "penalized" and those who over-use that resource are "rewarded".

HOLACRACY SEEMS TO BE A "BETTER" FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING SHARED RESOURCES.

I'm curious how you, personally, might approach this "problem".
#132
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
HOLACRACY
First, wouldn't this necessitate that everyone who participates in this system to (willingly)  subscribe to some code or principles?
Yes.  Isn't this a marvelous feature?

Second, how is compensation determined in Holocracy? Is pay equally distributed? Is pay subject to referendums? If there are no "managers," with whom do workers negotiate?
It's simple, people bid for jobs.  The lowest qualified bid gets the job.

Third, how is this different from other theories of the firm where management is simply decentralized?
I'm not sure what SPECIFIC SYSTEMS you're trying to compare and contrast.
#133
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Doesn't this make the State de facto OWNER?
It makes the State the de jure owner; de facto, the States engages in thievery, burglary, and robbery.

I agree.

However, there is usually some individual who wields outsized control.

Either a CEO or a Chairman, or a 51% stakeholder (Corporate Raider).

The point here is that the workers themselves do not get a vote.
And that CEO or Chairman is held accountable by a board of directors.

So, DEFINITELY NOT "THE STATE".
If you choose to define it as such; I've chosen the other two.

Primarily I'd like people to UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM.

Putting a single organization (river-corp or river-authority) "in charge" of the river can often be WORSE than "nothing".

Doing "nothing" is obviously very bad.

AND policing water usage and dumping is ridiculously resource intensive.

What you'd hope would be that people would "respect the river" and "play nice" and "only take what they need" and "not be idiots".

But what we end up with is THE FREE-RIDER PROBLEM.

More specifically, if the cost of a resource is shared, then people who don't use that resource or under-use that resource are "penalized" and those who over-use that resource are "rewarded".

HOLACRACY SEEMS TO BE A "BETTER" FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGING SHARED RESOURCES.

I'm curious how you, personally, might approach this "problem".
I'd privatize it. Have everyone who'd lay claim to the river (presumably because their lands are adjacent) form a contractual agreement that serves a mutual benefit.

Yes.  Isn't this a marvelous feature?
It isn't far off from my argument for an individualist society. The basis is on individuals volunteering to partake. But the question remains: in a socialist or socially-holocratic society, how are wages regulated? Will they be determined by some form of collective arbitration, or will they be determine by a worker's production? And if wages are regulated, how will you off-set the regulation in prices?

It's simple, people bid for jobs.  The lowest qualified bid gets the job.
"Lowest qualified"? By what measure?

I'm not sure what SPECIFIC SYSTEMS you're trying to compare and contrast.
Decentralization of management is nothing new. Holocracy's distinction is in that it offers something sentimental. That is, providing workers with more of a "personal stake," for lack of a better term, by providing certain roles and responsibilities with about being micromanaged from the top. When I watched the video on Holocracy, there wasn't much said that I, for example, didn't learn when studying "Theory of the Firm" years back. Holocracy relies on the reason and self-awareness of its participants (e.g. not feud over assuming more significant roles, etc.) I don't necessarily oppose this, by the way, but I fail to grasp a significant distinction from other forms of decentralization. And it's also important to note that decentralization could be facilitated under Capitalism. So then I must ask: what would be the difference between holocracy under Capitalism and holocracy under Socialism?

97 days later

#134
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
It has to do with control and freedom and who decides what and who gets what? 

Will I have the control to do so or will someone else decide for me? 

As one moves down the spectrum from one to the other - the pendulum increases or decreases by the mix of the capitalism / command breakdown. 

Interestingly, there is not one pure market or command system in the world.  Every country is a mix.  And this mix has no epistemological basis.  Both command systems and market systems have a solid epistemology -  but there is no rationale for any mixed markets - except practicality.  

Countries tend to steer towards one system or the other based on their culture - not always but a tendency.   Asian countries have an association that Western nations do not have with group dynamics. Westerners prefer individuality.  Hence human rights in both types of society are often understood through this lens. 

Western Nations have a stronger affinity with private /  personal property. Asian nations tend to not. It belongs to all. 


Topic's author
#135
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Timid8967
That's... untrue - western societies are certainly not more intrinsically capitalistic, and capitalistic does not equate to privacy - you're making a lot of false equivalences. 
#136
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Name a non-Western nation that is capitalistic.   Hong Kong and Japan consider themselves Western. 


#137
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Capitalism is based in the notion of private property. 
#138
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Timid8967
Name a non-Western nation that is capitalistic. 
India, Pakistan, Nepal, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Iran, (you won't admit China is but I would say China), Bangladesh, Ghana, Uganda, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Singapore and the list goes on and on.

Oh and the entire Eastern Europe as well as Russia depending on whether you consider them 'Western' or not.

I'd mention South Korea but you'd say what you said about Japan, most likely.
#139
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@RatMan

West is the other direction to East and can be anywhere relative to where ones focal point is.

The old notions of East and West relative to development, wealth, and global status  are just the old notions of East and West relative to...........

The focal point of the Earth no longer starts in Western Europe and ends in North America.

The focal point now very much starts in China and Ends wherever.
#140
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
Name a non-Western nation that is capitalistic. 
India, Pakistan, Nepal, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Iran, (you won't admit China is but I would say China), Bangladesh, Ghana, Uganda, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Singapore and the list goes on and on.

Oh and the entire Eastern Europe as well as Russia depending on whether you consider them 'Western' or not.

I'd mention South Korea but you'd say what you said about Japan, most likely.

Needless to say I don't think you understand what a capitalist nation is.  But because I do wish to understand what you mean - will you please explain what you mean by a capitalist country.  You were going to add China - which self-consciously declares itself communist, so I am puzzled as to your meaning.  Bangladesh is constitutionally a socialist nation. I could go on - but please explain what you mean by capitalist and then explain what you mean socialist or communist or other type of economies. Thanks.  

330 days later

#141
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I suggest three changes:
  • Separating the needs guaranteed by the human rights from participating in the economy. That is, people are free to refuse shit jobs/deals offered them without worrying about immidiate needs. Society will take care of its members like morality demands.
  • Outlaw/disincentivice any immoral economic behavior. So, no slavery, no spying on employees, no avoiding taxes or dooming the planet. Set up a carbon tax, substainability tax and a misery tax. Profit margins will then reflect what companies are actually doing, and being greedy is no longer a reason to be a dick.
  • Management. Preventing monopolies, crashes and inequality rises is not impossible. The economy should favour startups and innovators and reward good services as opposed to loopholes and lobbying. The system should be designed well so that intervention are rarely needed.
These are my two cents on a better economy. Not sure if you would call it communism, but society as a whole should benefit from and have real freedom in the economy. Disagreeing means one doesn't think the people matters, so I think the question is just how we tweak the economy going forward.