Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

[Neo-Sincostan]

I like how this has just turned into a huge debate about economy and the market

Mention Capitalism, Socialism, finances, or indeed money and general and it will tend to happen.

I know, just I think theres other points to mention aswell besides money, money, money

[The Merchant Republics]

Mention Capitalism, Socialism, finances, or indeed money and general and it will tend to happen.

I know, just I think theres other points to mention aswell besides money, money, money

Prithee tell?

[Crabulonia]

Must have missed that bit, ah well. I'm still quite sure that he would have morally been against the use of coercion against employees such as in giving them limited wages and stifling union opportunities.

Not the former nor the later are examples of coercion, coercion would be union busting through violent means or abusing workers, which did occur and is rightly abhorred, simply paying them not that much and being against their organization is not coercion by any standard of a definition, perhaps you are looking for exploitation? Still not accurate, but at least fits the example.

Coercion is the act of force, corporations don't force workers to accept low wages, they offer low wages and the wages are accepted, exploitation? Perhaps. Coercion? No.

I've been reading NSG too long, the words have become synonymous. But yes, exploitation then is the wrong one.

Still, workers should be able to have the right to organise and request pay rises although they too shouldn't become exploitive - such as the concept of joining the union as a condition of joining the workforce, unless the business is worker managed anyway in which case there is no reasonable cause to not join.

[The Merchant Republics]

Not the former nor the later are examples of coercion, coercion would be union busting through violent means or abusing workers, which did occur and is rightly abhorred, simply paying them not that much and being against their organization is not coercion by any standard of a definition, perhaps you are looking for exploitation? Still not accurate, but at least fits the example.

Coercion is the act of force, corporations don't force workers to accept low wages, they offer low wages and the wages are accepted, exploitation? Perhaps. Coercion? No.

I've been reading NSG too long, the words have become synonymous. But yes, exploitation then is the wrong one.

Still, workers should be able to have the right to organise and request pay rises although they too shouldn't become exploitive - such as the concept of joining the union as a condition of joining the workforce, unless the business is worker managed anyway in which case there is no reasonable cause to not join.

Freedom of assembly and all that, yes, I agree actual union-busting through violence should be punished. All people have the right to organize freely, the problem of course is when the unions themselves become violent, assaulting scabs and destroying property. The laws should be mutually applied.

[Crabulonia]

I've been reading NSG too long, the words have become synonymous. But yes, exploitation then is the wrong one.

Still, workers should be able to have the right to organise and request pay rises although they too shouldn't become exploitive - such as the concept of joining the union as a condition of joining the workforce, unless the business is worker managed anyway in which case there is no reasonable cause to not join.

Freedom of assembly and all that, yes, I agree actual union-busting through violence should be punished. All people have the right to organize freely, the problem of course is when the unions themselves become violent, assaulting scabs and destroying property. The laws should be mutually applied.

Physically attacking anyone is wrong, but I have no problem with them verbally assaulting scabs or better yet, simply giving them an icy stare and refusing to move out of the way if the person wants to pass them except with some force on the part of the scab. Only way for them to keep up the strike to any effect.

[Sibirsky]

Third position.

Turd position

[Sibirsky]

Freedom of assembly and all that, yes, I agree actual union-busting through violence should be punished. All people have the right to organize freely, the problem of course is when the unions themselves become violent, assaulting scabs and destroying property. The laws should be mutually applied.

Physically attacking anyone is wrong, but I have no problem with them verbally assaulting scabs or better yet, simply giving them an icy stare and refusing to move out of the way if the person wants to pass them except with some force on the part of the scab. Only way for them to keep up the strike to any effect.

Unions are great. Until they use union dues for campaign contributions and other non negotiating tactics. Forced unionization, as you pointed out, is wrong.

[Crabulonia]

Physically attacking anyone is wrong, but I have no problem with them verbally assaulting scabs or better yet, simply giving them an icy stare and refusing to move out of the way if the person wants to pass them except with some force on the part of the scab. Only way for them to keep up the strike to any effect.

Unions are great. Until they use union dues for campaign contributions and other non negotiating tactics. Forced unionization, as you pointed out, is wrong.

In terms of campaign donations I can see what they are getting at - some of the changes they want are more than economic. Back in the day particularly, unions weren't generally well liked by the people with money - who contributed much money to any party which also didn't like unions - the unions understandably had to find a way of protecting their status and this presented itself by greasing the wheels of democracy.

Of course, democracy shouldn't require any wheel greasing but if the bosses are allowed to donate to political parties for their own ends then why shouldn't unions?

[Sibirsky]

Unions are great. Until they use union dues for campaign contributions and other non negotiating tactics. Forced unionization, as you pointed out, is wrong.

In terms of campaign donations I can see what they are getting at - some of the changes they want are more than economic. Back in the day particularly, unions weren't generally well liked by the people with money - who contributed much money to any party which also didn't like unions - the unions understandably had to find a way of protecting their status and this presented itself by greasing the wheels of democracy.

Of course, democracy shouldn't require any wheel greasing but if the bosses are allowed to donate to political parties for their own ends then why shouldn't unions?

I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed. They are pushing laws that would end the secret ballot for instance, and unions have been known to intimidate employees to vote for unionization. Unions have been known to be very corrupt, be involved with organized crime, and while that has been reduced, it still happens.

In the NYC area, you have a construction firm, and all your employees are members of a union. You need raw materials, and someone shows up and says you can only buy raw materials from these guys (mafia owned). You check the prices, and they are $1 to $1.50 higher than what you found elsewhere. You refuse, it cuts into your profit. Either your employees suddenly go on strike, or worse, thugs come by your office and bust your kneecaps.

[Crabulonia]

In terms of campaign donations I can see what they are getting at - some of the changes they want are more than economic. Back in the day particularly, unions weren't generally well liked by the people with money - who contributed much money to any party which also didn't like unions - the unions understandably had to find a way of protecting their status and this presented itself by greasing the wheels of democracy.

Of course, democracy shouldn't require any wheel greasing but if the bosses are allowed to donate to political parties for their own ends then why shouldn't unions?

I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed. They are pushing laws that would end the secret ballot for instance, and unions have been known to intimidate employees to vote for unionization. Unions have been known to be very corrupt, be involved with organized crime, and while that has been reduced, it still happens.

In the NYC area, you have a construction firm, and all your employees are members of a union. You need raw materials, and someone shows up and says you can only buy raw materials from these guys (mafia owned). You check the prices, and they are $1 to $1.50 higher than what you found elsewhere. You refuse, it cuts into your profit. Either your employees suddenly go on strike, or worse, thugs come by your office and bust your kneecaps.

Ah right, that sort of corruption should definitely be outlawed. As for unions being politicised, I'm quite happy with that. If they weren't then the Weimar Republic would have been toppled much quicker during the Kapp Putsch. The Nationalist Generals would also have marched all over the Spanish people without so much as a by your leave. True, the war wouldn't have happened then but it would have happened later anyway.

[Sibirsky]

I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed. They are pushing laws that would end the secret ballot for instance, and unions have been known to intimidate employees to vote for unionization. Unions have been known to be very corrupt, be involved with organized crime, and while that has been reduced, it still happens.

In the NYC area, you have a construction firm, and all your employees are members of a union. You need raw materials, and someone shows up and says you can only buy raw materials from these guys (mafia owned). You check the prices, and they are $1 to $1.50 higher than what you found elsewhere. You refuse, it cuts into your profit. Either your employees suddenly go on strike, or worse, thugs come by your office and bust your kneecaps.

Ah right, that sort of corruption should definitely be outlawed. As for unions being politicised, I'm quite happy with that. If they weren't then the Weimar Republic would have been toppled much quicker during the Kapp Putsch. The Nationalist Generals would also have marched all over the Spanish people without so much as a by your leave. True, the war wouldn't have happened then but it would have happened later anyway.

So you're ok with forced unionization and dues used for furthering political agenda?

[Genivar]

Ah right, that sort of corruption should definitely be outlawed. As for unions being politicised, I'm quite happy with that. If they weren't then the Weimar Republic would have been toppled much quicker during the Kapp Putsch. The Nationalist Generals would also have marched all over the Spanish people without so much as a by your leave. True, the war wouldn't have happened then but it would have happened later anyway.

So you're ok with forced unionization and dues used for furthering political agenda?

Seeing as less them 7 percent of the American Private sector even has unions, it doesn't seem like anyone is being forced to join. If they were you'd think private sector unions would be more widespread.

[Sibirsky]

So you're ok with forced unionization and dues used for furthering political agenda?

Seeing as less them 7 percent of the American Private sector even has unions, it doesn't seem like anyone is being forced to join. If they were you'd think private sector unions would be more widespread.

Bills were proposed that would greatly increase the likelihood of forced unionization.

[Nort Eurasia]

Oh great. Another one of these threads. All that ever amounts to these threads are "Dur USSR were teh communists, therefore communism is badzz!!11!" and "Dey called demselves communists!!1!, so dey r communistz!!1!". There is no use in debating a capitalist, they will remain steadfast. But if I must choose, I'll choose socialism as the best.

[Kaledoria]

:palm:

You will have to understand that this argument is not really compelling.

Because they have jobs that create wealth.

Why should a capitalist society have more jobs? Just look at the capitalist problems: Company owner wants to maximize profit, rather then cutting back on his own share, he fires employees that don't make enough profit. No in a socialist world this does not work, so the people keep their jobs and the overall economy does better.

Socialism is not planned market economy.

The ones we've seen in the world have been.

Wait, let me check this one ... *google*
Yes, there is some correlation between planed market and socialism, all the more reason, why history's sub-average doing of socialisms is not a logical proof that socialism is the reason of the bad economies. It could be just the planed economy.
Actually, this correlation is not 100% however, there you are wrong. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for example was socialist and even communistic but not a planned market. And *check* yes, they actually did very good economically - given where they started after World War 2 and and where they ended at their politically caused War in the early 90s.


Actually, I guess we are on different ideas, about what socialism is. When reading the English wikipedia I was first thinking: "Hey, this is Communism, not Socialism," until finally it said: "Of course there are other forms of Socialism, too..." even including something called Libertarian socialism even further away from planed market then my idea of it (Income/Profit tax to pay welfare and regulations on the use of state resources (like land and most importantly people)).

[Sibirsky]

Why should a capitalist society have more jobs? Just look at the capitalist problems: Company owner wants to maximize profit, rather then cutting back on his own share, he fires employees that don't make enough profit. No in a socialist world this does not work, so the people keep their jobs and the overall economy does better.

A. I did not say they will have more jobs.
B. More jobs isn't better. The Soviet Union had no unemployment. Yet the standard of living was very low. The goal is production. Being able to produce the most, with the least manpower is the goal. That's how an economy works. Full employment does not lead to full production. Full production leads to full employment. In 1900 a third of the US population was in farming. By 2000 less than 2% were. There were job losses in farming. Using your logic, that is horrible, and the economy should have collapsed. Yet, the economy was much more productive. Less farmers producing more food is a great development. The farmers that lost their jobs went into other fields. Designing, manufacturing and servicing farming machinery is a good example of a new field that opened up. And it led to an even greater increase in production. Hell, according to you, the government can hire half of the unemployed to dig holes, and the other half to fill them back up, and that will make the economy better. That's so absurd you deserve a 2nd

The ones we've seen in the world have been.

Wait, let me check this one ... *google*
Yes, there is some correlation between planed market and socialism, all the more reason, why history's sub-average doing of socialisms is not a logical proof that socialism is the reason of the bad economies. It could be just the planed economy.
Actually, this correlation is not 100% however, there you are wrong. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for example was socialist and even communistic but not a planned market. And *check* yes, they actually did very good economically - given where they started after World War 2 and and where they ended at their politically caused War in the early 90s.


Actually, I guess we are on different ideas, about what socialism is. When reading the English wikipedia I was first thinking: "Hey, this is Communism, not Socialism," until finally it said: "Of course there are other forms of Socialism, too..." even including something called Libertarian socialism even further away from planed market then my idea of it (Income/Profit tax to pay welfare and regulations on the use of state resources (like land and most importantly people)).

Please provide sources for your claims on Yugoslavia.

[Neo-Sincostan]

Oh great. Another one of these threads. All that ever amounts to these threads are "Dur USSR were teh communists, therefore communism is badzz!!11!" and "Dey called demselves communists!!1!, so dey r communistz!!1!". There is no use in debating a capitalist, they will remain steadfast. But if I must choose, I'll choose socialism as the best.

Ah Nort Eurasia, ever the light in the darkness in a [insert political ideology here] vs communism/socialism argumentative thread.

[The Black Plains]

Oh great. Another one of these threads. All that ever amounts to these threads are "Dur USSR were teh communists, therefore communism is badzz!!11!" and "Dey called demselves communists!!1!, so dey r communistz!!1!". There is no use in debating a capitalist, they will remain steadfast. But if I must choose, I'll choose socialism as the best.

A socialist intellectual, ladies and gentlemen.

[Kaledoria]

Hell, according to you, the government can hire half of the unemployed to dig holes, and the other half to fill them back up, and that will make the economy better. That's so absurd you deserve a 2nd

And according to you, a bottle of 1cent water gets more value because some company puts a 1.50 €/$ price tag on it.
...
See, that's how it feels to be interpreted totally wrong. I did not say that.
How did you come from "workers fired because they don't provide enough profit" to "people producing exactly no value at all" anyway?

Yugoslavia: Don't know, I just read this.

With the exception of a recession in the mid-1960s, the country's economy prospered formidably. Unemployment was low and the education level of the work force steadily increased.

[The Merchant Republics]

Hell, according to you, the government can hire half of the unemployed to dig holes, and the other half to fill them back up, and that will make the economy better. That's so absurd you deserve a 2nd

And according to you, a bottle of 1cent water gets more value because some company puts a 1.50 €/$ price tag on it.
...
See, that's how it feels to be interpreted totally wrong. I did not say that.
How did you come from "workers fired because they don't provide enough profit" to "people producing exactly no value at all" anyway?

Yugoslavia: Don't know, I just read this.

With the exception of a recession in the mid-1960s, the country's economy prospered formidably. Unemployment was low and the education level of the work force steadily increased.

Nothing has an intrinsic value my friend, a bottle of water is worth 3 cents at a fountain and 100 in a desert.

[The Black Plains]

And according to you, a bottle of 1cent water gets more value because some company puts a 1.50 €/$ price tag on it.
...
See, that's how it feels to be interpreted totally wrong. I did not say that.
How did you come from "workers fired because they don't provide enough profit" to "people producing exactly no value at all" anyway?

Yugoslavia: Don't know, I just read this.

Nothing has an intrinsic value my friend, a bottle of water is worth 3 cents at a fountain and 100 in a desert.

It's only worth a dollar in the desert?

[The Merchant Republics]

Nothing has an intrinsic value my friend, a bottle of water is worth 3 cents at a fountain and 100 in a desert.

It's only worth a dollar in the desert?

Missed the $. smartass

[Crabulonia]

Ah right, that sort of corruption should definitely be outlawed. As for unions being politicised, I'm quite happy with that. If they weren't then the Weimar Republic would have been toppled much quicker during the Kapp Putsch. The Nationalist Generals would also have marched all over the Spanish people without so much as a by your leave. True, the war wouldn't have happened then but it would have happened later anyway.

So you're ok with forced unionization and dues used for furthering political agenda?

Didn't I already say I was against forced unionisation?

As for furthering political agenda, I'm perfectly fine with unions becoming more than a system for ensuring fair wages in a specific sector - I'm for them becoming an organ of public opinion. If people want to join a union, voluntarily, they should be able to do so. There should be a secret ballot for what political party to support, a person doesn't like it - they can start their own union with break offs from their current union who agree that the party the union has agreed to support is not worthy. This would of course be childish and it might be expected that most people would prefer not to split their voice. Democracy in the unions therefore rules and a good majority should be able to direct union policy.

As for the story about NYC construction firms, that isn't furthering a political agenda - that's what you call extortion.

[Nort Eurasia]

Oh great. Another one of these threads. All that ever amounts to these threads are "Dur USSR were teh communists, therefore communism is badzz!!11!" and "Dey called demselves communists!!1!, so dey r communistz!!1!". There is no use in debating a capitalist, they will remain steadfast. But if I must choose, I'll choose socialism as the best.

A socialist intellectual, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you ever so much for the sarcasm. But I'm just tired of debating with capitalists. They're obstinate and misinformed about Marxism, socialism and communism. Admittedly, some of us are the same. It's just annoying how unreasonably irrational these threads become.

[Trotskylvania]

Seeing as less them 7 percent of the American Private sector even has unions, it doesn't seem like anyone is being forced to join. If they were you'd think private sector unions would be more widespread.

Bills were proposed that would greatly increase the likelihood of forced unionization.

You choose to accept employment at a closed shop, you choose to join the union.