Socialism is about equality of opportunity and rewarding people for what they produce.

MayCaesar

Capitalism is about owning what you obtain. Socialism is about taking away from those who obtain more than you. Socialism rewards greedy people as much as it gets, while capitalism has them put in a lot of effort to fulfill the needs of their greed.

StrangeQuarkMatter

@MayCaesar
Capitalism does not reward people based on merit or productivity, it rewards them based on profitability and mass appeal. The snake oil salesman can get rich and spread his poison because he had better advertisement, because what is done in capitalist societies is based on what is profitable rather than what is productive, logical or ethical. Think about WHY those who obtain more are obtaining more, it is not based on what they produce, it is based on how well they play the game of making profit. Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that if you have wealth, it means you worked really hard and produced something of value to society, when in reality the producers and hard workers are the ones who get exploited by large corporations who do nothing but take 90% of the revenue created by the working class. Socialism does not steal from the rich, it stops them from stealing from producers because 90% of rich people literally do nothing for society but make themselves money using other people's labour.

Mr_Bombastic

@StrangeQuarkMatter
Let me get this straight.  You think it's greedy to keep what you earn?  Seriously? Here's a question for you. How much do you make? If you're working,  you make more money than I do,  since I'm on disability.  So,  how about giving me your paycheck until we have the same amount of money? That's what a good socialist would do. 

StrangeQuarkMatter

@Mr_Bombastic
What do you consider earning something to mean? To me what you earn should be based on what you produce, and everyone should have access to what they need to be productive (healthcare, education, food etc.). I am a socialist and also a meritocrat, and I think it's very obvious that Kim Kardashian inheriting enough wealth to buy 5 yachts while children starve has nothing to do with merit. Having money does not necessarily mean you earned anything, it means you managed to acquire money.

Mr_Bombastic

@StrangeQuarkMatter
Regardless of how one gets their money,  as long as it's legal,  it is their money. Who the hell are you to say someone else should have that money? 

StrangeQuarkMatter

@Mr_Bombastic
If it is legal to rape toddlers, than a pedophile has the right to rape toddlers. Who are to say they shouldn't rape toddlers?
Here's the thing, sometimes the people with the most are the ones who deserve the least, if you think all the spoiled rich whores and Justin Beibers and Machiavellian banksters and CEOs of the world deserve their yachts and their mansions more than the working class deserves health care and education and food than you are a parasitic worm in the gastrointestinal tract of humanity.
Money is just a social construct, what is real is what people produce, the people who produce should be rewarded for what they produce and the people who use what other people produce to make profit are just using the social construct of money to socially construct the notion that they own the product of other peoples labour.

MayCaesar

@StrangeQuarkMatter

The idea that my employer steals from me as a result of a voluntary contract signed by both sides with clearly designated responsibility of both - is ludicrous. I have never said anything about merit, and I do not think that the resource distribution should be based on merit - but I do think that what I have legally obtained, I should own without any interference from anyone from the side. 

You criticize capitalism for rewarding the greedy, yet advocate for stopping the rich from getting disproportionally more resources than you. Socialism is hypocrisy at its finest: it is based at nothing but greed ("People deserve more than they have!"), yet vilifies greed when it comes to non-socialist systems.
The truth is, greed is the main driver of human progress. If we were not greedy, we would still be living in caves, satisfied with what we have. It is our constant desire to get more that urges us to do something other than sit under a palm all day, picking berries. Socialism wants to eliminate it, not realizing that a) it is impossible, and b) it is counter-productive.
That is why in real attempts to build "not true socialism", the elite always took full control over the resources and the population. The very idea behind your system necessitates this outcome. Naive people thinking that greed is bad are exploited by opportunists who know better.

Socialism, nationalism and other authoritarian ideologies are based on raw emotion and have no rational basis. They trust the society, or the leaders, to be benevolent, not realizing that the whole reason we need democracy and other methods of control is because "benevolent society/government" does not exist.

StrangeQuarkMatter

@MayCaesar
**The idea that my employer steals from me as a result of a voluntary contract**
Society forces many people to agree to work for someone else "voluntarily" because that is the only way they can make a living.
**I have never said anything about merit, and I do not think that the resource distribution should be based on merit**
Great, so you think useless scum bags deserve to be rich if they can play the game of capitalism well or inherit wealth regardless of what they actually produce.
**but I do think that what I have legally obtained, I should own without any interference from anyone from the side.**
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. In some countries you can legally obtain underage prostitutes.
**You criticize capitalism for rewarding the greedy, yet advocate for stopping the rich from getting disproportionally more resources than you.**
Yes I criticize capitalism for rewarding the greedy, and advocate stopping the rich from being greedy, problem?
**Socialism is hypocrisy at its finest: it is based at nothing but greed ("People deserve more than they have!"), yet vilifies greed when it comes to non-socialist systems.**
Socialism comes in many shades, in some cases your criticism would be just, but the problem is you think all socialism is the same. I don't want to take from the wealthy just because they are wealthy, I want what you have to be based on what you produce and what you need to be productive. That means everyone gets the same opportunities and a right to the basic necessities of life, and if anyone has more than another it should be because they TRULY earned it, not because they played some socioeconomic game well and managed to profit themselves without actually producing anything of value.
**The truth is, greed is the main driver of human progress.**
Thank you for admitting that capitalists are evil lol.
**If we were not greedy, we would still be living in caves, satisfied with what we have**
This is a drastic oversimplification of what drives human progress. You are partially correct, but we are not cave people any more, and in a truly civilized world society is more productive and mutually beneficial when it is not based on greed.
**That is why in real attempts to build "not true socialism", the elite always took full control over the resources and the population**
The reason for that is because A) power corrupts and many of them where fascists in disguise, luring in the masses with false promises of socialism.
**Socialism, nationalism and other authoritarian ideologies**
First of all you are a nationalist, second of all Socialism is not inherently authoritarian. My brand of socialism is actually one that seeks to reduce government.
**based on raw emotion and have no rational basis.**
The opposite is true. It is rational to reward people for what they produce and give people what they need to be productive. It is not rational to reward people for being greedy and force the poor to "earn" a living by serving them and their self centered interests.
**not realizing that the whole reason we need democracy**
Ever hear of democratic socialism?
**"benevolent society/government" does not exist.**
Benevolence is logical, because mutually benevolent systems are the most prosperous and productive. A human without a society is like a guy trying to move a room full of furniture by himself, but if other people live with him and they all help to move the furniture and they all share the furniture that's socialism. But if the guy has other people come and move all the furniture while he sits back sipping a strawberry mango smoothie and then takes 90% of the furniture from the people who did all the work and tells them they can split the 10% amongst themselves, that's capitalism.

Vaulk

StrangeQuarkMatter said:

@MayCaesar
**The idea that my employer steals from me as a result of a voluntary contract**
Society forces many people to agree to work for someone else "voluntarily" because that is the only way they can make a living.

1. If this "Force" you speak of truly exists...then it's not "Voluntary" and no...this example is most certainly not the only way someone can make a living.  The poor in the United States are financially better off than 70% of the people in existence.StrangeQuarkMatter said:

@MayCaesar
**I have never said anything about merit, and I do not think that the resource distribution should be based on merit**
Great, so you think useless scum bags deserve to be rich if they can play the game of capitalism well or inherit wealth regardless of what they actually produce.

 2. I can't speak for @MayCaesar however, the belief that you can do with your Money what you please isn't strange or even questionable so long as it's legal and that includes giving it to your offspring.  Blaming a Human Being for the free choice their Parent(s) made with their own legally obtained finances is absurd on it's face.  This would make as much sense as blaming a Person for inheriting their Parent's business as if their Parent had no right to leave it to them.  Additionally the fact that you've characterized these people as "Scumbags" without specifying who you're talking about speaks volumes about your personal bias and prejudice on the subject and gives reason to believe that your position on the matter is emotionally driven.  StrangeQuarkMatter said:

@MayCaesar
**but I do think that what I have legally obtained, I should own without any interference from anyone from the side.**
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. In some countries you can legally obtain underage prostitutes.

3. You're trying to convert this into an argument from Moral authority and again...this is giving reason to believe that this is founded upon feelings and emotions.  The inverse on your argument stands just as solidly as just because something is right...that doesn't make it legal.  Capitalism is an economic and political system...it's not a system of morals.  The argument here is not that Capitalism is morally righteous, it's that Socialism is a horribly ineffective system.

StrangeQuarkMatter said:

@MayCaesar

**You criticize capitalism for rewarding the greedy, yet advocate for stopping the rich from getting disproportionally more resources than you.**
Yes I criticize capitalism for rewarding the greedy, and advocate stopping the rich from being greedy, problem?

4. Problem: Arguing that Capitalism is bad because it rewards the greedy and that rich people shouldn't be allowed to pursue greed while simultaneously arguing for Socialism as a replacement is hypocritical and does not follow logical reasoning.  Socialism is based on Greed unless you're going to explain how Human Beings suddenly aren't driven by personal and selfish desires.  "You have more than me and that's not fair" is the basis for Socialism and this is Greed plain and simple.  So to argue that a system based on Greed is better than another system based on Greed while trying to take the moral high ground is absurd and does not follow logic.

StrangeQuarkMatter said:

@MayCaesar

**Socialism is hypocrisy at its finest: it is based at nothing but greed ("People deserve more than they have!"), yet vilifies greed when it comes to non-socialist systems.**
Socialism comes in many shades, in some cases your criticism would be just, but the problem is you think all socialism is the same. I don't want to take from the wealthy just because they are wealthy, I want what you have to be based on what you produce and what you need to be productive. That means everyone gets the same opportunities and a right to the basic necessities of life, and if anyone has more than another it should be because they TRULY earned it, not because they played some socioeconomic game well and managed to profit themselves without actually producing anything of value.

5. So then let's say for example Ed works like a beast to save money and climb the industry ladder and becomes a very successful and subsequently wealthy business Man.  If Ed has three children...would you have it so that Ed isn't allowed to provide his Children a better and easier life than he had by leaving to them what he earned in his life?  Do the fruits of Ed's labor simply spoil because no one but Ed is allowed to legally enjoy it?  When Ed dies, what of his Wife...is she not allowed to have what he earned to take care of her?  Is Ed not allowed to have a life insurance policy large enough to provide for his Family in the event of his untimely demise?  You're walking an incredibly dangerous line with this ideology that "You can only have what you earned yourself".  

Look the entirety of this idea that you're playing with is both dangerous in practice and outright bad.  I'd concede that at some point...Socialism could have worked in the United States...but that period is long gone.

Joeseph

Q: Why is Socialism superior to capitalism?

A: Because it heroically overcomes problems that do not exist in any other system.

MayCaesar

StrangeQuarkMatter said:

@MayCaesar
**The idea that my employer steals from me as a result of a voluntary contract**
Society forces many people to agree to work for someone else "voluntarily" because that is the only way they can make a living.
**I have never said anything about merit, and I do not think that the resource distribution should be based on merit**
Great, so you think useless scum bags deserve to be rich if they can play the game of capitalism well or inherit wealth regardless of what they actually produce.
**but I do think that what I have legally obtained, I should own without any interference from anyone from the side.**
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. In some countries you can legally obtain underage prostitutes.
**You criticize capitalism for rewarding the greedy, yet advocate for stopping the rich from getting disproportionally more resources than you.**
Yes I criticize capitalism for rewarding the greedy, and advocate stopping the rich from being greedy, problem?
**Socialism is hypocrisy at its finest: it is based at nothing but greed ("People deserve more than they have!"), yet vilifies greed when it comes to non-socialist systems.**
Socialism comes in many shades, in some cases your criticism would be just, but the problem is you think all socialism is the same. I don't want to take from the wealthy just because they are wealthy, I want what you have to be based on what you produce and what you need to be productive. That means everyone gets the same opportunities and a right to the basic necessities of life, and if anyone has more than another it should be because they TRULY earned it, not because they played some socioeconomic game well and managed to profit themselves without actually producing anything of value.
**The truth is, greed is the main driver of human progress.**
Thank you for admitting that capitalists are evil lol.
**If we were not greedy, we would still be living in caves, satisfied with what we have**
This is a drastic oversimplification of what drives human progress. You are partially correct, but we are not cave people any more, and in a truly civilized world society is more productive and mutually beneficial when it is not based on greed.
**That is why in real attempts to build "not true socialism", the elite always took full control over the resources and the population**
The reason for that is because A) power corrupts and many of them where fascists in disguise, luring in the masses with false promises of socialism.
**Socialism, nationalism and other authoritarian ideologies**
First of all you are a nationalist, second of all Socialism is not inherently authoritarian. My brand of socialism is actually one that seeks to reduce government.
**based on raw emotion and have no rational basis.**
The opposite is true. It is rational to reward people for what they produce and give people what they need to be productive. It is not rational to reward people for being greedy and force the poor to "earn" a living by serving them and their self centered interests.
**not realizing that the whole reason we need democracy**
Ever hear of democratic socialism?
**"benevolent society/government" does not exist.**
Benevolence is logical, because mutually benevolent systems are the most prosperous and productive. A human without a society is like a guy trying to move a room full of furniture by himself, but if other people live with him and they all help to move the furniture and they all share the furniture that's socialism. But if the guy has other people come and move all the furniture while he sits back sipping a strawberry mango smoothie and then takes 90% of the furniture from the people who did all the work and tells them they can split the 10% amongst themselves, that's capitalism.

@StrangeQuarkMatter ;

There are literally millions employers available to people in this country. If one is "forced" to work for just one employer in particular, then they probably are the least skilled person in the world, and such people have only themselves to blame for not putting in even the minimum effort to improve their skills.

No, I do not think "deserve" is a part of the equation at all. World is unfair by nature; too bad.

I prefer it that the market decides what is "right", and not the society based on arbitrary system of values.

Yes, because greed is good - and socialism even recognizes that by rewarding the greedy with free resources.

There are not too many shades of socialism, since all of the details are overshadowed by one factor: rule of the mob. And the mob is just as greedy as individuals. Only, unlike individuals, there is no stopping the mob if it decides to act on its greed - as it does when socialism is installed.

Greed is not evil; people who take away freedoms justifying it by the necessity to fight greed are.

We are not cave people any more BECAUSE of the greed. If we remove greed from our nature, then we again will become cave people.

It is exactly because power corrupts that socialism is unviable. It is not the only reason, but it is probably the biggest one.

Your brand of socialism has no attachment to reality, because the path to it is necessarily authoritarian. As for me being nationalist - I am a libertarian, and I do not recognize "nation" as a binding structure.

It is rational to let people choose how to reward themselves for work by letting them select a business model from the multitude of models available on the market. We do not want YOU to decide how to reward us, even if you believe that your outlook on what rewards should be is fair.

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron.

I am sorry, in socialism I am not allowed to hire anyone to help me move without sharing my furniture with them? Am I allowed to, at least, sleep in my bed without sharing it with others? 

---

Think about where the very desire of changing the current status-quo in terms of wealth distribution comes from. Think about it: if people were not greedy, they would be fine with the current distribution; nobody would want more than they have. And if they do want more than they have, then they are greedy by definition. I would be curious how you would explain this contradiction that, as you claim, socialism aims to not reward the greedy - while acting on the desires of the greedy.

funperson

Seems like socialism is about giving people just what you personally think they earn, OP.

CYDdharta

"I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." - Thomas Sowell

Applesauce

CYDdharta said:

"I have never understood why it is 'greed' to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." - Thomas Sowell

those who want to take somebody else's money and redistribute it tend to be the most wealthy and redistribute very little of their own and far less voluntarily.

George_Horse

Wow you sound openly anti-capitalist. Actually concerning. Socialism does the opposite of what you said.

cheesycheese

MayCaesar said:

@StrangeQuarkMatter

The idea that my employer steals from me as a result of a voluntary contract signed by both sides with clearly designated responsibility of both - is ludicrous. I have never said anything about merit, and I do not think that the resource distribution should be based on merit - but I do think that what I have legally obtained, I should own without any interference from anyone from the side. 

You criticize capitalism for rewarding the greedy, yet advocate for stopping the rich from getting disproportionally more resources than you. Socialism is hypocrisy at its finest: it is based at nothing but greed ("People deserve more than they have!"), yet vilifies greed when it comes to non-socialist systems.
The truth is, greed is the main driver of human progress. If we were not greedy, we would still be living in caves, satisfied with what we have. It is our constant desire to get more that urges us to do something other than sit under a palm all day, picking berries. Socialism wants to eliminate it, not realizing that a) it is impossible, and b) it is counter-productive.
That is why in real attempts to build "not true socialism", the elite always took full control over the resources and the population. The very idea behind your system necessitates this outcome. Naive people thinking that greed is bad are exploited by opportunists who know better.

Socialism, nationalism and other authoritarian ideologies are based on raw emotion and have no rational basis. They trust the society, or the leaders, to be benevolent, not realizing that the whole reason we need democracy and other methods of control is because "benevolent society/government" does not exist.

MayCaesar said:

StrangeQuarkMatter said:

@MayCaesar
**The idea that my employer steals from me as a result of a voluntary contract**
Society forces many people to agree to work for someone else "voluntarily" because that is the only way they can make a living.
**I have never said anything about merit, and I do not think that the resource distribution should be based on merit**
Great, so you think useless scum bags deserve to be rich if they can play the game of capitalism well or inherit wealth regardless of what they actually produce.
**but I do think that what I have legally obtained, I should own without any interference from anyone from the side.**
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. In some countries you can legally obtain underage prostitutes.
**You criticize capitalism for rewarding the greedy, yet advocate for stopping the rich from getting disproportionally more resources than you.**
Yes I criticize capitalism for rewarding the greedy, and advocate stopping the rich from being greedy, problem?
**Socialism is hypocrisy at its finest: it is based at nothing but greed ("People deserve more than they have!"), yet vilifies greed when it comes to non-socialist systems.**
Socialism comes in many shades, in some cases your criticism would be just, but the problem is you think all socialism is the same. I don't want to take from the wealthy just because they are wealthy, I want what you have to be based on what you produce and what you need to be productive. That means everyone gets the same opportunities and a right to the basic necessities of life, and if anyone has more than another it should be because they TRULY earned it, not because they played some socioeconomic game well and managed to profit themselves without actually producing anything of value.
**The truth is, greed is the main driver of human progress.**
Thank you for admitting that capitalists are evil lol.
**If we were not greedy, we would still be living in caves, satisfied with what we have**
This is a drastic oversimplification of what drives human progress. You are partially correct, but we are not cave people any more, and in a truly civilized world society is more productive and mutually beneficial when it is not based on greed.
**That is why in real attempts to build "not true socialism", the elite always took full control over the resources and the population**
The reason for that is because A) power corrupts and many of them where fascists in disguise, luring in the masses with false promises of socialism.
**Socialism, nationalism and other authoritarian ideologies**
First of all you are a nationalist, second of all Socialism is not inherently authoritarian. My brand of socialism is actually one that seeks to reduce government.
**based on raw emotion and have no rational basis.**
The opposite is true. It is rational to reward people for what they produce and give people what they need to be productive. It is not rational to reward people for being greedy and force the poor to "earn" a living by serving them and their self centered interests.
**not realizing that the whole reason we need democracy**
Ever hear of democratic socialism?
**"benevolent society/government" does not exist.**
Benevolence is logical, because mutually benevolent systems are the most prosperous and productive. A human without a society is like a guy trying to move a room full of furniture by himself, but if other people live with him and they all help to move the furniture and they all share the furniture that's socialism. But if the guy has other people come and move all the furniture while he sits back sipping a strawberry mango smoothie and then takes 90% of the furniture from the people who did all the work and tells them they can split the 10% amongst themselves, that's capitalism.

@StrangeQuarkMatter ;

There are literally millions employers available to people in this country. If one is "forced" to work for just one employer in particular, then they probably are the least skilled person in the world, and such people have only themselves to blame for not putting in even the minimum effort to improve their skills.

No, I do not think "deserve" is a part of the equation at all. World is unfair by nature; too bad.

I prefer it that the market decides what is "right", and not the society based on arbitrary system of values.

Yes, because greed is good - and socialism even recognizes that by rewarding the greedy with free resources.

There are not too many shades of socialism, since all of the details are overshadowed by one factor: rule of the mob. And the mob is just as greedy as individuals. Only, unlike individuals, there is no stopping the mob if it decides to act on its greed - as it does when socialism is installed.

Greed is not evil; people who take away freedoms justifying it by the necessity to fight greed are.

We are not cave people any more BECAUSE of the greed. If we remove greed from our nature, then we again will become cave people.

It is exactly because power corrupts that socialism is unviable. It is not the only reason, but it is probably the biggest one.

Your brand of socialism has no attachment to reality, because the path to it is necessarily authoritarian. As for me being nationalist - I am a libertarian, and I do not recognize "nation" as a binding structure.

It is rational to let people choose how to reward themselves for work by letting them select a business model from the multitude of models available on the market. We do not want YOU to decide how to reward us, even if you believe that your outlook on what rewards should be is fair.

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron.

I am sorry, in socialism I am not allowed to hire anyone to help me move without sharing my furniture with them? Am I allowed to, at least, sleep in my bed without sharing it with others? 

---

Think about where the very desire of changing the current status-quo in terms of wealth distribution comes from. Think about it: if people were not greedy, they would be fine with the current distribution; nobody would want more than they have. And if they do want more than they have, then they are greedy by definition. I would be curious how you would explain this contradiction that, as you claim, socialism aims to not reward the greedy - while acting on the desires of the greedy.

George_Horse said:

Wow you sound openly anti-capitalist. Actually concerning. Socialism does the opposite of what you said.

 

socialism is not authoritarianism but apparently you polarise the oppisition to make it easier to argue there are many shades here are the 4 shades of democratic socialism

green socialism protecting the environment 
grey socialism workers managing themselves
baby blue socialism making the world better for our children
khaki socialism militaristic socialism
https://reason.com/archives/1997/06/01/the-colors-of-socialism

and there are 10 types of communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies

as you can see 14 isn't a small amount in this context i'm guessing you live in America where people are afraid of communism and believe that every shade of socialism is communism

MayCaesar

@cheesycheese ;

Communism is simply a logical continuation of socialism. Socialism states that means of production do not belong to the individual; communism states that nothing belongs to the individual. In both cases, the collective takes over the individual and controls him/her, hence both ideologies are inherently authoritarian.

There can be many shades of socialism, but they all have the same common denominator: control of the collective over the individual.

AmericanFurryBoy

Capitalism works. Socialism doesn’t. Human nature only allows us to live in a capitalist society. And that’s just fine.

cheesycheese

@MayCaesar
you are clearly ignorant of democratic socialism and you clearly aren't understanding my posts there are still CEOs in socialism

MayCaesar

@cheesycheese ;

What Bernie supporters, as well as some people in Europe, call "democratic socialism" is a) not a socialism and b) not democratic. You just use the popular terms without concerning yourself with their formal definitions and origins.

What you are advocating for is somewhat similar to Mussolini's design of a corporate state. Suffice to say democracy is impossible in such a state. Oligarchy is; in fact, this system is oligarchic pretty much by definition.

Instead of throwing accusations around in poorly written sentences with no punctuation, I think you should put some effort towards actually figuring these things out.

Polaris95

@MayCaesar

Capitalism can many times be oligarchic.

Ampersand

A thread full of people who are very angry about socialism yet don't seem to understand its most basic principles.

cheesycheese

Ampersand said:

A thread full of people who are very angry about socialism yet don't seem to understand its most basic principles.

Very true