What is Wrong With Socialism and why is Capitalism better?

[gcb]

A good example to illustrate my point:

Take a company run by a CEO - he has certain costs associated with running his business. If he lobbies the government to help break the unions and reduce wages and therefore doubles his profit has he really earned that extra profit?

[w8tlftr]

I never said it was easy - but it is more about who you know then what you know.

Of course it's about who you know! Successful people network and those that are the best at their job are well known. The same goes for those that royally fuck up.

[w8tlftr]

A good example to illustrate my point:

Take a company run by a CEO - he has certain costs associated with running his business. If he lobbies the government to help break the unions and reduce wages and therefore doubles his profit has he really earned that extra profit?

Dude, please don't ask me to argue on behalf of unions. They're just as corrupt as any fuck-all-the-rules CEO or politician.

[big L dawg]

Dude, please don't ask me to argue on behalf of unions. They're just as corrupt as any fuck-all-the-rules CEO or politician.

you aginst unions huh

[gcb]

Of course it's about who you know! Successful people network and those that are the best at their job are well known. The same goes for those that royally fuck up.

Yes but are they the best because they network or for some other reason?

[w8tlftr]

you aginst unions huh

Yes.

I'm happy I don't belong to one.

[w8tlftr]

Yes but are they the best because they network or for some other reason?

I don't know any CEOs so I can't speak on that.

All I can say is that in my experience people in my job field (Information Technology in the Baltimore/DC area) are made by their reputation. I've worked with several people that own their own company and are doing very very well. That wouldn't be the case if they did crap work.

I'm sure there are CEOs that got where they are because of the good old boy system but you also have to accept that there are those that got were they are because they are damn good and were in high demand.

[big L dawg]

Yes.

I'm happy I don't belong to one.

and your reasoning?

[w8tlftr]

and your reasoning?

It's my opinion they're as corrupt as the politicians they serve.

I have no problem finding high paying work in the IT sector and don't need nor want to be involved in a union.

Do you support them? If so, why?

[Decker]

Where is it effective...people hate it in England/Canada and they don't have 350 million plus. U guys rail against the gov all the time, now u want him regulating ur healthcare?

It's effective in every single one of the 36 countries that scored better than the US in the World Health Organization's analysis. 

[Decker]

Should we be surprised you believe in socialism? No, you're a moron.

Get Lost Eldon.

Nobody needs your worthless 'Berzerk Fury' personality today.

You add shit to discussions.

[w8tlftr]

It's effective in every single one of the 36 countries that scored better than the US in the World Health Organization's analysis. 

Decker, do you belong to a union?

[big L dawg]

It's my opinion they're as corrupt as the politicians they serve.

I have no problem finding high paying work in the IT sector and don't need nor want to be involved in a union.

Do you support them? If so, why?

my experience is they help against corrupt bosses or  supervisors.and do a good job regulating safety for workers.I dealt with a company pre union that averaged 40 injury's per 30 day period.post union that was down to 12 injuries per 30 day period.and during this time profits of the company went up significantly.mainly from lower insurance costs.and lower employee turn over which resulted in a more competent work force.thats just one example.

[Decker]

Socialism depends on everyone doing relatively equal work, which is absolutely not the case in American.
In an ideal world, socialism would certainly work.  When I was a teenager, I talked about socialism being a wise system...as I got to understand people and the world, I see that pure socialism would be extremely unfair.
Pure capitalism is also not ideal because there are very greedy people.
So, like most other things in life, a compromise and combination is probably best.

I think Socialism depends on the worker owning the means of production instead of the capitalist.  Hell, even communism doesn't view the delegation of work duties evenly:   "From each according to his own ability, to each according to his needs".

[Decker]

Decker, do you belong to a union?

Nope.  My dad did though.  Why?

[Decker]

my experience is they help against corrupt bosses or  supervisors.and do a good job regulating safety for workers.I dealt with a company pre union that averaged 40 injury's per 30 day period.post union that was down to 12 injuries per 30 day period.and during this time profits of the company went up significantly.mainly from lower insurance costs.and lower employee turn over which resulted in a more competent work force.thats just one example.

I think the workforce, in certain situations, needs bargaining strength with management.  Unions are effective in that respect.

[spotter]

Normally I don't post unedited material.

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."


Why Socialism?


By Albert Einstein


Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society -- in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence -- that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production -- although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Unfortunately, most governments only work on paper.  Most forms of government work if you have the money, to make it work for you.  Democracy is the best of a bad lot of governments.  If you read any governments preamble, or manafesto, they always have "grey areas", that are subject to "debate"......Socialism as most forms of government would work, if it was truly applied....The problem is people will make their own interuptations, then trouble begins....Capitalism, is what it is...."free enterprise"....Capitalism is the ruling class of Democracy....Whether you like it or not, it is here to stay.....

[w8tlftr]

Nope.  My dad did though.  Why?

Just curious.

[w8tlftr]

my experience is they help against corrupt bosses or  supervisors.and do a good job regulating safety for workers.I dealt with a company pre union that averaged 40 injury's per 30 day period.post union that was down to 12 injuries per 30 day period.and during this time profits of the company went up significantly.mainly from lower insurance costs.and lower employee turn over which resulted in a more competent work force.thats just one example.

I'm happy your experience with them has been positive and I'll readily admit they're great when it comes to worker safety and workers compensation for those injured on the job. What turns me off about them is how they are used as political tools and how some workers are intimidated into joining them or risk getting black balled and denied work. It's my opinion that they can go too far and bite the hand that feeds them.

[Decker]

Just curious.

I was in a union when I worked for UPS. 

[w8tlftr]

I was in a union when I worked for UPS. 

I've never belonged to one. There are no unions in the military and none in the IT sector (that I'm aware of).

I honestly don't think I'd want to join one. IMO, they've become too politicized.

[JimmyThomson]

There is no left or right,  only a circle.  The rich benefit at the expense of the poor in every situation regardless of socialism or capitalism.

[gcb]

I don't know any CEOs so I can't speak on that.

All I can say is that in my experience people in my job field (Information Technology in the Baltimore/DC area) are made by their reputation. I've worked with several people that own their own company and are doing very very well. That wouldn't be the case if they did crap work.

I'm sure there are CEOs that got where they are because of the good old boy system but you also have to accept that there are those that got were they are because they are damn good and were in high demand.

It's not the same in every industry - and what you say is true some are good at what they do.

[loco]

A Chinese man in the documentary "Up the Yangtze" told this joke:

An American and a Chinese were out driving one day and came to a crossroads. To the right, capitalism. To the left, socialism. The American says, "Let’s go to the right." The Chinese says, "Yes, let’s go to the right, but first put on the left-turn indicator."