Michael-5 said:
You originally claimed it was because of capitalism that technology has boomed. You specifically stated that the accumulation of wealth was a good thing, and you attributed this accumulation of wealth via a Capitalistic economic system as the reason why people are more affluent now then they were in the past. Yes However now that I read your post, I think we're arguing about nothing. Even in a socialistic society, people of higher worth (say a manager) get "paid" more. There is no currency, but people of higher demand/need would be more rewarded in a socialistic society as well as a capitalistic one. This however is what I consider to be economic equality, if you work harder, you deserve more. In some forms of socialism what you say is true, there is inequality, albeit highly regulated. In other forms of socialism, particularly those with the end goal of communism (there has never been a communist country, it's an ideal) there is a mentality of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Meaning that you get what you are deemed by the collective to need, and that's it. The forms of socialism that tend to have hierarchies are those which are mixed with capitalism, having markets, and private ownership. "Economic equality" tends to be quite self-definining for most. The big difference is that in a socialistic society, you can't pass on your "value" to your next of kin, when you die it does with you. Capitalism lets you accumulate wealth over centuries, and this is why you see families who were rich hundreds of years ago, are now super mega duper rich, far wealthier then most people can become in a lifetime. This is why complaint about capitalism because most of the wealthy are literally born into wealth, and don't deserve the wealth anymore then anyone else. There are more differences than a high inheritance tax. Nevertheless, why is it amoral for a man or woman to choose his or her family first and foremost? They worked for that money, they should give it to whomever and use it however they wish. If they want their great-great-great-grand children to have unlimited funds to pursue whichever interests they wish to, who are we to say that it's alright to steal more from them? One can argue that money buys power, but quite honestly that's a flaw of the system that is corruptible, not the economic freedoms we all enjoy. I was confused at your arguement because socialism is a free-market economic system, so I did't catch your arguement. As for your arguement about private property, I don't have a response. I don't know how a society without private property would work, but I do have a funny little comparision in my head while makes me feel that without private property, we might be less technologically developed, but we might be happier. If you want to hear it PM me, it's about the difference between sex habits of Bonobo's (Group Sex, shared parenting) vs. Chimpanzee's (and Humans, individual sex, private parenting). The only forms of socialism that profess free-markets are those combined with anarchism. ALL forms of state socialism do not have free-markets. If there exist markets at all, they're heavily regulated. So I don't know where you got the idea that socialism => free-markets. If you look up the definitions of capitalism and socialism, you find that capitalism has synonyms of free-enterprise, free-market, and is defined as the private ownership of the means of production. If you look at socialism, you have "social-ownership", industries owned publicly by government, abolishing of the private means of production, etc, etc. Which one is defined by a free-market and which one isn't? |
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
