Buy From China

[Andy]

Regardless of the amount of foreign investments in the prc, they shall ALWAYS be under the state's regulative powers. The only promise they are giving is that they will not nationalize these outright.

I was going to respond to everything else that you said, when I realized, nothing of what you said disproved or even disputed my point. Regulation and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Further, Foreign investments has no ground in this discussion at all. Whether is a business is invested in by a foreign corp, or is home grown, the reason either would do so, is to profit by providing a product... also known as Capitalism.

Read the article I posted. Zhang Yue, is a 38 year old CEO of a completely private corporation "Broad Air Conditioning". He is building products, and selling them for more than Cost of Material + Cost of Labor + Machine Upkeep and Desperation which = Profit. This is Capitalism. He is not doing it for some irrelevant speech, or some government mandate, or some other non-sense... he's doing it because he's a capitalist, capitalizing on making a product. Moving on....

Cost of raw materials + cost of machine depreciation + wages = cost of finished product = cost of investment + profit

From the equation above, where do you suppose profit comes from, hmmm?

Certainly not from raw materials.

Certainly not from machines.

It could only come from human labor. But you have already paid for human labor through wages, haven't you? Unless...the wages are not commensurate to the amount of work done, no?

Unpaid labor -- the secret of capitalist production.

A: I think I understand this theory. Problem is, I fail to see where it makes a point. Further, it seems to validates my point. This very system is what is happening in China. There are private sector businesses in China, that are not under the control of the government, that buy material, pay for labor, and sell those products for more than it costs them to produce, also known as capitalizing. Hence my whole point which is that China has a capitalist economy.

Further, as stated by my references, the socialist government controlled businesses are failing... validating my point that socialism always fails.

B: I'm a bit disturbed you find this theory to be valid as you seem intelligent. This theory fails on so many levels, it's completely unsupportable.

1: This theory claims all profit is merely labor that is unpaid. Ok, I'm the rich guy. I have a product I develop. I design it, blue print it, make a factory to build it. I hire a bunch of people to work the factory to make it. At the end of the year, I spend all my unspent gross income, on labor. Zero profit. Ok... I just spent an entire year and all my money, to gain zero. Next year I'll do the same, and end up with zero. Next ten years... zero. Wait... why do this? If I'm not going to profit from it, why do it? So I close the plant down, lay everyone off, take my money to move to a small island to spend the rest of my years drinking wine on the beach. Under this theory, there would be no jobs anywhere.

Example: GM / Ford. The labor unions make the cost of labor prohibitive to making a profit on smaller cars. Result? Aveo is built in South Korea. As I said before, and it bares repeating... people do not do things unless there is a profit to doing so. If you try and undo that, you end up without a job and complaining about companies move out of the country and complaining about imported products from China.

2: This theory assumes the value of labor is determined by the value of the product. So I own a small bakery. I need someone to run the register while I'm not there. I hire on a little girl in high school to just ring up customer, and otherwise do absolutely nothing all day. I figure that my profit margin is roughly $20 per hour the store is open, averaged throughout the day. Does that mean I should pay a high school girl $20 an hour to sit on her butt and watch TV? Of course not. (Real life example, I know the girl and the shop)

3: In any equation, a quick way to test validity is to reverse it and see if it holds true. GM is in dire straights. They have negative profit. Does this mean all GM employees are over paid and should earn minimum wage? Non-sense.

4: This equation assumes that each element in the equation is static. But this is not so. Value is not static. Value is subjective. For example, I could make a really annoying noise maker, that at random times, plays really horrible old folk country music at 4000 dB. I could make the case out of nickel and carbon fiber, hand build the circuit board with ultra caps and lithium-ion batteries. The cost of material plus labor could hit $100 a unit. Would anyone pay that much for it? Of course not.

Another example is collector items. Baseball cards my father collected, were purchased at $0.25 for a pack. Now some of those cards are worth $5,000 or more. A complete collection is worth $30,000 dollars. Does that mean someone at the card factory was under paid by $30,000 in the mid-50s?

How about a car on the lot at a dealership. If you paint a new car puke greenish yellow, what happens to the value of that car? It drops... but how, the labor + materials + machine depreciation is the same!

How about two workers at GM that both install bumpers. One for a Caddy Fleetwood, and one for a Chevy Caprice... which is the same car... one has a chevy emblem, one has a caddy emblem, both spray painted plastic. But one goes for $20K one for $35K... So which worker is over paid, and which is underpaid? Answer? Neither. They both are paid the same for doing the exact same job. The value of the product is subjective.

In fact, even the value of money itself isn't static. Otherwise there would be no inflation. Or exchange rate changes. Euro to Dollar values would always remain the same.

 

[numinus]

Read the article I posted. Zhang Yue, is a 38 year old CEO of a completely private corporation "Broad Air Conditioning". He is building products, and selling them for more than Cost of Material + Cost of Labor + Machine Upkeep and Desperation which = Profit. This is Capitalism. He is not doing it for some irrelevant speech, or some government mandate, or some other non-sense... he's doing it because he's a capitalist, capitalizing on making a product. Moving on....

No. Making something of use and exchanging it isn't capitalism. Human beings have been buying and selling since god knows when. What distinguishes capitalism from slave society, feudalism, and socialism is the MODE OF PRODUCTION AND THE ECONOMIC RELATIONS THAT IT DEFINES.

Master-slave, lord-serf, capitalist-proletariat all define a distinct relationship vis-a-vis, the way society produces a commodity. And at the heart of this relationship is a PARTICULAR IDEA OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.

In a socialist system, ALL MEANS OF PRODUCTION IS OWNED IN COMMON -- or the state. That the government of the prc allows (in limited measure) foreigners to manufacture goods within its borders -- for a profit or as a means of obtaining expertise and technology -- does not change this FUNDAMENTAL FACT.

A: I think I understand this theory. Problem is, I fail to see where it makes a point. Further, it seems to validates my point. This very system is what is happening in China. There are private sector businesses in China, that are not under the control of the government, that buy material, pay for labor, and sell those products for more than it costs them to produce, also known as capitalizing. Hence my whole point which is that China has a capitalist economy.

Further, as stated by my references, the socialist government controlled businesses are failing... validating my point that socialism always fails.

Wrong.

Capital is merely the tools you use to produce things. The land, cow and the piece of stick used to cultivate a fiefdom are themselves, capital. The difference is in the nature of ownership and the relationship of the owner and the laborer.

The prc has leap-frogged from a backward agricultural country politically divided into spheres of influence by the western industrial nations to a homogenous sovereign nation with an economy that is outperforming all other economies in the world -- all in the span of half a century. They have a military to be reckoned with and considerable regional, if not global influence. Not to mention being a player in the world technological stage.

Tell me, how long did the us take to reach this stage of political, military and economic pre-eminence, hmmm?

B: I'm a bit disturbed you find this theory to be valid as you seem intelligent. This theory fails on so many levels, it's completely unsupportable.

1: This theory claims all profit is merely labor that is unpaid. Ok, I'm the rich guy. I have a product I develop. I design it, blue print it, make a factory to build it. I hire a bunch of people to work the factory to make it. At the end of the year, I spend all my unspent gross income, on labor. Zero profit. Ok... I just spent an entire year and all my money, to gain zero. Next year I'll do the same, and end up with zero. Next ten years... zero. Wait... why do this? If I'm not going to profit from it, why do it? So I close the plant down, lay everyone off, take my money to move to a small island to spend the rest of my years drinking wine on the beach. Under this theory, there would be no jobs anywhere.

The thing is, how can you claim absolute ownership of a particular idea or technology when such a thing is made possible ONLY FROM PRIOR HUMAN ADVANCEMENT, hmm? Do you pay the heirs of newton, einstein, faraday, maxwell, gauss and the rest royalities for making use of their discoveries?

And while you are trying to fashion a justification for intellectual property rights, you might want to contemplate -- what or who should human knowledge serve? The capitalist or the human race?

Example: GM / Ford. The labor unions make the cost of labor prohibitive to making a profit on smaller cars. Result? Aveo is built in South Korea. As I said before, and it bares repeating... people do not do things unless there is a profit to doing so. If you try and undo that, you end up without a job and complaining about companies move out of the country and complaining about imported products from China.

And as I said, the drive to create surplus value (or profit) has been going on since the beginning of time. The question is, who owns this surplus value?

2: This theory assumes the value of labor is determined by the value of the product. So I own a small bakery. I need someone to run the register while I'm not there. I hire on a little girl in high school to just ring up customer, and otherwise do absolutely nothing all day. I figure that my profit margin is roughly $20 per hour the store is open, averaged throughout the day. Does that mean I should pay a high school girl $20 an hour to sit on her butt and watch TV? Of course not. (Real life example, I know the girl and the shop)

No. The $20 an hour belongs to all the people who actually worked to fashion bread from raw materials and bring it to its ultimate consumer.

What you need to understand is that surplus value, like any scientific quantity, cannot come from nothing. Certainly not from an idea of ownership.

In your pseudo-scientific analysis above, you seem to be earning profit by playing golf all day -- by virtue of an abstract idea of ownership alone.

3: In any equation, a quick way to test validity is to reverse it and see if it holds true. GM is in dire straights. They have negative profit. Does this mean all GM employees are over paid and should earn minimum wage? Non-sense.

It makes perfect sense.

If all the workers own the business, then profits and loss are divided among them. You can run it forward or backward all day and it wouldn't make any difference.

What doesn't make sense, to my mind, is how a handful of people who do nothing get to keep the profit that comes from the human labor of many.

4: This equation assumes that each element in the equation is static. But this is not so. Value is not static. Value is subjective. For example, I could make a really annoying noise maker, that at random times, plays really horrible old folk country music at 4000 dB. I could make the case out of nickel and carbon fiber, hand build the circuit board with ultra caps and lithium-ion batteries. The cost of material plus labor could hit $100 a unit. Would anyone pay that much for it? Of course not.

What foolish nonsense.

Take a look at any financial statement of any business enterprise and you would see a more or less accurate measure of the value of its different 'parts'. There is NOTHING subjective about it. In fact, you are liable criminally for any misrepresentation in that statement.

Another example is collector items. Baseball cards my father collected, were purchased at $0.25 for a pack. Now some of those cards are worth $5,000 or more. A complete collection is worth $30,000 dollars. Does that mean someone at the card factory was under paid by $30,000 in the mid-50s?

LOL.

That is a case of supply and demand and is totally irrelevant to the discussion of mode of production.

What you should be asking yourself is in what economic system is the worth of a baseball card equal to the subsistence of an entire village in some parts of the world? There is something fundamentally wrong with such an economic system, wouldn't you say?

How about a car on the lot at a dealership. If you paint a new car puke greenish yellow, what happens to the value of that car? It drops... but how, the labor + materials + machine depreciation is the same!

That's the point.

You manufacture a car because it has use for someone else. In a capitalist system, the use value of a car becomes dependent on its exchange value. If it isn't bought/exchanged, it would languish in the showroom and not be used.

Which leads to the question -- do human beings produce things for use or profit?

How about two workers at GM that both install bumpers. One for a Caddy Fleetwood, and one for a Chevy Caprice... which is the same car... one has a chevy emblem, one has a caddy emblem, both spray painted plastic. But one goes for $20K one for $35K... So which worker is over paid, and which is underpaid? Answer? Neither. They both are paid the same for doing the exact same job. The value of the product is subjective.

There are a lot of activities that go into the production of a car. What makes you think the difference in price is attributable to the paint job?

In fact, even the value of money itself isn't static. Otherwise there would be no inflation. Or exchange rate changes. Euro to Dollar values would always remain the same.

And you think that the value of money is somehow defined by the capitalist system? Tell me, did the value of a particular currency remain the same before capitalism was invented?

 

[Andy]

In a socialist system, ALL MEANS OF PRODUCTION IS OWNED IN COMMON -- or the state.

But in China, the government doesn't own all means of production. Broad Air Conditioning, the company in the story is completely private. As in... not owned by the government. So by your own words, it's not a socialist system. Hmm... what other system could it be?

The thing is, how can you claim absolute ownership of a particular idea or technology when such a thing is made possible ONLY FROM PRIOR HUMAN ADVANCEMENT, hmm? Do you pay the heirs of newton, einstein, faraday, maxwell, gauss and the rest royalities for making use of their discoveries?

And while you are trying to fashion a justification for intellectual property rights, you might want to contemplate -- what or who should human knowledge serve? The capitalist or the human race?

How are you going to make people develop new technologies if they are prevented from profiting from them? Sounds like the middle east to me.

And as I said, the drive to create surplus value (or profit) has been going on since the beginning of time. The question is, who owns this surplus value?

The company and owners thereof, who created the surplus. Without them, there will be neither the company, nor the surplus.

See you still are missing this. If I... or anyone... owns a company, and all profit goes to my employees, I'd close the company down, lay everyone off, and go home. I'll retire on my millions and you all can collect food stamps. No one makes a company if they are not going to profit from it. No one hires workers unless they can profit from it. Nothing happens without a benefit to doing so. This include every corporation in existence. Including in China, where the CEO benefits from the corporations surplus.

No. The $20 an hour belongs to all the people who actually worked to fashion bread from raw materials and bring it to its ultimate consumer.

Thank you. That's the owner. I rest my case.

What you need to understand is that surplus value, like any scientific quantity, cannot come from nothing. Certainly not from an idea of ownership.

In your pseudo-scientific analysis above, you seem to be earning profit by playing golf all day -- by virtue of an abstract idea of ownership alone.

Well let's think that through. If I knew I wasn't going to earn anything from coming out with an idea... would I bother to do so? The average drug takes years to R&D, and millions in testing. Would I spend the time and money to do either if I knew I would not profit from doing so? Would most people? Would you?

Tell you what. You do it first. Quit your job, and spend the next full year, working really hard on a project that will benefit "humanity" and then give it away for free. You can do this, since we have food stamps and welfare.

Better still, give it to me, and I'll use it to make money, and you can't stop me since you are going to give it away for free. Hmm... you practicing socialism sounds better all the time.

If all the workers own the business, then profits and loss are divided among them. You can run it forward or backward all day and it wouldn't make any difference.

False. Keyword "if". The workers do not own the business. If I form the business, it's my business. If I don't own it, I wouldn't form it. So choose... no job, or my job. One or the other, not both. Or make your own business.. but then when you hire people they'll take your profit. If you want to form a company for nothing, that's your choice. Go ahead and do it. But no one else will.

What doesn't make sense, to my mind, is how a handful of people who do nothing get to keep the profit that comes from the human labor of many.

Take a look at any financial statement of any business enterprise and you would see a more or less accurate measure of the value of its different 'parts'. There is NOTHING subjective about it. In fact, you are liable criminally for any misrepresentation in that statement.

Before this statement, you were intelligent, but misguided. Now you're ignorant. Any fool who thinks CEOs do nothing, is an idiot waiting for an accident. Grow up. Start a business and find out what being in charge is really like. It's hard work. Everything that goes wrong, is your fault, and if one of the people below you makes a critical mistake, you are the one the goes to jail.

That is a case of supply and demand and is totally irrelevant to the discussion of mode of production.

What you should be asking yourself is in what economic system is the worth of a baseball card equal to the subsistence of an entire village in some parts of the world? There is something fundamentally wrong with such an economic system, wouldn't you say?

You have attempted to claim that the value of a product is the sum of (Labor + Material + Equipment). This is false. This example proves that.

And no, I have no problem with baseball cars being worth money. This is called freedom. If one chooses to buy a set of baseball cards for 30K, that's their option.

The real problem is the (socialist) economic system in other parts for the world that keep people in poverty preventing them from buying a $0.25 pack of baseball cards. Example, people willing to die trying and swim to Florida from Cuba.

There are a lot of activities that go into the production of a car. What makes you think the difference in price is attributable to the paint job?

You missed the point of the comment. The difference between a Caddy Fleetwood, and a Chevy Caprice is the emblem (aka spray painted plastic), and 15K Dollars. Point being... value is subjective. Both cars are exactly the same. I know because I worked at a GM dealership. Both cars are identical, yet there is a difference in price.

And you think that the value of money is somehow defined by the capitalist system? Tell me, did the value of a particular currency remain the same before capitalism was invented?

Capitalism has always existed. It may not have had a name, but the principles have been around since the dawn of time. The point about money was simply to show that value is not a static thing.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Its really annoying when people talk about Communism and Socialism as if that = Dictatorship and Oppression....And they clearly have no idea what they are economic systems , not political ones...There are Democratic Socialist nations, and there have been Capitalistic Oppressive Dictatorships.

 

[Andy]

Its really annoying when people talk about Communism and Socialism as if that = Dictatorship and Oppression....And they clearly have no idea what they are economic systems , not political ones...There are Democratic Socialist nations, and there have been Capitalistic Oppressive Dictatorships.

Socialism/Communism does = Dictatorship and Oppression.

Capitalism tends toward freedom, but as China has proven, it is possible to be oppressive and capitalistic. The reason for this is, the back bone of Capitalism is the ability to own wealth, and invest it into whatever you choose, for personal gain. In order for you to do this, you must have the freedom to do so.

It is nearly impossible for a true socialist country to be a free country, because socialism nearly requires complete control by the government. No one participates in socialism otherwise. You don't see Ted Turner donating his billions to the liberal cause do you? Why should he? Just because he supports socialism, doesn't mean his going to give up his wealth if he has a choice, now does it? So, the choice, has to be removed. This is oppression.

Just curious, name a few Democratic Socialist countries. The only two I know of, are not really good examples. I'm curious what you think, a good "freedom supporting" socialist country is.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Socialism/Communism does = Dictatorship and Oppression.

Capitalism tends toward freedom, but as China has proven, it is possible to be oppressive and capitalistic. The reason for this is, the back bone of Capitalism is the ability to own wealth, and invest it into whatever you choose, for personal gain. In order for you to do this, you must have the freedom to do so.

It is nearly impossible for a true socialist country to be a free country, because socialism nearly requires complete control by the government. No one participates in socialism otherwise. You don't see Ted Turner donating his billions to the liberal cause do you? Why should he? Just because he supports socialism, doesn't mean his going to give up his wealth if he has a choice, now does it? So, the choice, has to be removed. This is oppression.

Just curious, name a few Democratic Socialist countries. The only two I know of, are not really good examples. I'm curious what you think, a good "freedom supporting" socialist country is.

I could name a bunch, as Socialism is really a sliding scare, some would call the US Socialist, some call the UK socialist, some call Norway Finland ext socialist...

Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are simple ways that the economy runs and how wealth is Distributed.

Democracy is the process in witch Leaders and Decisions are made. If a nation Votes to be a communist nation, and the leaders after are voted fairly on by all parties...is that Not Democracy still? Are there a great deal of nations that have done this? No, and I don't dispute that, but that does not change the fact that Democracy does not = Capitalism nor Does Socialism in its forms, equal dictatorships.

Chile under Pinochet was Capitalist....I would not call it Democratic at all.

 

[numinus]

But in China, the government doesn't own all means of production. Broad Air Conditioning, the company in the story is completely private. As in... not owned by the government. So by your own words, it's not a socialist system. Hmm... what other system could it be?

The idea of ownership in the prc is totally different from absolute ownership contemplated in the us. It is an ownership AT THE SUFFERANCE OF THE STATE, the purpose of which, is quite clear -- to develop their own indigenous industries.

How are you going to make people develop new technologies if they are prevented from profiting from them? Sounds like the middle east to me.

The same way it has ALWAYS been done -- with the drive to make USEFUL things.

The moment man started to get materials from nature and fashion tools, they did so to make life easier, not for profit.

The company and owners thereof, who created the surplus. Without them, there will be neither the company, nor the surplus.

You still don't get it, don't you?

Everything will always be as it was -- except stockholders who do no work and yet get to dictate policy are eliminated. It really isn't new since there are already cooperatives in existence today. In fact, the imf and adb, global financing institutions for underdeveloped countries point to such a set up to stem the tide of poverty.

See you still are missing this. If I... or anyone... owns a company, and all profit goes to my employees, I'd close the company down, lay everyone off, and go home. I'll retire on my millions and you all can collect food stamps. No one makes a company if they are not going to profit from it. No one hires workers unless they can profit from it. Nothing happens without a benefit to doing so. This include every corporation in existence. Including in China, where the CEO benefits from the corporations surplus.

Exactly!

You can take your money and retire to a life of luxury. Renewable capital -- land and natural resources -- would be owned by the state. You can only purchase it for personal use -- not as a means to exploit the labor of others.

If you have know-how, then the state will employ you as a consultant or a manager. You will earn a salary like the rest of the workers -- not a percentage of the company.

Thank you. That's the owner. I rest my case.

Correct. If you do the work yourself, then by all means, you have every right to the fruits of your own labor. You would then be a tradesman, NOT a capitalist.

Well let's think that through. If I knew I wasn't going to earn anything from coming out with an idea... would I bother to do so? The average drug takes years to R&D, and millions in testing. Would I spend the time and money to do either if I knew I would not profit from doing so? Would most people? Would you?

I wouldn't need to. The state would be in a better position to undertake r&d -- as the prc has been doing for decades now.

Do you really think the owners are the ones who undertake r&d? They hire experts in various fields, no? The only difference, these experts would be working for the government, not individuals or corporations.

Tell you what. You do it first. Quit your job, and spend the next full year, working really hard on a project that will benefit "humanity" and then give it away for free. You can do this, since we have food stamps and welfare.

Actually, I did.

I am doing lots of consulting work for the government and various private concerns. I get paid when I work and I don't get paid when I don't work. I lend my expertise in a particular field to make things of use.

Better still, give it to me, and I'll use it to make money, and you can't stop me since you are going to give it away for free. Hmm... you practicing socialism sounds better all the time.

Why would I give you the fruits of my labor, hmmm? Is that what you think socialism is? No wonder you are confused.

False. Keyword "if". The workers do not own the business. If I form the business, it's my business. If I don't own it, I wouldn't form it. So choose... no job, or my job. One or the other, not both. Or make your own business.. but then when you hire people they'll take your profit. If you want to form a company for nothing, that's your choice. Go ahead and do it. But no one else will.

Sigh.

Profit is divided according to the work an individual actually puts in a product. Everyone owns a piece of the business concern. What is so hard to understand?

Before this statement, you were intelligent, but misguided. Now you're ignorant. Any fool who thinks CEOs do nothing, is an idiot waiting for an accident. Grow up. Start a business and find out what being in charge is really like. It's hard work. Everything that goes wrong, is your fault, and if one of the people below you makes a critical mistake, you are the one the goes to jail.

Did I say a ceo does nothing? Can't one become a ceo without actually owning a large part of the business enterprise?

It's being done in the largest industrial enterprises of the prc, fyi.

You have attempted to claim that the value of a product is the sum of (Labor + Material + Equipment). This is false. This example proves that.

If you really want to be technical about it -- labor was applied to the baseball card to maintain its material integrity over time.

And no, I have no problem with baseball cars being worth money. This is called freedom. If one chooses to buy a set of baseball cards for 30K, that's their option.

That is exactly the criticism being heaped on the capitalist system -- that it perpetuates a SOCIAL INJUSTICE in the name of personal freedom.

There are tons to be said about the ethics of a person who spends $30,000 on a frivolity and spends less on a year's wages of any individual in his employ. In fact, an economic system that perpetuates this state of affairs has been the impetus for countless revolutions around the world.

The real problem is the (socialist) economic system in other parts for the world that keep people in poverty preventing them from buying a $0.25 pack of baseball cards. Example, people willing to die trying and swim to Florida from Cuba.

I have a lot of things to say about this sort of socialism as capitalism.

All I am saying is the relative success of the chinese style of socialism. All the criticisms I heard of the prc's economy seem to me, an absurd form of sour-graping -- what with the us on the verge of a recession while the prc is actually taking measures against economic 'over-heating'.

You missed the point of the comment. The difference between a Caddy Fleetwood, and a Chevy Caprice is the emblem (aka spray painted plastic), and 15K Dollars. Point being... value is subjective. Both cars are exactly the same. I know because I worked at a GM dealership. Both cars are identical, yet there is a difference in price.

You are talking of fraud, then -- and how it is being condoned in the name of freedom?

Capitalism has always existed. It may not have had a name, but the principles have been around since the dawn of time. The point about money was simply to show that value is not a static thing.

LOL.

What can I say? You don't know jack-**** about economic systems.

 

[numinus]

Socialism/Communism does = Dictatorship and Oppression.

Capitalism tends toward freedom, but as China has proven, it is possible to be oppressive and capitalistic. The reason for this is, the back bone of Capitalism is the ability to own wealth, and invest it into whatever you choose, for personal gain. In order for you to do this, you must have the freedom to do so.

It is nearly impossible for a true socialist country to be a free country, because socialism nearly requires complete control by the government. No one participates in socialism otherwise. You don't see Ted Turner donating his billions to the liberal cause do you? Why should he? Just because he supports socialism, doesn't mean his going to give up his wealth if he has a choice, now does it? So, the choice, has to be removed. This is oppression.

Just curious, name a few Democratic Socialist countries. The only two I know of, are not really good examples. I'm curious what you think, a good "freedom supporting" socialist country is.

A few things.

1. One cannot equate an economic system with a political system. However, a political system is dependent on a certain mode of production and is, in fact, used to perpetuate the existing economic relations.

2. In capitalist societies, the focus is on INDIVIDUAL freedom while in socialist societies, individual freedom is subservient to the common good.

If you have read most the leading social contract theories, especially that of john locke, you would realize that it is not at all incongruent with socialism. Property is also defined as that which you apply your own labor to.

 

[Andy]

I could name a bunch, as Socialism is really a sliding scare, some would call the US Socialist, some call the UK socialist, some call Norway Finland ext socialist...

Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are simple ways that the economy runs and how wealth is Distributed.

Democracy is the process in witch Leaders and Decisions are made. If a nation Votes to be a communist nation, and the leaders after are voted fairly on by all parties...is that Not Democracy still? Are there a great deal of nations that have done this? No, and I don't dispute that, but that does not change the fact that Democracy does not = Capitalism nor Does Socialism in its forms, equal dictatorships.

Chile under Pinochet was Capitalist....I would not call it Democratic at all.

As I said above, Capitalism doesn't always default to Democracy. The two are not automatically connected. Everyone knows this. China proves it.

Even in an economy that is generally Capitalist, like the US, can still have obvious socialist systems running in it, and they are oppressive and failing like they do everywhere else.

For example, Social Security is a socialist system. It is failing, and though some people would argue that, it is amazing how many times this perfect system has needed to be 'fixed' in it's short existence, and yet still needs 'fixing'. Also, it's a bit telling that generation X'ers have a less than 50% faith in Social Security. Further it is oppressive as I do not want to have taxes taken from me for it, but I have no choice. That's a lack of freedom and it is oppressive.

Wisdom of the past:
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

Which applies to Social Security and every other Socialist program in the US, and Socialism itself, since without Socialism being enforced, it does not work. When it is enforced, then the above is true.

As far as democratic Communist governments... most of the ones I know of, have the "Vote for anyone as long as it's me or someone I support" type of 'democratic' elections.

Further I don't know people from Communistic countries that wish they had stayed. Granted, I only know a couple, so it's possible they are out there...

So my point is, Capitalism can exist in either an oppressive or freedom setting. However, I would still argue Socialism can not. If people are free to do whatever they wish with their 'capital', then they will not give it up freely to the government, which is what would have to happen to have a 'freedom supporting socialist system'. It wouldn't happen. So an oppressive socialism is the only method.

Just like I wager if people could opt out of Social Security, it would be disbanded in just a few years.

 

[Andy]

2. In capitalist societies, the focus is on INDIVIDUAL freedom while in socialist societies, individual freedom is subservient to the common good.

Property is also defined as that which you apply your own labor to.

Which is why Socialism results in oppression, and explains why so many flee Communists.

Property could be defined that way. It would have to include what you purchase... in which case, if I purchase labor, that labor is my labor. So I would be applying my own labor to my own property, which is the basis for running my business.

 

[Andy]

blaw blaw

I have chosen to start this over because you seem to know nothing. So...

In China... there is a company... it's PRIVATE!!

Now somehow... you think that is a private socialist economy. To me, that's an oxymoron. So... explain this...

A man in the US... invests into building a company, to make Air Conditioners. He hires labor. Purchases raw material. He then takes the produced product... and sells it for more than it cost him to build it.
This to me is Capitalism.

Ok...
A man in China... invests into building a company, to make Air Conditioners. He hires labor. Purchases raw material. He then takes the produced product... and sells it for more than it cost him to build it.
This to me is Capitalism.

BTW, you better check your sources. The information I have, says that the reforms allowed for corporations under framework based on western models... as in... The state has the same relations to Corporations in China, as the US does here... oversight. They are not owned, nor controlled by the Chinese government.

Again, the Communistic corporations in China, owned by the government are failing. As Socialism always fails. This is what prompted the government to allow for buy-outs of failing government owned industries. The are being purchased by private citizens with capital, for the purpose of benefitting... capitalism.

 

[numinus]

As I said above, Capitalism doesn't always default to Democracy. The two are not automatically connected. Everyone knows this. China proves it.

Even in an economy that is generally Capitalist, like the US, can still have obvious socialist systems running in it, and they are oppressive and failing like they do everywhere else.

For example, Social Security is a socialist system. It is failing, and though some people would argue that, it is amazing how many times this perfect system has needed to be 'fixed' in it's short existence, and yet still needs 'fixing'. Also, it's a bit telling that generation X'ers have a less than 50% faith in Social Security. Further it is oppressive as I do not want to have taxes taken from me for it, but I have no choice. That's a lack of freedom and it is oppressive.

Wisdom of the past:
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

Which applies to Social Security and every other Socialist program in the US, and Socialism itself, since without Socialism being enforced, it does not work. When it is enforced, then the above is true.

As far as democratic Communist governments... most of the ones I know of, have the "Vote for anyone as long as it's me or someone I support" type of 'democratic' elections.

Further I don't know people from Communistic countries that wish they had stayed. Granted, I only know a couple, so it's possible they are out there...

So my point is, Capitalism can exist in either an oppressive or freedom setting. However, I would still argue Socialism can not. If people are free to do whatever they wish with their 'capital', then they will not give it up freely to the government, which is what would have to happen to have a 'freedom supporting socialist system'. It wouldn't happen. So an oppressive socialism is the only method.

Just like I wager if people could opt out of Social Security, it would be disbanded in just a few years.

Are you even capable of a purely academic discussion without your biases getting in the way of your education?

Social security, as a whole, has its impetus from the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, the us being a signatory to it.

If you want examples of laws directly attributable to marxism, you should try minimum wage, prohibition on child labor, regulation in the conditions of the work place, unions and the various benefits that allow workers a decent human existence -- in short -- laws that regulate CAPITALIST GREED AND EXPLOITATION -- the very consequences of the NAIVE AND DEFECTIVE NOTION OF PERSONAL FREEDOM you are suggesting here.

 

[numinus]

Which is why Socialism results in oppression, and explains why so many flee Communists.

You want people fleeing oppression?

Try the illegal immigrants from latin america fleeing the poverty in their country wrought by CAPITALIST GREED -- a form of centuries-old, systematic exploitation to which the us has contributed by a large measure.

Or did you actually think that millions of people would risk life and limb, not to mention the prospects of being separated from their families, to sample a taste of bland american hamburger?

Property could be defined that way. It would have to include what you purchase... in which case, if I purchase labor, that labor is my labor. So I would be applying my own labor to my own property, which is the basis for running my business.

NO.

You purchased labor for a certain period of time, which -- from classical economics -- YOU DID NOT PAY FOR.

The unpaid labor you stole, you call profit. 'Your' profit, you attribute to the absurd notion that money, in the form of capital, is capable of multiplying by itself.

 

[numinus]

I have chosen to start this over because you seem to know nothing. So...

In China... there is a company... it's PRIVATE!!

Now somehow... you think that is a private socialist economy. To me, that's an oxymoron. So... explain this...

A man in the US... invests into building a company, to make Air Conditioners. He hires labor. Purchases raw material. He then takes the produced product... and sells it for more than it cost him to build it.
This to me is Capitalism.

Ok...
A man in China... invests into building a company, to make Air Conditioners. He hires labor. Purchases raw material. He then takes the produced product... and sells it for more than it cost him to build it.
This to me is Capitalism.

BTW, you better check your sources. The information I have, says that the reforms allowed for corporations under framework based on western models... as in... The state has the same relations to Corporations in China, as the US does here... oversight. They are not owned, nor controlled by the Chinese government.

Again, the Communistic corporations in China, owned by the government are failing. As Socialism always fails. This is what prompted the government to allow for buy-outs of failing government owned industries. The are being purchased by private citizens with capital, for the purpose of benefitting... capitalism.

What ignorant nonsense.

From wiki:

As one of the key tools used by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government to direct foreign investment into mainland China, the Encouraged Industry Catalogue is significant in international trade with mainland China. It classifies various industries into the four groups which are Encouraged, Permitted, Restricted and Prohibited which has subsequent effects on foreign firms wishing to operate in such sectors.

Encouraged industries generally receive favourable tax treatment whilst those in the Permitted category are treated on a quite neutral basis. If an industry is restricted, foreign investment is usually limited to a minority shareholding in a joint venture whilst Prohibited industries cannot have any form of foreign investment at all.

http://www.answers.com/topic/economy-of-the-people-s-republic-of-china?cat=biz-fin

Major state industries are iron, steel, coal, machine building, light industrial products, armaments, and textiles. These industries completed a decade of reform (1979-1989) with little substantial management change. The 1999 industrial census revealed that there were 7,930,000 industrial enterprises at the end of 1999; total employment in state-owned industrial enterprises was about 24 million. The automobile industry has grown rapidly since 2000, as is the petrochemical industry. Machinery and electronic products have become China's main exports.

Industry and construction produced 53.1% of China’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005. Industry (including mining, manufacturing, construction, and power) contributed 52.9% of GDP in 2004 and occupied 22.5% of the workforce.

Your air-conditioning company is merely a flea riding on the back of china's economic juggernaut. Any flea can pretend he is the dog all he wishes but we all know different.

 

[Andy]

You want people fleeing oppression?

Try the illegal immigrants from latin america fleeing the poverty in their country wrought by CAPITALIST GREED -- a form of centuries-old, systematic exploitation to which the us has contributed by a large measure.

Or did you actually think that millions of people would risk life and limb, not to mention the prospects of being separated from their families, to sample a taste of bland american hamburger?

The more you talk, the more ignorant you sound. Um... why would they come here then? If they are coming to America to flee Capitalism, then... what... do you think we have a Socialist economy here? No! They come here to have freedom to run their own business and profit from them, which they do. Which is Capitalism. Try again bro.

You purchased labor for a certain period of time, which -- from classical economics -- YOU DID NOT PAY FOR.

The unpaid labor you stole, you call profit. 'Your' profit, you attribute to the absurd notion that money, in the form of capital, is capable of multiplying by itself.

You... purchase... labor for a time, which... from classical economics, you did not pay for. Boil that down... You purchase labor, which you did not pay for.

Wow... I never knew this. I can pay for something I didn't pay for.... neat! What school did you learn this from? I'm warning everyone to avoid that moronic bastion of stupidity. It's no surprise everything else you say is wrought with unsupportable foolishness.