Who should own and control the means of production?

[JBeukema]

Even the leftists wouldn't bite on this one

 

[mattskramer]

We should have a balance between Capitalism and Socialism. There should be enough capitalism to act as an incentive for people to better themselves. It stands to reason that if you are allowed to keep more of what you produce, you are encouraged to produce more. Yet, there should also be enough socialism to help those who can't become self-reliant. There should also be enough regulation to prevent management for abusing its position in a pro-capitalist employer's market.

 

[DiamondDave]

We should have a balance between Capitalism and Socialism. There should be enough capitalism to act as an incentive for people to better themselves. It stands to reason that if you are allowed to keep more of what you produce, you are encouraged to produce more. Yet, there should also be enough socialism to help those who can't become self-reliant. There should also be enough regulation to prevent management for abusing its position in a pro-capitalist employer's market.

Very few CAN'T become self reliant... most don't do what it takes... and those who cannot provide for themselves (mentally ill, diminished capacity, etc) would normally be considered wards of the state with many social privileges taken away (as committed mental patients and prisoners do not vote, have freedom to go where they want, etc)... one MAJOR problem is we have the leech class voting and supporting government which continues to entice their vote with entitlements at the expense of societal contributors

 

[loosecannon]

And that is your excuse for Trillions of debt YOU owe because capitalism failed? And you surely will never repay the debt, so who is left to do that for you? For the good of the Corrupt corportions??

Capitalism is not a system of government. It is an economic system. Capitalism does not run up a public debt. By definition, it cannot. It is not public. Capitalism is private enterprise. Any debt run up by Capitalism is private debt.

Your assertion is corrupt at its base. Any logic piled on top of that is suspect or just plain wrong.

the 'political' and the 'economic' are inseparably intertwined as a society's sociopolitical character

stop beating around the bush, the economy is a 100% social entity.

 

[Intense]

One of the central questions of any political ideology is "Who should own and control the means the production?" (Means of production refers to factories, farmlands, machinery, office space, etc.) Generally there have been three approaches to this issue.

1.The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood.

2.The second is capitalism, which disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded.

3.The third approach is socialism, which is defined as "the collective ownership and control of the means of production." That is, everyone owns and controls productive wealth, which is accomplished through the vote.

As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.
====http://www.huppi.com

I believe we are currently between 2 & 3 as we add more regulations, etc. to those that own & control production, due to flaws in Capitalism.

Capitalism/Free Market. There is nothing that comes close.

 

[loosecannon]

Capitalism is not a failed system.


.

of course it is, it fails on every level unless you define success in terms of class divisions and disparity of wealth, living standards and opportunity.

Capitalism didn't survive for long after the industrial revolution

exactly. How can you declare success in terms of an entity that kills itself at the first opportunity and then tries to forever beat itself into submission after it is dead?

 

[loosecannon]

If by regulated capitalism you mean the market place then Capitalism exists.

If by regulated you mean , by a state bureaucrat then Capitalism does not exist; in that scenario fascism prevails.

.

Capitalism has never existed since corporations and banks first formed. I could list 50 ways easy, in which capitalism has been subverted in the modern economy.

But just to be brief: capitalism is incompatible with: monopolies, state subsidy, labor unions, debt based currency, nepotism, cronyism, immortal corporations, bailouts, free trade agreements, tariffs.

And global capitalism is incompatible with the very existence of nation states.

 

[loosecannon]

Capitalism is not a failed system.


.

of course it is, it fails on every level unless you define success in terms of class divisions and disparity of wealth, living standards and opportunity.

Ummmm...no. Under capitalism, there is no barrier to anyone to cross class divisions, because there are none.

Leftist societies seek to establish and rigidly maintain class divisions, and Gaea help you if you try to rise above the station in which you've been placed.

You simply have no idea what capitalism is.

BY DEFINITION, I repeat, by definition capitalism IS a system in which society is divided into two classes, those who have money and those who need money, those who have money and those who will sell their lives for money, those who have capital to barter and those who have labor to offer.

Those who own and those who rent, lease, pay tribute, are endentured.

Capitalism is a direct reformation of feudalism that is short on moral standards and long on immoral standards. Iow feudalism was a more humane, honorable and just system.

The ONLY reason why you don't consider employment for wages to be a distinct variety of slavery is because 140 years of labor movement activism has bestowed you with overtime pay, a 5 day week, safe working standards, a right to collective bargaining, an end to child labor and a large variety of humanizing protocols.

 

[JBeukema]

The etymology of the word capital has roots in the trade and ownership of animals. The Latin root of the word capital is capitalis, from the proto-Indo-European kaput, which means "head", this being how wealth was measured. The more heads of cattle, the better. The terms chattel (meaning goods, animals, or slaves) and even cattle itself also derive from this same origin.

...

The first use of the word "capitalism" in English is by novelist Thackeray in 1854, by which he meant having ownership of capital. In 1867 Proudhon used the term "capitalist" to refer to owners of capital, and Marx and Engels refer to the "capitalist form of production" ("kapitalistische Produktionsform") and in Das Kapital to "Kapitalist", "capitalist" (meaning a private owner of capital)

Capitalism - Etymology

 

[daveman]

of course it is, it fails on every level unless you define success in terms of class divisions and disparity of wealth, living standards and opportunity.

Ummmm...no. Under capitalism, there is no barrier to anyone to cross class divisions, because there are none.

Leftist societies seek to establish and rigidly maintain class divisions, and Gaea help you if you try to rise above the station in which you've been placed.

You simply have no idea what capitalism is.

BY DEFINITION, I repeat, by definition capitalism IS a system in which society is divided into two classes, those who have money and those who need money, those who have money and those who will sell their lives for money, those who have capital to barter and those who have labor to offer.

Those who own and those who rent, lease, pay tribute, are endentured.

Capitalism is a direct reformation of feudalism that is short on moral standards and long on immoral standards. Iow feudalism was a more humane, honorable and just system.

The ONLY reason why you don't consider employment for wages to be a distinct variety of slavery is because 140 years of labor movement activism has bestowed you with overtime pay, a 5 day week, safe working standards, a right to collective bargaining, an end to child labor and a large variety of humanizing protocols.

Sounds like somebody's bitter about having to work for a living.

 

[loosecannon]

Ummmm...no. Under capitalism, there is no barrier to anyone to cross class divisions, because there are none.

Leftist societies seek to establish and rigidly maintain class divisions, and Gaea help you if you try to rise above the station in which you've been placed.

You simply have no idea what capitalism is.

BY DEFINITION, I repeat, by definition capitalism IS a system in which society is divided into two classes, those who have money and those who need money, those who have money and those who will sell their lives for money, those who have capital to barter and those who have labor to offer.

Those who own and those who rent, lease, pay tribute, are endentured.

Capitalism is a direct reformation of feudalism that is short on moral standards and long on immoral standards. Iow feudalism was a more humane, honorable and just system.

The ONLY reason why you don't consider employment for wages to be a distinct variety of slavery is because 140 years of labor movement activism has bestowed you with overtime pay, a 5 day week, safe working standards, a right to collective bargaining, an end to child labor and a large variety of humanizing protocols.

Sounds like somebody's bitter about having to work for a living.

Hardly, I could work you into the ground.

I loathe the distortion of ideas to meet political agendas and I loathe the status quo.

Hey I am the very kind of innovator capitalism is made to reward, and I like that. And it has.

But capitalism and socialism are just the first things that a primitive society with technology far in advance of their organizational skills tried, in vain, to rely on as a life support regulating mechanism.

Key concepts being:

>Life support system of the species

>primitive society just beginning to organize itself and test it's options

>the obvious failure of both capitalism and socialism to date

>the mind numbing resistance to try new means when our former means are so obviously FUBAR

 

[loosecannon]

Capitalism is not a failed system.


.

of course it is, it fails on every level unless you define success in terms of class divisions and disparity of wealth, living standards and opportunity.

"disparity of wealth"? Sounds like you think everyone is entitled to an equal share of wealth.

You have a vivid and sour imagination.

Well you are entitled to what you are willing to work for and earn. Why should someone only willing to put forth the minimum amount of effort with no desire to show any ambition in life be entitled to an equal share of wealth as the person that goes to school, works hard to learn a profession and put in the work it takes to be successful? You are entitled to what you are willing to earn.

Too bad Bill Gates disagrees with you so strongly.

You see the secret to the success of MICROSOFT was that they were an anarcho-syndicalist corporation.

They believed that everybody who worked for the corp deserved to share in the bounty. So they paid their employees generous stock options and the first few hundred people who worked for the firm became millionaires.

Too bad Wall Street disagrees with you so strongly.

You see the secret to the success of Wall Street banks was that they were anarcho-syndicalist corporations.

Which is why they endow ALL of their employees with billions of dollars in annual bonuses allowing them ALL to share in the bounty of their success.

 

[daveman]

You simply have no idea what capitalism is.

BY DEFINITION, I repeat, by definition capitalism IS a system in which society is divided into two classes, those who have money and those who need money, those who have money and those who will sell their lives for money, those who have capital to barter and those who have labor to offer.

Those who own and those who rent, lease, pay tribute, are endentured.

Capitalism is a direct reformation of feudalism that is short on moral standards and long on immoral standards. Iow feudalism was a more humane, honorable and just system.

The ONLY reason why you don't consider employment for wages to be a distinct variety of slavery is because 140 years of labor movement activism has bestowed you with overtime pay, a 5 day week, safe working standards, a right to collective bargaining, an end to child labor and a large variety of humanizing protocols.

Sounds like somebody's bitter about having to work for a living.

Hardly, I could work you into the ground.

I loathe the distortion of ideas to meet political agendas and I loathe the status quo.

Hey I am the very kind of innovator capitalism is made to reward, and I like that. And it has.

But capitalism and socialism are just the first things that a primitive society with technology far in advance of their organizational skills tried, in vain, to rely on as a life support regulating mechanism.

Key concepts being:

>Life support system of the species

>primitive society just beginning to organize itself and test it's options

>the obvious failure of both capitalism and socialism to date

>the mind numbing resistance to try new means when our former means are so obviously FUBAR

Do you really know what you think?

 

[Affrayer]

How did they differ from the definitions you provided?!?!?

They are more accurate. As an example, you said "all" the mean of production when talking about socialism. Even in the old USSR and China individuals were allowed to own small plots of land where they grew a garden. Sudan practices the pinnacle of capitalism, piracy. And of course you most glaring error of them all, regulations are fascism.

I can not think of a country where the politicians are disciplined enough to control energy production and nothing else.

Venezuela? But what do you mean by use of the word "control?" Don't you mean "ownership?"

But in your scenario , only the energy industry has been nationalized or socialized.

Nope, in my "scenario" a socialist country need not own "ALL" means of production. Sweden is a socialist country yet private ownership is allowed...

Depends on what you mean by regulation.

I mean "regulation" by the use of the word "regulation." What do you mean by it?

If you are referring to our commerce clause where the federal government is ONLY ONLY supposed to ensure that merchandise flows freely from one state to another and that one state do not place tariffs on merchandise from another then it is NOT fascism.

Wow, you go from "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," to that? You must have some extra special filtered spectacles you use for reading.

HUH?

Using your definitions piracy is the highest form of unregulated capitalism.

If by regulated capitalism you mean the market place then Capitalism exists.

Since the market place exists in one form or another in all types of economies, that makes no sense.

If by regulated you mean , by a state bureaucrat then Capitalism does not exist; in that scenario fascism prevails.

Which means that you believe that piracy is the perfect expression of capitalism.

 

[Intense]

You simply have no idea what capitalism is.

BY DEFINITION, I repeat, by definition capitalism IS a system in which society is divided into two classes, those who have money and those who need money, those who have money and those who will sell their lives for money, those who have capital to barter and those who have labor to offer.

Those who own and those who rent, lease, pay tribute, are endentured.

Capitalism is a direct reformation of feudalism that is short on moral standards and long on immoral standards. Iow feudalism was a more humane, honorable and just system.

The ONLY reason why you don't consider employment for wages to be a distinct variety of slavery is because 140 years of labor movement activism has bestowed you with overtime pay, a 5 day week, safe working standards, a right to collective bargaining, an end to child labor and a large variety of humanizing protocols.

Sounds like somebody's bitter about having to work for a living.

Hardly, I could work you into the ground.

I loathe the distortion of ideas to meet political agendas and I loathe the status quo.

Hey I am the very kind of innovator capitalism is made to reward, and I like that. And it has.

But capitalism and socialism are just the first things that a primitive society with technology far in advance of their organizational skills tried, in vain, to rely on as a life support regulating mechanism.

Key concepts being:

>Life support system of the species

>primitive society just beginning to organize itself and test it's options

>the obvious failure of both capitalism and socialism to date

>the mind numbing resistance to try new means when our former means are so obviously FUBAR

It is not Capitalism and the Free Market that have failed, It's bad ideas and practices that have failed. There are Principles we should not have abandoned.

 

[Affrayer]

It is not Capitalism and the Free Market that have failed, It's bad ideas and practices that have failed. There are Principles we should not have abandoned.

Bad ideas?

Tell me something, is slavery, indentured servitude, or wage slavery bad ideas? I ask because they are all part of capitalism.

Was Enron a "bad idea" or was it capitalism at its finest?

If you look at the economy before the FED it was one of enormous boom and bust cycles. In fact I think it is safe to say that capitalism will always eventually fail if it is not properly regulated. So is capitalism a "bad idea?"

And if you think about it, Bush Jr took a robust economy and turned it into dog crap in just eight years and he was a "free market kind of guy!"

No, it isn't "bad ideas." It's the human ontology.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did the workers ever own the means of production in the Liberal Mecca, the old USSR?

 

[loosecannon]

Sounds like somebody's bitter about having to work for a living.

Hardly, I could work you into the ground.

I loathe the distortion of ideas to meet political agendas and I loathe the status quo.

Hey I am the very kind of innovator capitalism is made to reward, and I like that. And it has.

But capitalism and socialism are just the first things that a primitive society with technology far in advance of their organizational skills tried, in vain, to rely on as a life support regulating mechanism.

Key concepts being:

>Life support system of the species

>primitive society just beginning to organize itself and test it's options

>the obvious failure of both capitalism and socialism to date

>the mind numbing resistance to try new means when our former means are so obviously FUBAR

It is not Capitalism and the Free Market that have failed, It's bad ideas and practices that have failed. There are Principles we should not have abandoned.

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." John Maynard Keynes

indeed

 

[Contumacious]

How did they differ from the definitions you provided?!?!?

They are more accurate. As an example, you said "all" the mean of production when talking about socialism. Even in the old USSR and China individuals were allowed to own small plots of land where they grew a garden.

One of the characteristics of government controlled economies (fascism or socialism) is that they create black markets. So in that respect you are right in saying that the adjective "all" does not apply.

Sudan practices the pinnacle of capitalism, piracy.

Incorrect, piracy is a crime.


Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control

.

 

[loosecannon]

Did the workers ever own the means of production in the Liberal Mecca, the old USSR?

absolutely not! well actually there was the black market, and the fact that at the end of the soviet union's era the people grew 50% of their food on 2% of the arable land in their spare time.