I don't think the joke works both ways but OK.

yeah well I tried, HAHA.

Haha, A for effort.

Well said!

Did you get a chance to read RWE's post hev?

Yes, there is envy in the socialist system but also stability for the human. Whereas capitalism is not free of envy either, but does not provide stability for the human. Because if you look at the pyramid shape capitalism produces you are always going to have the bulk of people at the bottom that don't have it as good as the rest of us. This bulk will always create instability for the people on top of them as can be seen in America's social issues like crime and violence. Self-sacrifice is also shared by both systems.

In capitalism we are all losers because the dollar has become more important than the human. And as seen above there are many negative aspects for those "honest wonderful people" at the top because of all the people below them on the food chain.

Ah, I'm glad you mentioned that, for it allowed me to read RWE's post, and I have come to the conclusion that it presents a very false picture of socialism's morality. I will explain:

First, this is a bad comparison. Facism is quite the opposite of socialism. Under Facism, the social rights of individuals, such as freedom of religion and speech, are stripped while corporations engage in an effectively free market with regulations put in only as necessarily to benefit the state. Facism is indeed the culmination of putting the interests of the state above the interests of the individual people.

But Socialism is just the opposite. In socialism, it doesn't matter how well off the state is so long as every individual person lives a good life. Every person gets a high income, and every person has a job because every person matters. That's where its principle flaw arises: no individual people are treated worse than the next, but the state as a whole isn't considered, and it ends up falling apart.

But I must argue that the morality of socialism and communism is far more moral than the morality of capitalism. It may be true that socialism is born from envy, but when a man is envious that one person has more than he does, shouldn't it be considered whether that person actually deserves more than he does? I mean, really thinking about it, why should we allow one person to be rich and one person to be poor? Doesn't every person deserve to have a good life? Doesn't every person deserve to not have to work hard? Doesn't every person deserve to have a job he loves? Doesn't the hard-working laborer deserve as much money as the hard-working CEO?

Socialism and Communism try to give everyone as much as the next one, and that is the culmination of morality. No person will be left behind.

These things are not part of Socialism. They are the result of corrupt and desperate governments doing stupid things. They have nothing to do with Socialism.

This is the statement that really drove me to write this response. This is the American ideal; the fantasy that gets people to love capitalism and to ignore its shortcomings. But this fantasy is nothing more than a fantasy. Let us consider these values:

The truth is that the honest people usually end up at the bottom. Some industrious people make it big, and some don't, and some non-industrious people are born into wealth. Some thoughtful people end up on top, others end up failing at changing their ideas into a successful business and going bankrupt. It's true that those who make it to the top must be prudent, frugal, responsible, disciplined, and efficient, but a whole lot of people at the bottom hold those traits. You see, if people at the bottom hold this set of traits, then it can't be this set of traits which elevates people to the top.

Let me propose some of the real traits that bring people to the top in Capitalism. First and foremost is greed. In order to rise in capitalism you've got to love money; you've got to want loads of it all for yourself. If you don't have that, then it doesn't matter how responsible or prudent you are, you just aren't going to have the motivation to work for that money. Next is starting wealth. Not everyone who rises to the top began wealthy, but the vast majority of people who are wealthy today were wealthy when they were born, and the vast majority of people who are poor today were poor when they were born. It is very difficult for someone with little money to start a business. Perhaps another common trait is the willingness to put your success above morality. Does every person face the decision that will cost them either their success or their morality? Perhaps not, but many do, and those who choose success are those who succeed.

And what are these values that RWE listed? Are they the values of good people? When did a good person become a person who worked the hardest or made the most money? That's a capitalist idea. What happened to a good person being the person who helps someone else even though it brings himself suffering or costs his own success? What happened to a good person being someone who is kind and generous? In capitalism, those are the people who get nowhere. Capitalism breeds immorality, the love of money and oneself over the love of others.

Untrue. Capitalism is one of the few systems that actually punishes morality. Morality is not making a lot of money for yourself; that is greed. Morality is helping other people instead of yourself. And that holds true no matter your profession.

This isn't true at all. Every system has incentives to shirk responsibility. People don't want to do work. Why would they? Work sucks. Socialism and Communism don't create that incentive, the nature of work creates that incentive. What you really mean to say is that Capitalism is the only system that creates incentive to do work whether you like it or not. And that is why Capitalism is successful.

Under Capitalism, you either work hard or you are poor, so you have to work hard. But do not make the mistake of believing that the most moral people, nor even the hardest workers are rewarded in capitalism. It is very often that people inherit wealth, having done no work for it, and it is even more often that the hardest worker goes bankrupt or just fails to climb the ranks in a company. Those who have wealth in Capitalism are rarely those who are moral.

But despite those flaws, Capitalism is still one of the best systems because it creates the best economy, and that benefits everyone. It is debatable whether an increased economy is worth the increased stress of the working class people, but I think I lean toward yes, toward saying that Capitalism is the most effective system anyone has come up with.

But the most important thing to remember is that Capitalism has its flaws; it isn't perfect, and we need to understand that. So let's not just forget its flaws and let's not write off Capitalism as the best choice in every situation. If we could create a more moral system as a whole while still maintaining the incentives of capitalism, that would be far more optimal. For example, if there were a way to allow everyone to receive equal wages while still creating incentives to work and produce, then that system would be better than capitalism, for capitalism benefits those who do not deserve more than the next man. But whether such a system can be created remains to be seen.

Ah, then hopefully you will read my response.

Actually, this was quite a good comparison of the two systems, and rather quite accurate. Both systems seek the same goal, the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, based on a system of "progressive" taxes. Fascism arose in the minds of scholars to replace socialism due to its inherrent flaw of class warfare. Fascism sought to eliminate the warfare between the classes and have harmony where everyone was equal.

But what is moral? The only thing for me that comes to mind is that which is rationale. In order for humans to survive they must the weapon in which they were created with. Unlike the jaguar we do not have speed and claws. Nor like the lion we do not have the claws and massive jaws. No our weapon is our mind and our ability to use it. Our basic instinct is that of life and survival. That which benefits our life and survival is that which is good and moral. That which hurts or hampers or life and survial is evil and immoral.

No it should not. If one achieves who is to determine whether he deserves it more. For instance, I am single and I work with a co-worker who is married. One could argue that because my co-worker is married he deserves more time off so he can spend it with his wife. Since we both work 40 hours per week, would it not be fair to make me the single man work 50 hours and the married man work only 30. Since he deserves to spend more time with his family that would be only fair. And since he is married and has someone else to care for, couldn't it also be said that he deserves to make at least as much money as me the single man for working less time??? Or for that matter, shouldn't he make more? Why should I the single man work harder for another man's wife??? What benefit do I gain? I do not go home and have a meal cooked by her for me, I do not go home and have sex with her. So why should I work for her??

Simply because we are not all equal. Not matter how much people would like to differ on this belief the simple fact is that when I enter a room there will always be someone who is taller or shorter than me, someone who is smarter or dumber than me, someone who is stronger or weaker than me or someone who is prettier or uglier than me. The only equality that I enjoy with these people is that which is provided for under the law, and the fact that in God's eyes we are all equal.

Once again no. All one deserves is to be treated with respect and equal to his fellow man based on his performance.

Once again the answer is no. One should work as hard as one must to accomplish that in life which he/she wants. Again we are not all equal some of us must work harder than others to achieve, but those of us who achieve should not be punished because others do not.

No one deserves anything that he/she cannot earn. Desire or deserving has nothing to do with ability. I love the game of football, however, I couldn't catch a pass from a quarterback to save my life. Since I love this sport don't I deserve a spot on a team as a wide receiver. No, I don't and we all know it.

No, despite the philosophy of Karl Marx it is not labor that brings value to a product but rather the demand of the consumer that does. It is the CEO who charts the course for a company, detailing what products to produce, where to produce them, and how to get them to market. Often times it is the CEOs idea the laborer work produces. The product which makes the consumer's life easier or better is not the result of the work of the laborer, but rather the result of the work of the mind of the CEO. The laborer only builds, he/she does not create or develop.

Conflict and struggle have everything to do with socialism. Socialism is based on the ideal that history is about revolutions and struggles. Karl Marx belief was the worker would rise up and revolt against the owners. It was not corrupt government that led to a corrupt system but rather the flawed belief in the first place.

How jaded your view of capitalism is. Capitalism is about greed, but rather profit. There is a difference between the two. You talk about the love of money so lets start here. What is money???? Money is a measure that we use to pay one for their products or their services. Money is only an tool that we use to reward those who use their mind to produce or serve us the consumer with the products what we want or desire. Why shouldn't we love money, it represents man's use of his only weapon, his mind.

One does not need much money to start a successful venture, i.e Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. One needs an idea that one believes in, and one that he/she can convince others to believe in as well. Many of the most successful businessmen started with little more than an idea and the desire to see it through.

Here again is another jaded view. The market is not a zxero-sum game. Someone does not have to fail for someone else to succeed. Success is not gained over one's morality. Adam Smith was right, there is an "invisible hand" that benefits all mankind thanks to the ideas and productions of the men of mind. Are we not better off in life thanks to Edison, Ford, Carnegie, Rockefellar, Gates, and many others, who scarificed their own fortunes and reputations to bring to market the many different prodcuts that they devised. If basing morality is dependent upon who has served his fellow man better then hands down these men fall into that category far more than the likes of Marx or Lenin.


No man should live his life for the benefit of others unless it is done so through free choice. There is nothing noble about sacrificing one's self for the benefit of others unless it is done so through free will. When I was a soldier I placed my life on the line for the benefit of this country and my fellow soldiers not out of morality but rather out of choice. I knew the costs and I was willing to pay the price. But no man should be forced to pay a cost that he does not want to pay.

A good person is still someone who is kind and generous. But is it moral for one to make sure that other men in society eat before he does, or have shelter before he does??? There is nothing wrong with help one's fellow man, but one should not help them at the expense of one's self.


"From each according to his ability to each according to his needs." That is the basic premise of socialism. The Pilgrims experimented with socialism when they came to this country and they found that the young and able were unwilling to work hard for everyone in the community. Why should they if they are not going to be rewarded for their work. In socialism there is not reward for merit but only for need. Once again my argument from earlier still applies, that which is moral is that which benefits. Capitalism is successful because it does reward those who work hard. It is successful because it benefits the men of mind.

Our system of capitalism is flawed because it is not a truly free market system. Government regulations and intervention prohibit the markets from truly being free. The beauty of the free market system is that it rewards those who create and at the same time listen to the consumer. Walmart is successful because it can offer the products to a consumer at a lower cost thanks to its size. Does Walmart place at risk the small family owned stores? Yes it does, however, if people truly cared about them, they would shop there and pay more rather than shop at Walmart, but they don't do they.

Capitalism is not about greed but rather about profit. Those who are successful are those who put the best product on the market at the lowest cost to the consumer. Captialism's beauty is that it is a mutually beneficial system to all who voluntarily use it. Capitalism does not work off of compulsion, but rather off of voluntary choice. What can be more moral than that????

dmk

Ah, there is a lot to respond to, so let me respond to the pieces I think to be the most important to the discussion.

Although our method of survival must be our mind, I don't see what that has to do with morality. Although the mind might be used to engage in moral actions, it might as soon be used to destroy or harm others. And helping yourself at the expense of others is widely considered absolute immorality, while the person who helps others is widely considered moral.

Further, this statement appears to assume that the mind is used to some greater extent in capitalism, though I do not see why this would be the case. Perhaps it could be said that the mind is used to benefit oneself more in capitalism, but that is not necessarily moral.

Well, I don't know about this example. I'm not certain who would say that a married person should be granted more money than a single person. I don't think any socialist or communist would say that either. What socialism might say, however, is that if you work 40 hours and someone else works 40 hours, you both get paid the same amount of money for that 40 hours.

Perhaps a better point is the question about if one achieves, who is to say he doesn't deserve it? Understand though, that achievement in capitalism is getting the most for yourself. So the question is sort of, "If one person grabs up the most for himself, who is to say he doesn't deserve it?" Well, I say that he doesn't deserve it. If a bunch of money falls from the sky, is the person who deserves most of that money the fastest and tallest person who is more capable of grabbing it? Or does the fact that someone is fast and tall really make no indication about how much money he deserves.

Just because we have created an economic system in which certain people are able to make themselves lots of money, doesn't mean that we've created a system where the people who are able to make that money actually deserve it. And I think in capitalism, we can say that those people don't deserve it. They aren't the most moral and selfless people, that is certain. They may be hard workers, but there are also people who work harder or just as hard and achieve nothing. And often it may not even be hard workers who get the most in capitalism. Sometimes capitalism even benefits people just for their appearances or natural athletic ability. Are these the people who deserve the most?

But is our law as equal as it could be? I think it certainly is not. It would be far more equal if we did not engage in capitalism but instead engaged in socialism. Of course freedom is traded for that equality, and in this situation, we must determine which system is best for everyone.

Now it may be true that some people are ugly and some people are dumb, but are you content to say, "hey, some people have a crappy life, but I don't care?" Wouldn't you want to do something about it, to try to make their lives better? I am not content to say, "Well, our current system treats some people better than others, but hey, people are born with better traits than others, so who cares if our economic system does the same thing?" No, if there is a better system out there, we should change to that system.

If Socialism or Communism worked, the vast majority of people would enjoy a better life, a life with more money and better access to goods and services. Why wouldn't you want that? Why wouldn't you want an economic system that makes everyone equal?

I disagree. The weak, dumb, and helpless deserve just as much as the next person. If anything, it is not performance which matters, it is kindness, desire to help others above oneself, and humility which matter.

This is an idea burned into you by capitalism. You imply that a person's value is determined by how well he succeeds in capitalism. The more able you are to use capitalism to your advantage, the better you are as a person. Capitalism = morality. But I don't think that's a good way to judge someone's worth at all.

I think you may be under the innaccurate assumption that with enough work, anyone can achieve as much as someone else or that hard work necessarily makes you better off in capitalism. Those things are not true.

However, this leads to a more important question: why should one have to work?

Why don't you deserve it? Again, you are suggesting that we each deserve only what our skill allows us in the capitalistic system. You are saying that if you can't get it in capitalism, you don't deserve it at all. I don't think that makes sense.

I think that every person who wants to be a professional football player deserves to be one. This doesn't change that reality of the situation: that it is impossible for everyone to achieve that goal under any system that actually works. But it doesn't change the fact that people deserve those things, that we should try to make the lives of others better.

Yet does this mean that the laborer could not succeed as a creator or developer? Does this mean that the CEO puts in more work or effort than a creator or a developer? I suggest that the answer to both is no. It is usually just the case that the laborer has never had the chance to become a CEO, and it may be that they work harder and put in more hours than a CEO.

And is it even the case that the CEO puts out more creativity and ideas than the laborer? Even that statement is often false. Take my job, for example. I am a computer programmer. The order comes down from the CEO, some general order which anyone could come up with: make me a program that processes recalls. So the developers get to work. We analyze the market, determine the necessary functions of the system, design an easy-to-use interface, create an architecture for the application, set up the object model, and even come up with creative ways to make every line of code run faster.

So do you suggest that the development team at my work couldn't cut it as CEO's? Do you suggest that someone this CEO is a more moral and deserving person than the rest of us? Do you suggest that he has some natural skill that indicates that he deserves to live in wealth and luxury while the rest of us deserve only to scrape by with each paycheck? I disagree with each of those statements.

Karl Marx's belief about how Communism would start makes no indication that Communism is actually based on conflict or struggle. Have you forgotten that our own system was started through a revolutionary war? Simply because Marx predicted that a revolution would spur Communism doesn't mean conflict and struggle have anything to do with the actual workings of the system.

Again, it is not the person who uses his mind the most or the best who makes the most money in capitalism. Furthermore, that person shouldn't make more money than the next person anyway.

Now, I didn't mean to say that greed is a bad thing. I meant to say that it is a value of capitalism, and it is not a trait of morality. The reason it isn't moral is because it means we are doing good things only for our own benefit. If we provide a good or service, we are doing it only to benefit ourselves. So the person who makes the most money is very likely the person who wants to benefit himself the most.

I don't mean that one person making himself happy is immoral. It is just not a sign of moral. It isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't mean the person doing it is necessarily kind or caring at all. So it isn't the moral people who are succeeding, it is the greediest people, the people who want to make the most money for themselves.

As I said, not everyone who rises to the top began wealthy, but the vast majority of people who are wealthy today were wealthy when they were born.

It's true that Bill Gates succeeded based on his idea, for example. But Bill Gates's success was based on luck as much as his idea. First, let me point that Gates wasn't exactly middle class. He went to Harvard. He could afford to fund starting up a business despite having no real source of income. And he was educated against making mistakes. And yes, he had the skills to convince people.

And like I said, he was lucky. Most people's businesses fail. A lot of people who put a lot of work and a lot of money into their ideas just don't make it. And that's capitalism.

First, I did not say that someone else has to fail in order for another to succeed, only that it does sometimes happen that way, and when it does, it is not the moral choice that results in success in capitalism.

Further, Ford, Carnegie, Rockefellar, and Gates didn't sacrifice their fortuntes providing these services, they made their fortunes doing it. And whether we would have been better off without them is a matter of opinion; they weren't the only ones providing these services, they simply crushed the competition through better advertising or whatever other method they used to convince people to use their services. There are many people, for example, who think we would be better off today if Apple has remained the champion of computers. And do we truly think that no one could have designed an operating system better than Bill Gates, or do we simply think that he was the person with the most opportunity to do it?

And beyond that, why don't you single out the individual laborers under Ford, Carnegie, Rockefellar, and Gates and point out their contributions? Do you think it was Bill Gates or his development team and testing teams who did most of the work and thinking that made Windows great? What about the other products Microsoft has offered? What about in most companies? Why is it that the man with the idea and the funds to make that idea a reality is the one who gets the most, and the people who do the real work and thinking behind that idea get very little? Is that really the way it should be?

Remember that Socialism and Communism don't say people like Gates, Carnegie, and other entrepreuners shouldn't exist. Those systems say that everyone who does the work for those companies should be making the same amount of money as the guy on top. Why should they be making less?

I agree. I didn't say that anyone should be forced to live morally. I didn't even say that we should design an economic system that favors moral people over immoral people. I said that it would be better if everyone was equal in our economic system; there would be no pressure for them to live their lives to benefit others.

I did say, however, that it is not the moral people who are benefitted in capitalism, that it is instead whatever random people are able to best operate under our laws, and that usually includes greedy people with money to spend.

I think most people's morality suggests that someone who gives his own life to save another's is a good person. But regardless of whether a man should help others before he has given himself the same, this does not change the fact that capitalism does not benefit the people who help others.

This is pretty much true. Though the actuality of the situation is that it doesn't matter how hard you work, it matters how much you produce and how much money you can make from it. Some people work hard and get nothing, while others work hard and are successful because of what they produce. Capitalism is successful because a lot of stuff is produced, and it's stuff that people want.

In socialism, there is less desire to produce because producing more doesn't bring more money and more success. You could produce almost nothing and still get the same amount of money.

But what if that weren't true? What if there was a way to design a system where there is incentive to produce in socialism? What if there were a way to make our current system more equal while keeping that desire to produce? Wouldn't that be a good system? And if that desire to produce were as strong as the desire in capitalism, wouldn't it be even better than capitalism?

Simply because no one has thought of or attempted to run an economic system like that, an economic system that combines the good ideas from capitalism and the good ideas from communism, doesn't mean that such an economic system could not exist.

You say that our system is flawed because it is not truly a free market, then you describe a situation in which the free market makes a bunch of hard-working people bankrupt? I'm not sure I see the connection here.

Our system is not truly a free market because a truly free market has a lot of problems. In a free market, businesses can hide what they put in their food, making people sick over time. So we put in health regulations. In a free market, businesses can pollute cities, destroying the health of everyone, so we put in a regulation to stop that. In a truly free market, there wouldn't even be civil rights laws, and people who aren't successful businessmen could be treated as poorly as a business wants, and they'd have to accept it because they need the money. So we create worker's rights.

Now perhaps not every regulation we've created is a good one; there are lots of politicians who don't know a good idea from a bad one. But I think you'd do well to understand that no system is perfect, and a free market is far from it. It has problems which need to be addressed.

Capitalism is not specifically about greed, it is just that the greedy succeed. The people who want profit the most are the people who will succeed in a system that is designed around making profit. Greedy people aren't necessarily bad people. But they aren't necessarily good people, either. So the people who succeed in capitalism don't really deserve to have more than the next person.

Capitalism does work off choice in that people choose what products to buy and in doing so, they choose which businesses are successful. I have no problems with that part. But the way capitalism works, a few people have a whole lot of wealth, while other, equally deserving people, don't have enough. And that's where the problem comes in.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I hate everything about capitalism. I think it's the best system that anyone has actually tried. But it is important for us to recognize that it still has big problems, just like any other system, and solutions to those problems should be considered.

Just because socialism would provide more for those who have less and make things more equal doesn't mean that it is a more moral system. The forced charity through socialist taxes isn't charity at all. It is better to have cheerful givers and freedom than to have the government dictate who gets what.