Seriously, why is this flagged? I think it's very interesting and something definitely worthy of discussion. Is this just that anything that remotely appears to dis capitalism gets the flag because 'socialism is scary'?
Untitled topic
61–70 of 92 posts
Re: undefined
#62Capitalism with a marginality of equity. I don't know if any of you know history, but pissed off peasants with nothing to live for is a recipe for disaster...every single time.
Let them play stadia.
Re: undefined
#63Re: undefined
#64Capitalism with a marginality of equity. I don't know if any of you know history, but pissed off peasants with nothing to live for is a recipe for disaster...every single time.
Let them play stadia.
Haha well I think today surely is a weird incidence because we can have bread and games right in our homes!
Re: undefined
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You mean like what the U.S. did to Central American countries during the 80s? OR Vietnam, where we overthrew a democratically elected socialist government and installed a puppet, then dropped napalm on them when the didn't like that?
[flagged]
Re: undefined
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
France, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all qualify for most American definitions of the term "Socialist".
No, they do not. All of those countries have market economies.
Even Lenin, of all people, argued in favor of a (regulated) market economy.
It's a weird of inverse no-true-scotsman argument. I haven't met many socialists who argue in favor of a fully centralized economy. The big discussion, I suppose, is how much should be regulated, and which parts of our society should be 'markets'.
Re: undefined
#67Seriously, why is this flagged? I think it's very interesting and something definitely worthy of discussion. Is this just that anything that remotely appears to dis capitalism gets the flag because 'socialism is scary'?
OP here. HN moderators are right in flagging the post. Not because of the content of the Wikipedia article, but because of the plenty of vitriolic comments it caused. Their posting policy probably has to do with such situations.
The idea was to consider the historical criticism of capitalism in a modern setting (e.g., how effective is the market in addressing economic inequality?). The discussion got out of control, though.
Re: undefined
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software dev, and many if most jobs these days, are not labourers. A labourer is someone with no special skill or trade. Stacking shelves is a labourer job: the only requirement is physical strength. Software devs are generally highly skilled professionals like perhaps lawyers.
Horse hockey. All labor requires some skill. That doesn't make it not labor.
A labourer is "a person doing unskilled manual work for wages." Obviously, software development isn't a "labourer" job, 'technically' or otherwise, and isn't labour in the standard meaning of the term, either, although it is of course work.
Re: undefined
#69In the recent months I've been thinking more and more about the capitalist system and it's flaws. In case of doubt it's about profit and not about humans (ridiculous pharma patents, boeing 737 max; there are countless examples everywhere). It seems to me that the whole world can't live peacefully side by side by design when everyone is always striving for more money, power and growth. I don't know how to fix this but…
I'm a fan of Hayek on this - I believe the market is one of the most incredible things every created by humanity, phenomenally complex and information rich, and it stands to reason that there is no way a group of people can ever hope to come close to the market's capability of communicating information about desires from people to producers. And the best practical evidence we have is that every significant attempt at…
>and it stands to reason that there is no way a group of people can ever hope to come close to the market's capability of communicating information about desires from people to producers.
So you're saying the market is separate from the components that make it up? The Market is by definition a group of people engaging in the act of producing and consuming services.
If your comment is to be taken at face value, you've just stated that the Market can't exist, because a group of people can't do that, which is to put it mildly ludicrous.
Furthermore, the market is not only well within the realm of doing by a group of people, it can in fact be regulated by the same people who through their collective activity create that thing we call the Market.
It's an outcome. Not a cause. People are the cause, and are therefore the ultimate shapers of the resulting market. A market that implicitly and enforcibly disincludes a thing is no less real and tangible a system than the unregulated idealized market boogeyman everyone assumes will just work.
It just amazes me that economic die-hards dismiss the freedom of market participants to organize and reshape the market through the utilization of organized government policy, yet accept the freedom for private individuals to do the same thing through laissez-faire and non-interference in their business affairs.
A movement in a more socialistic direction is a Market phenomena. Much as many may wish it weren't so.