• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

The Industrial revolution was built on the ideals of capitalism and the beginning of it.

Child labor or sweat shops were because the previous systems were so bad that these alternatives were better than what was there.

The Industrial Revolution was a part of human progress that became inevitable due to the progress made during slavery and monarchy.

It just so happened that a primitive system like capitalism was dominant when this turning point in human history occurred.

And because, by sheer chance, capitalism was dominant we see the insane brutality of Colonialism and child labor and slave labor of all kinds even after slavery was abolished in law.

Capitalism when it begins is just slavery where the master does not have to care about or care for the slave. It was more efficient slavery.

It was made tolerable in the US because of the blood spilled by unions, by socialists.

Capitalism still exists simply because of the power it attained by being dominant during the Industrial and then Technological Revolutions.

Pure chance.

Not because the system is even good.

No, you are confusing the cause and effect here, it's the opposite. It worked because it was the beginnings of capitalism that allowed it to succeed and we have all benefited greatly from it. Once people became productive enough, shorter hours and less child labor became possible.
 
The alternative was to have a society where children were taken care of and did not need to sell their labor to survive.

The alternative was a decent society built around common goods. Like protecting children from capitalist vultures.
 
The Industrial revolution was built on the ideals of capitalism and the beginning of it.

Child labor or sweat shops were because the previous systems were so bad that these alternatives were better than what was there.

The Industrial Revolution was a part of human progress that became inevitable due to the progress made during slavery and monarchy.

It just so happened that a primitive system like capitalism was dominant when this turning point in human history occurred.

And because, by sheer chance, capitalism was dominant we see the insane brutality of Colonialism and child labor and slave labor of all kinds even after slavery was abolished in law.

Capitalism when it begins is just slavery where the master does not have to care about or care for the slave. It was more efficient slavery.

It was made tolerable in the US because of the blood spilled by unions, by socialists.

Capitalism still exists simply because of the power it attained by being dominant during the Industrial and then Technological Revolutions.

Pure chance.

Not because the system is even good.

No, you are confusing the cause and effect here, it's the opposite. It worked because it was the beginnings of capitalism that allowed it to succeed and we have all benefited greatly from it. Once people became productive enough, shorter hours and less child labor became possible.

You are deluded.

It was a turning point in knowledge that had accumulated during monarchy and slavery.

When it occurs the US is still a slave nation. Surviving on the spoils of slavery.

But it allows people to move away from slavery.

That is the only reason slavery dies out.

Because capitalism was a more efficient form of slavery.

You still had the willing slave. Had too many of them.

And they cost you less in overhead.

As soon as this was understood slavery was over.
 
The alternative was to have a society where children were taken care of and did not need to sell their labor to survive.

The alternative was a decent society built around common goods. Like protecting children from capitalist vultures.

Kids didn't start working in the coal mines or the loom shops because they got bored with their life living in mansions and getting too good at their golf game.
 
The "collective" is meant to stand for "worker-owned" companies with no "outside" owners. There are some employee owned ESOP type of companies in the US. But the average socialist would not consider Apple to be a socialist company!

But that means Jason's definition is wrong, not bilby's which was bilby's point. Btw, I think family-owned businesses where the workers are the owners and the owners are the workers, like some small farms and some small mom and pop shops are socialist according to your definition.

It simply doesn't compare, except maybe in the case of employee owned companies. Maybe not even then, since in the old forum I started a thread asking if employee owned companies are an example of Socialism and was told that they aren't.

Evidence or it didn't happen. They are an example of socialism at a micro-economic level.

Jason Harvestdancer said:
Owning stock does mean you own a portion of the company, in direct proportion to the amount of stock owned. Only the stockholders own the company, not the general public as in the case of textbook Socialism. It is pooled ownership, not collective ownership, and some pool members own more of the company than other pool members.

Collective ownership does indeed mean more than 1 person and so does pooled ownership.

Google "collective" said:
col·lec·tive
kəˈlektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
done by people acting as a group.
"a collective protest"
noun
noun: collective; plural noun: collectives
1.
a cooperative enterprise.

A corporation can be collectively owned. It's a fact. You don't have to resort to the word "pooled" because you do not like what you wrote.
 
The Industrial revolution was built on the ideals of capitalism and the beginning of it.

Child labor or sweat shops were because the previous systems were so bad that these alternatives were better than what was there.

You are wrong again, Colorado Atheist. The industrial revolution had child laborers picking clinkers out of feed to steel mills and working inhuman shifts in slaughterhouses. Capitalism has NO IDEALS..UNLESS LUST FOR MONEY AND POWER ARE IDEALS.:picardfacepalm:

Huh? Child labor existed because that alternative to it was worse than the labor they had to do.

What the fuck are you talking about? You do not have sufficient command of the facts to make statements like that. You really are one crass character. Are you of the opinion it is ever okay to abuse children? Looks like you are if you can't find another way to do things. I am sorry you are like that. I am not and most primative people do not abuse their children. The next thing you will be saying was that you were thankful for the slavery era in the South.
 
Huh? Child labor existed because that alternative to it was worse than the labor they had to do.

What the fuck are you talking about? You do not have sufficient command of the facts to make statements like that. You really are one crass character. Are you of the opinion it is ever okay to abuse children? Looks like you are if you can't find another way to do things. I am sorry you are like that. I am not and most primative people do not abuse their children. The next thing you will be saying was that you were thankful for the slavery era in the South.

So the reason your mind that the kids went off to work in these horrible conditions was because they were bored with the country club lifestyle?
 
So the reason your mind that the kids went off to work in these horrible conditions was because they were bored with the country club lifestyle?

What point are you trying to make? That the children needed to work for the family to survive? And this is okay with you? Regulation, including, fair wages, restriction of child labor, and unions pushing rights helped to solve this problem, not capitalism. Capitalism allowed the problem of profit motive to fester and produce this issue. Anti-capitalist sentiment and seeking a more compassionate, humane work fixed the problems. You can call that socialism if you want to, I don't mind. But still I fail to see how you can run from this with ambiguous responses.

https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-welfarechild-labor/child-labor/

Abusive Child Labor: What is to be prevented is child labor in its most extreme form: Children being enslaved, separated from their families, exposed to serious hazards and illnesses and/or left to fend for themselves. Forms of extreme child labor existed throughout American history until the 1930s. In particular, child labor was rife during the American Industrial Revolution (1820-1870). Industrialization attracted workers and their families from farms and rural areas into urban areas and factory work. In factories and mines, children were often preferred as employees, because owners viewed them as more manageable, cheaper, and less likely to strike.

Historical documents revealed American children worked in large numbers in mines, glass factories, textiles, agriculture, canneries, home industries, and as newsboys, messengers, bootblacks, and peddlers. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, many labor unions and social reformers advocated aggressively for state and local legislation to prevent extreme child labor. By 1900, their efforts had resulted in state and local legislation designed to prevent extreme child labor; however, the condition in states varied considerably on whether they had child labor standards, their content and the degree of enforcement.

The lucky ones swept the trash and filth from city streets or stood for hours on street corners hawking newspapers. The less fortunate coughed constantly through 10-hour shifts in dark, damp coal mines or sweated to the point of dehydration while tending fiery glass-factory furnaces – all to stoke the profit margins of industrialists whose own children sat comfortably at school desks gleaning moral principles from their McGuffey Readers.
 
So the reason your mind that the kids went off to work in these horrible conditions was because they were bored with the country club lifestyle?

What point are you trying to make? That the children needed to work for the family to survive? And this is okay with you? Regulation, including, fair wages, restriction of child labor, and unions pushing rights helped to solve this problem, not capitalism. Capitalism allowed the problem of profit motive to fester and produce this issue. Anti-capitalist sentiment and seeking a more compassionate, humane work fixed the problems. You can call that socialism if you want to, I don't mind. But still I fail to see how you can run from this with ambiguous responses.

https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-welfarechild-labor/child-labor/

Abusive Child Labor: What is to be prevented is child labor in its most extreme form: Children being enslaved, separated from their families, exposed to serious hazards and illnesses and/or left to fend for themselves. Forms of extreme child labor existed throughout American history until the 1930s. In particular, child labor was rife during the American Industrial Revolution (1820-1870). Industrialization attracted workers and their families from farms and rural areas into urban areas and factory work. In factories and mines, children were often preferred as employees, because owners viewed them as more manageable, cheaper, and less likely to strike.

Historical documents revealed American children worked in large numbers in mines, glass factories, textiles, agriculture, canneries, home industries, and as newsboys, messengers, bootblacks, and peddlers. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, many labor unions and social reformers advocated aggressively for state and local legislation to prevent extreme child labor. By 1900, their efforts had resulted in state and local legislation designed to prevent extreme child labor; however, the condition in states varied considerably on whether they had child labor standards, their content and the degree of enforcement.

The lucky ones swept the trash and filth from city streets or stood for hours on street corners hawking newspapers. The less fortunate coughed constantly through 10-hour shifts in dark, damp coal mines or sweated to the point of dehydration while tending fiery glass-factory furnaces – all to stoke the profit margins of industrialists whose own children sat comfortably at school desks gleaning moral principles from their McGuffey Readers.

Capitalism is what allowed society to progress far enough to allow it. And the adults will have to stay thBut we at productive or in countries where they have issues will have to get there. But we aren't going to go back there the same way we won't go back to using chamber pots.
 
What point are you trying to make? That the children needed to work for the family to survive? And this is okay with you? Regulation, including, fair wages, restriction of child labor, and unions pushing rights helped to solve this problem, not capitalism. Capitalism allowed the problem of profit motive to fester and produce this issue. Anti-capitalist sentiment and seeking a more compassionate, humane work fixed the problems. You can call that socialism if you want to, I don't mind. But still I fail to see how you can run from this with ambiguous responses.

https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/child-welfarechild-labor/child-labor/
Capitalism is what allowed society to progress far enough to allow it.
Yes, capitalism helped give us railroads, electric power, steel industry. It also gave us blazing rivers, workers getting blown up in railroad tunnel construction, monopolies, and bank panics.
 
Given that 7 billion humans are living to the highest average life expectancy ever before achieved in human history, with the highest achieved by the wealthy capitalist countries, I'd say the current environment is the healthiest and fittest environment for humans that has ever been achieved.

Humans have progressed in all systems.

Humans would have progressed when they entered the Industrial Revolution no matter what.

Progress was inevitable.

But Colonialism and child labor in slave shops was not.

The Industrial revolution was built on the ideals of capitalism and the beginning of it.

Child labor or sweat shops were because the previous systems were so bad that these alternatives were better than what was there.

No, the alternatives were removed i.e. closure of the commons.
 
The capitalist sees the other as something to potentially profit off.

While the other does not wish to be the tool of some capitalist.

Thus the constant struggle to tame the unwilling slaves by the capitalists wanting to profit off them.
 
The capitalist sees the other as something to potentially profit off.

While the other does not wish to be the tool of some capitalist.

Thus the constant struggle to tame the unwilling slaves by the capitalists wanting to profit off them.


Yeah that pesky thing that humans want food, housing, clothing and entertainment. If you want to get rid of capitalism, create the energy matter converter from StarTrek.
 
Wow. Talk about missing the point.

The problem in these posts is that people won't agree on accepted definitions. Most accepted definitions agree that socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Billy believes that the best definition is a collective group of investors owning a company is socialism.

I don't 'believe' anything.

I am merely pointing out that your (and Jason's) definition accurately describes, and therefore includes, corporations owned by shareholders.

If the definition you are using is wrong or incomplete, then that's not my belief - it's your mistake.
 
The "collective" is meant to stand for "worker-owned" companies with no "outside" owners. There are some employee owned ESOP type of companies in the US. But the average socialist would not consider Apple to be a socialist company!

But that means Jason's definition is wrong, not bilby's which was bilby's point. Btw, I think family-owned businesses where the workers are the owners and the owners are the workers, like some small farms and some small mom and pop shops are socialist according to your definition.

Exactly.

If you use an inadequate, incomplete, or overly broad 'definition', then it is not your audience who are at fault when you are not making yourself understood.

If shareholder owned corporations are not socialism, then can we please have a definition of socialism that excludes these entities?
 
Given that 7 billion humans are living to the highest average life expectancy ever before achieved in human history, with the highest achieved by the wealthy capitalist countries, I'd say the current environment is the healthiest and fittest environment for humans that has ever been achieved.

Axulus: Have you been paying attention to the news? American life expectancy is decreasing. More than 2 billion people are food insecure. The entire middle east is war torn. There are refugees everywhere. Capitalism is NOT A SYSTEM. Instead, it is a license for exploitation of the unfinancialized parts of the planet. There is starvation in Yemen because the U.S. is cooperating with the Saudis to bomb the country into submission. Capitalism has a lot of bad things about it. One that is rather clear is that it serves warmongers very well.

You need to pay less attention to the news, and more attention to history.

Everything is awful right now. But nowhere CLOSE to as awful as it has been up until now.

Pick any date more than twenty years in the past, when fewer people were hungry than today; or when there was less death from war and conflict. You can't do it.

The news has always been a litany of misery and despair. Today's news is global - there's not enough local despair any more, so you are having to import it from foreigners.

Misery is one resource that is severely depleted. If you own shares in any news media, you should be concerned. If, on the other hand, you want humans to be happy and safe, you should be delighted.
 
Wow. Talk about missing the point.

The problem in these posts is that people won't agree on accepted definitions. Most accepted definitions agree that socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Billy believes that the best definition is a collective group of investors owning a company is socialism.

I don't 'believe' anything.

I am merely pointing out that your (and Jason's) definition accurately describes, and therefore includes, corporations owned by shareholders.

If the definition you are using is wrong or incomplete, then that's not my belief - it's your mistake.

No, it really doesn't. Collective ownership in the socialist sense has everyone an equal owner. Pooled share ownership is not collective ownership.
 
I don't 'believe' anything.

I am merely pointing out that your (and Jason's) definition accurately describes, and therefore includes, corporations owned by shareholders.

If the definition you are using is wrong or incomplete, then that's not my belief - it's your mistake.

No, it really doesn't. Collective ownership in the socialist sense has everyone an equal owner. Pooled share ownership is not collective ownership.

Then you need to include that in your definition.

'Collective' means 'of many people'. It doesn't imply homogeneity nor universality.

If your definition relies upon implied information, then it's not really a definition at all - it's just a hint. And you can't blame others if they don't get your hints. When you provide a definition, it's up to you to make it accurate and complete to avoid confusion. That's not something you can leave to your audience to do for you, if you want to be understood.
 
Socialism takes care of people, like Venezuela? China made great progress raisng standards of living, yet is a centralized authorterian system with nothing like our rights and freedoms.

The culture is more important than the system. Our Congress has completely failed, yet we have a lot of freedoms.

Do you want a cradle to grave risk free system? The communist experiments resulted in stagnation.
 
Back
Top Bottom