indy500fan Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 They either sell their produce to the supermarkets and the companies who take advantage of them, or their family starves more than it currently is. You make it sound like those farmers actually have a choice in who they sell to... Under capitalism an exchange is completely voluntary by both parties. If either party doesn't want to do the exchange, they don't have to. If the farmers don't want to sell to the corporations, they wouldn't have to. If there is no one else to sell to, then they don't sell and they do something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 I blame Marx for fears of communism, but i blame ignorance for fears of socialism. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meol Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Your logic falls flat there. According to capitalism, if one person is profiting, or receiving something for cheaper (you in this case), someone else must be paying a higher price to compensate the company's loss. Is it OK by you that McDonald's sell Hot Chocolate, or Walmart sell sugar, cheaply, if it means that a farmer in the Caribbean or in Africa has his/her profits squeezed for the company to make up for that loss, and in turn, struggles to feed his/her family? Um, yes? If the farmers feel they are being treated unfairly, they don't have to sell to the companies anymore. If all the farmers did that, then the companies wouldn't have any sugar to buy, and would have to pay more or go out of business. If the sugar cane farmers didn't sell their products to companies that transformed the raw product into finished sugar, they'd starve (though they'd have a lot of sugar cane). Also, remember that if they demand higher prices, the sugar producing company might simply start buying from another country. Maybe in one without minimum wage, without social security. This signature is intentionally left blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Two problems with that argument: A) The farmers don't sell to the corporations, they don't make any money, they die of starvation. Because of the cycle of poverty, there is no oppotunity. It's not like an educated soceity where if I don't like one job, I can simply switch to another. A farmer either farms and sells to the corporations, or he and his family die. That's not a choice, and they can't just "do something else". B) The farmer tells the corporation he wants more money for his produce, the corporation always turns round and says, "Oh, OK, we'll just buy our produce from that farmer next door then. Bye!". They can't ask for a fair deal, because that would involve losing their trade. If farmers were honestly getting a fair deal from big corporate giants like McDonald's, Walmart and in Britain, Tesco, do you really think organisations like FairTrade would be needed? Argue all you want, capitalism involves the making of money by one person over the losing of money by another, mostly because it involves competition. When people starve to death, or can't afford basic needs for living, as a part of that system, just so we can live easy lives, I personally find that deeply immoral. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Most communists view capitalism as treating people as only a means to an end, essentially objectifying them. However thats not neccessarily the case, if all workers were treated as humans (AKA recognising their needs as well) then i see no problem to the way capitalism works. It's the fault of governments and buisness allowing their people to be exploited and turning them into a global proletariat. That and the fact that companys are not charities, why would they buy sugar or coffee for extravegant prices if the market is saturated. It's a little of the poors inability to do anything else, and the market for exploiting them because of that. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Argue all you want, capitalism involves the making of money by one person over the losing of money by another, mostly because it involves competition. When people starve to death, or can't afford basic needs for living, as a part of that system, just so we can live easy lives, I personally find that deeply immoral. Okay, we get it, you think capitalism has flaws (though your logic that at least one person involved in each trade has to suffer is quite risible, considering that the trading of goods and services itself is what gets people the money to survive and live healthy lives). Yet, in comparison to other economic systems, capitalism has time and time again been shown to be the best method. Honestly, what are you arguing? Do you have a better idea than capitalism, and if so can you defend it rather than attack? Or are you trying to argue that everything has to be perfect, that everyone has to live perfectly equally, with no realistic idea of how to bring about this utopia? [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tryto Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 No ones forcing the farmers to farm, are they? If they wanted to , they could farm all their own food and eat it themselves. They dont have to farm sugarcane if they dont want to. When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~Jonathan SwiftWebsite Updates/Corrections here. WE APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT! Crewbie's Missions!Contributor of the Day!Thanks to artists: Destro3979, Guthix121, Shivers21, and Unoalexi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giordano Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 The flaw in giving the producers power buy choosing their sell price, is that all the farmers will have to do so. If Farmer A rejects sell one gallon of milk for 1 dollar, the corperate company can go to Farmer B to buy. "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meol Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Argue all you want, capitalism involves the making of money by one person over the losing of money by another, mostly because it involves competition. When people starve to death, or can't afford basic needs for living, as a part of that system, just so we can live easy lives, I personally find that deeply immoral. Okay, we get it, you think capitalism has flaws (though your logic that at least one person involved in each trade has to suffer is quite risible, considering that the trading of goods and services itself is what gets people the money to survive and live healthy lives). Yet, in comparison to other economic systems, capitalism has time and time again been shown to be the best method. Honestly, what are you arguing? Do you have a better idea than capitalism, and if so can you defend it rather than attack? Or are you trying to argue that everything has to be perfect, that everyone has to live perfectly equally, with no realistic idea of how to bring about this utopia? I had seen this coming. :lol: Ginger, Indy and me turned this into a Capitalism vs. Socialism thread. However, one could argue that Socialism isn't perfect, but Capitalism isn't either. Thus revoking this argument: Socialism FTL, Capitalist and Liberal Democracy FTW. This signature is intentionally left blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real ET Posted October 13, 2007 Author Share Posted October 13, 2007 Argue all you want, capitalism involves the making of money by one person over the losing of money by another, mostly because it involves competition. When people starve to death, or can't afford basic needs for living, as a part of that system, just so we can live easy lives, I personally find that deeply immoral. Okay, we get it, you think capitalism has flaws (though your logic that at least one person involved in each trade has to suffer is quite risible, considering that the trading of goods and services itself is what gets people the money to survive and live healthy lives). Yet, in comparison to other economic systems, capitalism has time and time again been shown to be the best method. Honestly, what are you arguing? Do you have a better idea than capitalism, and if so can you defend it rather than attack? Or are you trying to argue that everything has to be perfect, that everyone has to live perfectly equally, with no realistic idea of how to bring about this utopia? I had seen this coming. :lol: Ginger, Indy and me turned this into a Capitalism vs. Socialism thread. However, one could argue that Socialism isn't perfect, but Capitalism isn't either. Thus revoking this argument: Socialism FTL, Capitalist and Liberal Democracy FTW. I saw it coming too, but hoped it wouldn't get too extreme. Can't we just agree that there is no "perfect" government (Capitalism and Socialism both have their flaws) and stay on topic? Cowards can't block Warriors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I saw it coming too, but hoped it wouldn't get too extreme. Can't we just agree that there is no "perfect" government (Capitalism and Socialism both have their flaws) and stay on topic? What fun would that be? :D Seriously though, I just don't have the will to argue this anymore. I would argue to the death on here in the glory days, but they are long gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I saw it coming too, but hoped it wouldn't get too extreme. Can't we just agree that there is no "perfect" government (Capitalism and Socialism both have their flaws) and stay on topic? What fun would that be? :D Seriously though, I just don't have the will to argue this anymore. I would argue to the death on here in the glory days, but they are long gone. Yeah same here. It's clear we have much self-belief in our views so we may as well just run around in circles... | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Seriously though, I just don't have the will to argue this anymore. I would argue to the death on here in the glory days, but they are long gone. Ah, I'm starting to lose the spark myself -_-'. Only been an OT'er a few months, but my will to debate is starting to die pretty fast >_<. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meol Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Well, it's obvious people aren't going to get convinced by a few internet blokes telling "Homosexuality is wrong" or "Socialism is the best economical system" or "Atheism is immoral". Such debates will always be held in vain, at least in these circles. But so is life, isn't it? People will always tend to be stubborn, and even the most open minded ones will argue: "yeah, I see your point, and it might be right, but... However, what would OT be without the debating, without people defending their views come hell or high water? This signature is intentionally left blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real ET Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 Well, it's obvious people aren't going to get convinced by a few internet blokes telling "Homosexuality is wrong" or "Socialism is the best economical system" or "Atheism is immoral". Such debates will always be held in vain, at least in these circles. But so is life, isn't it? People will always tend to be stubborn, and even the most open minded ones will argue: "yeah, I see your point, and it might be right, but... However, what would OT be without the debating, without people defending their views come hell or high water? Can we give you an AMEN! Debating in any form is part of my lifeblood, and though the online stuff produces the least results, it can also be the most fun and satisfying. Cowards can't block Warriors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaperClipsYaaaar Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I saw it coming too, but hoped it wouldn't get too extreme. Can't we just agree that there is no "perfect" government (Capitalism and Socialism both have their flaws) and stay on topic? Of course neither is perfect. They're arguing about which one is better. You obviously can't think that they are both equally good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real ET Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 I saw it coming too, but hoped it wouldn't get too extreme. Can't we just agree that there is no "perfect" government (Capitalism and Socialism both have their flaws) and stay on topic? Of course neither is perfect. They're arguing about which one is better. You obviously can't think that they are both equally good. Right, but you can't really compare them in that sense since their flaws and benefits are in very different areas. Cowards can't block Warriors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meol Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 So, if you were to "choose" between one of them, you'd have to see which benefits outweigh the other. (e.g. Is it better to control inflation or unemployment?) Therein lies the debate. This signature is intentionally left blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ichimaru Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Socialism has the potential for being the best. Socialism would be pretty good with some good leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender2516 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 I personally hate corperations due to the fact that they exploit many things to pinch every living penny out of a person's life while they sit on a pyramid of cash without a care in the world, other than to make their pryamid taller. On the other hand, I could not have a private business with socialism and thus would be reduced to a 8-5 hour job reguardless of wealth status as its distributed by the governement. Overall, I would go with capitalism simpley because you have a choice. People can break corperations by simpley not "buying" from them ever again. (Thus why you see so many "we honestly really do care about you!" ads all the time when they don't). Socalism IMO, can be too easily abused by the government, and I believe they have far to much power as it is. If you love me, send me a PM. 8 - Love me2 - Hate me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 It's a common misconception that capitalism somehow favours monopoly corporations like Microsoft or oiligarchs, when really, by dominating the market they're not really encouraging free enterprise and competition. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenin64 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Personally, I'm neither a Socialist nor a Communist but I'm just tired of peoples' fear of it and the inability of some to differentiate the two. Ok, I read up to about here and burst out laughing. I have not read anyone elses posts yet, though I'm sure they'll be interesting, but let me just say this: Apparantly, neither can you. Communism is not what you describe, you are describing (an I am repeating myself for the thousandth time) Stalinism. Communism is so much different it isn't even funny. In Communism, after a social revolution in which the proletariat overthrow their burgeosie leaders (upper class, basically), a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat is developed, which eventually fades away, leaving behind NO federal government whatsoever. This is, however, not anarchy; it is not chaotic, but a peaceful, "perfect" society where people hold hands and sing Kumbaya (sp?). I hope I explained that well and full enough for you to know the difference. My biggest goal is to educate everyone (here and in the real world) about the incorrect use of terminology which, as a Stalinist myself, offends me. Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Ew, stalinism. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 This is, however, not anarchy; it is not chaotic, but a peaceful, "perfect" society where people hold hands and sing Kumbaya (sp?). I hope I explained that well and full enough for you to know the difference. My biggest goal is to educate everyone (here and in the real world) about the incorrect use of terminology which, as a Stalinist myself, offends me. Yes, it is anarchy. Anarchy simply means no government. Anarchy does not necessitate chaos and disorder. Yes, if you look up the definition in a dictionary that is what it will say, but if you are talking about government ideologies anarchy does not mean chaos or disorder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenin64 Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 This is, however, not anarchy; it is not chaotic, but a peaceful, "perfect" society where people hold hands and sing Kumbaya (sp?). I hope I explained that well and full enough for you to know the difference. My biggest goal is to educate everyone (here and in the real world) about the incorrect use of terminology which, as a Stalinist myself, offends me. Yes, it is anarchy. Anarchy simply means no government. Anarchy does not necessitate chaos and disorder. Yes, if you look up the definition in a dictionary that is what it will say, but if you are talking about government ideologies anarchy does not mean chaos or disorder. I stand corrected. I've never seen the term used to mean anything but chaos. Command the Murderous Chalices! Drink ye harpooners! drink and swear, ye men that man the deathful whaleboat's bow- Death to Moby Dick!BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now