Turn on thread page Beta

Are you a socialist or a capitalist? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    Of course there are examples of hard work correlating to high income but that doesn't apply to a lot of people. Take a dustbin man for example who, with a disadvantaged background has few qualifications. He could work his socks of day after day but still earn barely enough to feed his family, he does not have the opportunity to progress. This is generally seen as unfair. He does not have the starting capital to create a business and people may not choose to employ him becuase of his lack of qualifications, he also doesn't have the money to return to education. This man has reached a dead end and will find it very difficult to improve his income/quality of life.
    Of course the problem is you take a person who starts an argument with "My Dad..." seriously.

    On a global level, you can see how "hard work" means **** all. Bus drivers in India earn something like 1/1000th of what bus drivers in Denmark do.

    It's productivity that matters. It's the output you produce for every unit of input. If you manage to produce a lot - and that's usually achieved through good organisation/management and lots of capital equipment - for every hour (or minute or second) worked, you'll earn more provided, ofc, there's demand for what you produce (another parameter which has nothing to do with how hard you work).

    So yeah, hard work is not really rewarded by anyone.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    This is correct. Most academic sociological/politics students etc are left-wing. But, considering both capitalist and socialism aren't political ideologies rather economic system, you might be interested to know most economist are capitalist. What does that say?
    That, unsurprisingly, academic and 'mainstream' economics has an inbuilt bias towards the status quo. After WW2, Keynesianism in academia was purged of any ideas that could possibly be anti-capitalist, leaving what Joan Robinson called '******* Keynesianism'. This establishment economics that results doesn't debate half the issues, it simply presupposes them.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Steve_Stifler)
    tbh the idea type of society would be a meritocracy with opportunities for people to rise up to the upper echelons of society through hard work and/or ability. Survival of the fittest in other words. The working class should have jobs but there shouldn't be the situation where the government are handing them stuff on a plate.
    Poverty can be self perpetuating. A meritocracy is a brilliant theoretical idea, but subject to human influence it falls on it's arse.
    Socialism is an important humanist idea, no one can discredit that either.
    You're expressing a very daily-mail like attitude, "handing the working class stuff on a plate". Please just stfu.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't completely identify myself with either one or the other as I have issues with both. I probably identify better with socialism though
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Moderate Capitalist. Although, the government does need to have more of an involvement to prevent poverty.

    I am a Social Liberal in my political leanings.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    Of course there are examples of hard work correlating to high income but that doesn't apply to a lot of people. Take a dustbin man for example who, with a disadvantaged background has few qualifications. He could work his socks of day after day but still earn barely enough to feed his family, he does not have the opportunity to progress. This is generally seen as unfair. He does not have the starting capital to create a business and people may not choose to employ him becuase of his lack of qualifications, he also doesn't have the money to return to education. This man has reached a dead end and will find it very difficult to improve his income/quality of life.
    I never said capitalism was perfect, of course there are imperfections. However a dustbin man did choose to go into that job, and is not being forced to remain in that line of work. I don't think you can use having few qualifications as a reason for being in so-called 'menial' jobs. My Dad, to continue the example, has neither A-Levels nor a degree and yet earns far, far in excess of the average wage. Granted, that is an extreme example, but it is proof that you don't NEED qualifications to succeed (financially) in life. Furthermore, should you wish to go into a career that requires certain qualifications there are many routes back into education for adults, which are heavily subsidised or even free for those from disadvantaged and poor backgrounds. Therefore, I wholeheartedly disagree that it is very difficult for someone in a low-paid 'dead end' job to improve their income and situation in life; they just have to have the drive to do something about it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Capitalist...(Realist)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funsongfactory)
    I never said capitalism was perfect, of course there are imperfections. However a dustbin man did choose to go into that job, and is not being forced to remain in that line of work. I don't think you can use having few qualifications as a reason for being in so-called 'menial' jobs. My Dad, to continue the example, has neither A-Levels nor a degree and yet earns far, far in excess of the average wage. Granted, that is an extreme example, but it is proof that you don't NEED qualifications to succeed (financially) in life. Furthermore, should you wish to go into a career that requires certain qualifications there are many routes back into education for adults, which are heavily subsidised or even free for those from disadvantaged and poor backgrounds. Therefore, I wholeheartedly disagree that it is very difficult for someone in a low-paid 'dead end' job to improve their income and situation in life; they just have to have the drive to do something about it.
    I agree with you somewhat. However, with reference to your father I suspect that there was a great deal of chance involved in him getting to where he is now. In fact, most people in high earning jobs (and low qualifications) will have gotten there with good luck (knowing the right people, being born into the right family etc...). I don't think quality of life should be based on chance, everybody should have an equal opportunity to succeed and this is simply impossible in a capitalist society where only those with the right attitude and the desire to fight through life can get what they want/need.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by funsongfactory)
    Income and hard work ARE positively correlated. My Dad earns more than anyone else I know, and he also works the hardest and the longest hours of anyone I know; I'm talking 18 or 19 hours per day, often with no weekends for months on end.

    Some people do better under a socialist system, but frankly people working as hard and for as long as my Dad deserve to reap more rewards than someone working in a shop for 10 hours a week.
    You are so blind.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Anarcho-communist.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    socialist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Marxist
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EffieFlowers)
    You are so blind.
    Do you actually have an argument, or are you merely planning on insulting me for my ability to back up my views?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    I agree with you somewhat. However, with reference to your father I suspect that there was a great deal of chance involved in him getting to where he is now. In fact, most people in high earning jobs (and low qualifications) will have gotten there with good luck (knowing the right people, being born into the right family etc...). I don't think quality of life should be based on chance, everybody should have an equal opportunity to succeed and this is simply impossible in a capitalist society where only those with the right attitude and the desire to fight through life can get what they want/need.
    Yes, there probably was an element of chance involved in him getting to where he is now, but it was far more down to hard work. Around the time I was born my Dad was earning £8000 a year and my parents were living almost exclusively of cornflakes and beans on toast, because that was all they could afford. He stayed in that career path, and worked his way up and worked damn hard. That's why he's where he is today.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I'm neither a capitalist nor a socialist.
    Both of them are bad.

    The capitalism is the spirit of competition in which
    the weakest people go down. It's the modern
    survival of the fittest.

    Socialism is not better than capitalism.
    It attempt to arrive a classless society
    by controlling.

    In the one hand there is an economy which
    ignore the necessities of inhabitants, but in the other
    hand there is a political system which don't accept
    the sovereignty of people in a country like in a democratic one.

    That's why I don't like both of them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    Of course there are examples of hard work correlating to high income but that doesn't apply to a lot of people. Take a dustbin man for example who, with a disadvantaged background has few qualifications. He could work his socks of day after day but still earn barely enough to feed his family, he does not have the opportunity to progress. This is generally seen as unfair. He does not have the starting capital to create a business and people may not choose to employ him becuase of his lack of qualifications, he also doesn't have the money to return to education. This man has reached a dead end and will find it very difficult to improve his income/quality of life.
    I am sorry but in this country we have free education up to 18, seemingly unlimited online resources like the Khan Academy and a lot help for students to finance university. Being poor or going to a crappy school is becoming an increasingly **** excuse as far as I am concerned for not doing well.

    And even if you fail there, there are plenty of qualifications people can get as adults.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kallisto)
    I'm neither a capitalist nor a socialist.
    Both of them are bad.

    The capitalism is the spirit of competition in which
    the weakest people go down. It's the modern
    survival of the fittest.

    Socialism is not better than capitalism.
    It attempt to arrive a classless society
    by controlling.

    In the one hand there is an economy which
    ignore the necessities of inhabitants, but in the other
    hand there is a political system which don't accept
    the sovereignty of people in a country like in a democratic one.

    That's why I don't like both of them.
    People who say that are usually somewhat capitalist.

    That style of apathy is more dangerous than potential socialism itself (the practaced kind, not the real socialisms)
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    People who say that are usually somewhat capitalist (...)
    And you are thinking I'm an one?
    Never! I refuse the basic principle of capitalism.
    It would love to an endless growth and production in all kind of
    business. That's an utopia! There are not materials available
    which increase til the endlessness. It's not possible too, that
    product forces produce til there.
    The economy of industrial countries consists of an utopia! We are living in an utopia, if we are working for that! What's the thanks? Some people in our society working for peanuts even if they working hard! part-time job is the new slavery (to call an example)!
    part-time worker have doubtful chances, because they don't know if they
    will be employed in the future.
    Even if it's not an idea of capitalism, the one is the reason!
    Social factors are irrelevant in a capitalist world.

    Why shall I accept an economy which treats me like a/n (exchangeable) gear?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HamsterMD)
    Socialist. Globalisation has widened the gap between rich-poor in the world. 1 Billion hungry in the world. Capitalism has improved the lives of people who had relatively decent lives in the first place. 5% of the world control I think 50% of the worlds wealth; that percentage is slightly misleading because in effect it's the richest 2% who really control around 50% of the wealth. There's meritocracy, and then there's exploitation.

    Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were both from wealthy backgrounds.

    Allotting people wealth based on merit sounds great, but in order to aportion wealth fairly, we'd all have to start off on a level playing field. Would the abused, raped child be on level playing field with the golden-dummy sucking rah? Extreme case but thats black and white, and then theres miles of grey.

    And Calm down, you're only a student; not chief advisor to the IMF. There are many people, a LOT smarter than you, who would disagree with you, and then there'd be a lot of smart people who'd agree with you, but for their own reasons, not for you're poncey minor first year laughable knowledge on the subject.
    haha i love this guy!. I would agree its been laughable reading some of the replies they barely know what their talking about. Oh well.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    simple question i'm sure. Are you a poverty creator or a wealth creator?

    I'm a capitalist. A real liberal not like the crap namby pamby imitations we have today who mistook liberalism for populism. IMO socialists are outright idiots and almost always peasants.
    MEGA YAWN!!!!! So now we know you're a capitalist and that someone else is a socialist, and that your opinions are firmly-based on scholar you read about in a book (no doubt without any critical appraisal of their reasoning or logic), or are based on the twentysomething years you've spent in relative affluence, sampling the financial fruits of mummy and daddy's work (and if you are a socialist, you spent somewhere between 5 mins and 2 weeks in an impoverished place, whether here or abroad and so think all westerners/white-collar professionals are corrupt and should be tried for crimes against humanity and placed in jail after being defended by Shami Chakrabati at the tax payers expense.

    In the time that you guys have been arguing needlessly and lauding the sound of your own voice in the name to fairly arbitarily defined concepts, has anything changed in the world? Are we still in massive economic debt? Do we still have a poor-wealth disparity in the Western world and third world? Employ a bit of pragmatism people, instead of indulging in some sh**ty argument, where everyone says they are right.

    Talk about something vaguely more interesting than a pointless subject designed to get people with highly polarized opinions heated up.

    Now I've gotten p*ssed off. See the effect this infectious, but pointless arguement is having. ;-D
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,133

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.