What's to the right of fascist?

[krazedkat]

Socialism is a good system, better than capitalism!

No...just no.

A) how so?
B) What makes capitalism such a great system? Trampling on the poor :|

[lrh9]

Capitalism isn't all sunshine and roses. I agree with people being able to buy the items they want to buy, but I don't agree with millions of cheap plastic flashlights being produced simply so somebody can have the choice to buy a pink one instead of a black one. I'd rather not have to clean that shit up from the land of my country.

Capitalism also lacks the conservation power of reliable forecasting. In capitalism a supplier modifies his or her stock retroactively based on previous demand. No matter how you cut it, you're going to be overstocked or understocked by a significant margin for at least one time, and you'll always be a little off. Being understocked is bad when you are supplying essentials. Being overstocked is bad because it means you are overproducing. If you don't restrict your production you are going to cause shortages and environmental problems.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yahweh=Maximum fascism.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

The other night, I was listening to BBC radio and heard the "tea party" movement described as a "conservative movement", a polite description, considering just how right wing they are. At first, I thought how "fascist" was apparently too polite a term but then I thought that this isn't the right description.

There really isn't much of a difference between minimum government and maximum government.
It's just a question of whether you want your rulers to be autocrats or government bureocrats.

Fascism is technically an autocratic government aligned with corporate interests where the masses are kept in line through fear. Certainly, there's no shortage of either fear or corporate astroturf in the Tea Party but calling them fascist still doesn't fit quite right.

You're right.
I personally love how people hate the government and everything they do but they also love things like clean air, fair prices, decent healthcare, and fair wages and work laws.
I'd love to see a libertarian's heaven with an absolutely minimum government intervention. That hypothetical country would collapse into a third world country in moments. Instead of a government totalitarianism, you would just have an autocracy with the richest individuals ruling over those without.

The only thing worse for a civilization would be total anarchy, to which this is one peg above.

Oh, I also took that test that adrian posted on the first page.

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97

I'm amused that I'm so apparently very close to chasm's spot on the spectrum.
I thought though that I would be closer to authoritarianism than I am, but apparently not.

[lrh9]

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz_result?....gif&p=100

[Tiberius]

A) how so?

Socialism doesn't work. It removes incentive to actually work hard, ignoring skill-sets of people, and ultimately creates (to great irony) an unfair society.

B) What makes capitalism such a great system? Trampling on the poor :|

If you think the definition of capitalism includes the words "trampling on the poor" then you aren't in any position to even ask that question. Perhaps you should read up on it before you just spout the usual socialist rhetoric.

Capitalism is a natural system. Rather than being created as part of a movement, capitalism arose on its own, based on the needs of people and the trading of resources. It allows people with good ideas to become wealthy, and in turn create jobs for people who don't have such good ideas. The harder you work, and the more skills you acquire, mean the more money you get paid.

---

Capitalism isn't all sunshine and roses. I agree with people being able to buy the items they want to buy, but I don't agree with millions of cheap plastic flashlights being produced simply so somebody can have the choice to buy a pink one instead of a black one. I'd rather not have to clean that shit up from the land of my country.

This isn't any different to socialism.

Capitalism also lacks the conservation power of reliable forecasting. In capitalism a supplier modifies his or her stock retroactively based on previous demand. No matter how you cut it, you're going to be overstocked or understocked by a significant margin for at least one time, and you'll always be a little off. Being understocked is bad when you are supplying essentials. Being overstocked is bad because it means you are overproducing. If you don't restrict your production you are going to cause shortages and environmental problems.

Again, no different to socialism. Factories in socialism have no means of reliable forecasting either. In fact, I'd go as far to say that there is no efficient way of forecasting. The only way you can do that is by taking orders for products, and then making them. The problem with this is that people have to wait, which isn't a good thing for most products.

The benefit that capitalism has in this is that if a company over-produces, they are punished for it (by losing money). Similarly, if they under-produce, they are punished (by not getting the maximum profit). This is why most large companies have research teams to determine how many products they can sell.

[lrh9]

Capitalism isn't all sunshine and roses. I agree with people being able to buy the items they want to buy, but I don't agree with millions of cheap plastic flashlights being produced simply so somebody can have the choice to buy a pink one instead of a black one. I'd rather not have to clean that shit up from the land of my country.

This isn't any different to socialism.

Try again.

[Tiberius]

Even socialism understands the basic principles of creating a large surplus of products. It is necessary to prevent backorders. If you are in the business of creating cheap plastic flashlights for people, you will create a large number (yes, in different colours) to supply the people who want them. Under socialism, the difference is that the means of production is either state-owned, of community owned.

In future, perhaps you should try responding to my point in full, rather than blindly stating "try again".

[Ashendant]

Even socialism understands the basic principles of creating a large surplus of products. It is necessary to prevent backorders. If you are in the business of creating cheap plastic flashlights for people, you will create a large number (yes, in different colours) to supply the people who want them. Under socialism, the difference is that the means of production is either state-owned, of community owned.

In future, perhaps you should try responding to my point in full, rather than blindly stating "try again".

I never heard of this and my country is socialistm, i think you're confusing socialism with communism

[lrh9]

Even socialism understands the basic principles of creating a large surplus of products. It is necessary to prevent backorders. If you are in the business of creating cheap plastic flashlights for people, you will create a large number (yes, in different colours) to supply the people who want them. Under socialism, the difference is that the means of production is either state-owned, of community owned.

In future, perhaps you should try responding to my point in full, rather than blindly stating "try again".

Firstly, I wasn't talking about socialism. I was pointing out the flaws of capitalism. You're sounding remarkably religious right now. Just like all other theists must learn, simply because you can poke holes in another person's idea that does not automatically make your own better.

I succeeded in making you expand your point. The only thing you've logically proven is that a socialistic system does not preclude frivolous manufacturing. However, I am right that socialism is the only system which could theoretically permit the government to specify what manufacturers produce. Therefore, a socialistic system such as what I'm talking about is better than a capitalistic system if you want to reduce waste by means of standardization.