Socialism

[LittleGrizzly]

I have come to the conclusion recently that the word socailism has recently undergone a big evolution, back in the day socialism was middle bit between a country turning communist from a capitilist system, in more modern times a socailist (or at least in the uk) was a left winger but not someone looking to change to a communist state.

Recently socialism has spread to cover the entire political spectrum, you can be a nazi, a communist or a democrat and you come under the huge umbrella of socialism (thinking about it as just a straight line left to right then everyone is a socailist)

So i am intrested in your definition of socailism, i feel a few people just label whoever they disagree with as a socialist, which is obviously incorrect.

[CountArach]

Socialist as used by Socialists (at least myself and those I know) has come to mean much the same as it used to, except without revolutionary thought. Some now doubt that Communism is possible (Again, like myself) and instead believe in something much more closely resembling State Capitalism or at least a very watered down 'Socialism'.

As for labelling people, that is a tool used by the right because they mistakenly choose to associate Socialism with Leninism and Stalinism.

[PBI]

The reason people try to equate socialists with Nazis is the fact that the Nazis were supposedly "national socialists".

I feel this is being rather disingenuous however. Rather like using some nasty third world dictatorship with a terrible human rights record which happens to be called the "Democratic People's Republic of ..." to equate Republicans, Democrats or indeed people at large with those human rights abuses.

[Fragony]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.

[CountArach]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.
Socialism is tied in with minority rights of all kinds and hence is in no way totalitarianism. I swear we have had this argument before though...

[Fragony]

Socialism is tied in with minority rights of all kinds and hence is in no way totalitarianism. I swear we have had this argument before though...

Ya but men is not equal, gonna take a lot of government to pretend they are. Big government will always grow greater loyalty for their own organisation rather to their people, same for all big organisations, always growing into totalitarism secrecy and lies. Gonna take a lot of money though, hence the equal distribution of misery. In short, it sucks.

[LittleGrizzly]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.


The inevitable conclusion of what ? Mine and CA's socailist beliefs ? the socailist inbetween described by Marx ? or are we talking stalinism ?

[Privateerkev]

The way I understand Socialism is that it is Communism without the Revolution. Basically it is public control of the economy or "command economy" in economic terms.

Believes in "evolution" instead of "revolution". Basically Socialism and Communism believe in the same end but disagree with the means to get there.

The common form of Socialism is the "Social Democrat" which believes in moving towards Socialism from within the current Democratic system. Basically there is a party and that party tries to get it's people elected so they can then push a more Socialist agenda.

As for beliefs, I like the quote: "From all according to their abilities, to those according to their needs."

It's the idea that we are all in this together. And only together are we strongest. It abandons the "bourgeoise individualism" that has been cultivated over the past couple hundred years.

We should also keep in mind that there is a difference between the economic system and the political system. The economic system is the "command economy" that I stated earlier. Where the political system is the idea of "more democracy". The more each person has a say, the better.

People bringing up Stalin and others are missing the point. North Korea is technically called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Though they are not Democratic, they are not run by the people, and they are not a Republic. All because a system is called a certain name, does not mean that it holds the values attributed to that name.

[Fragony]

Equal distribution of misery by a totalitarian and repressive government. Not the idea behind it but the inevitable conclusion and that is all that counts.


The inevitable conclusion of what ? Mine and CA's socailist beliefs ? the socailist inbetween described by Marx ? or are we talking stalinism ?

The whole idea that we should persuit equality. That is the inherent flaw of socialism, it's building the math around a false truth.

[Privateerkev]

The whole idea that we should persuit equality. That is the inherent flaw of socialism, it's building the math around a false truth.

But many of us see equality as a belief rather than a false truth.

[Fragony]

But many of us see equality as a belief rather than a false truth.

That is why (imvho) socialism should be treated as a religion just like christianity and islam.

[HoreTore]

The term "Socialism" isn't a specific term, it's an umbrella term which includes stuff from Marxist-leninism to social democrats(nulab should be disqualified though).

At it's heart, socialism is best defined as the ideology of the workers movement. But most big movements splinter into various factions, like the labour movement did, like when Lenin formed Komintern and split the movement hard. But every parti or ideology with their roots in the labour movement can perfectly well be termed as socialist. Some are revolutionary, some are reformists, some are enviromentalist, some industrialists, nationalist or internationalist and so on and so on.

But parties or ideologies without roots in the labour movement should not be called socialists. Like nazism(army roots), or capitalist parties even though they may favour a bigger government.

[Privateerkev]

That is why (imvho) socialism should be treated as a religion just like christianity and islam.

Well, if religion can be the belief system of a theocracy, then equality can be the belief system of socialism.

[rotorgun]

As for beliefs, I like the quote: "From all according to their abilities, to those according to their needs."

It's the idea that we are all in this together. And only together are we strongest. It abandons the "bourgeoise individualism" that has been cultivated over the past couple hundred years.


This is a very noble notion. My only beef with it (socialism) is who's going to pay for the "all according to their needs"? A system that mandates those who are productive to care for those who are lazy is another matter entirely. This is the idea that many in the United states oppose about socialism. I am not against charity and government programs to help people. I am against government "handouts" that enable some people to sit home and do nothing but have children while the rest of us get to pay for it.

As for "bourgeoise individualism," it is such individualism which encourages initiative and inventiveness. One of the characteristics of the former Soviet Union was that it tended to stifle these qualities. If, as you say socialism is communism without the revolution, than I would be very leery of going down the path.

[PanzerJaeger]

True socialists would prefer to be communists, but understand that it is not economically viable. So they work within the capitalist system to promote the virtues of communism -redistribution of wealth, economic equality, big government - while accepting that certain free market principles must be adhered to.

[Fragony]

Well, if religion can be the belief system of a theocracy, then equality can be the belief system of socialism.

Sure can and sure does, they even tend to develop in exactly the same way, idolation of leaders, excommunication of those that have doubts, religious police to keep eveyone in check and in almost every case a bloody inquisition. It's just flawed.

[Privateerkev]

Sure can and sure does, they even tend to develop in exactly the same way, idolation of leaders, excommunication of those that have doubts, religious police to keep eveyone in check and in almost every case a bloody inquisition. It's just flawed.

Any system can be exploited. Capitalism certainly is. As for excommunication, just try to live a subsistence lifestyle in a market economy. It isn't impossible but it is quite difficult.


This is a very noble notion. My only beef with it (socialism) is who's going to pay for the "all according to their needs"? A system that mandates those who are productive to care for those who are lazy is another matter entirely. This is the idea that many in the United states oppose about socialism. I am not against charity and government programs to help people. I am against government "handouts" that enable some people to sit home and do nothing but have children while the rest of us get to pay for it.

As for "bourgeoise individualism," it is such individualism which encourages initiative and inventiveness. One of the characteristics of the former Soviet Union was that it tended to stifle these qualities. If, as you say socialism is communism without the revolution, than I would be very leery of going down the path.

The words "work" and "laziness" are cultural constructions based on real actions (or inaction). Work used to mean an expenditure of calories. Now it is bound up with cultural meaning. It's actually a value now with real moral currency. Selling your labor power for wages is now seen as the only real "work" out there. If you don't do this, you are deemed "lazy". Somehow the person who stays home and takes care of an elderly parent or child is seen as "not working".

Socialism attempts to redefine these terms. Work is something that is done for the greater collective whole. As for laziness, I say it is the price you pay. I will gladly accept that some "lazy" people will mooch off of the system if it means everyone who is hungry gets fed. No system is perfect. To reject an entire system just because some will exploit it seems to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Fragony]

At a certain moment the whole body begins to digest itselve just to keep running. Here the rich are leaving en masse, they don't want to hand over their money anymore, doesn't get you any more government afterall. When the money leaves all is an empty shell that shell being the idea.

[Privateerkev]

At a certain moment the whole body begins to digest itselve just to keep running. Here the rich are leaving en masse, they don't want to hand over their money anymore, doesn't get you any more government afterall. When the money leaves all is an empty shell that shell being the idea.

Which is why I believe the whole world needs to run under one system. Then you wouldn't have that problem.

[rotorgun]

Any system can be exploited. Capitalism certainly is. As for excommunication, just try to live a subsistence lifestyle in a market economy. It isn't impossible but it is quite difficult.

The words "work" and "laziness" are cultural constructions based on real actions (or inaction). Work used to mean an expenditure of calories. Now it is bound up with cultural meaning. It's actually a value now with real moral currency. Selling your labor power for wages is now seen as the only real "work" out there. If you don't do this, you are deemed "lazy". Somehow the person who stays home and takes care of an elderly parent or child is seen as "not working".

Socialism attempts to redefine these terms. Work is something that is done for the greater collective whole. As for laziness, I say it is the price you pay. I will gladly accept that some "lazy" people will mooch off of the system if it means everyone who is hungry gets fed. No system is perfect. To reject an entire system just because some will exploit it seems to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

True, any system can and will be exploited; corruption is in the very nature of man. Come let us reason together, however. I was speaking of that "work" which we do for wages, not all "work" that we do. As for the "lazy" you refer to, I am addressing those who are capable of making an honest wage, but refuse to-depending on the benevolence of those who do. This takes resources away from being able to provide for those truly in need, such as "the person who stays home and takes care of an elderly parent or child" you say seen as "not working". I say that we must reform both systems and dedicate more resources to educating people to a better way of thinking. The "baby" you refer to is not a baby at all, but in most cases a perfectly healthy adult who wants to take a nice vacation at home while the rest of us pay for it. Do not presume to equate this concept as a lack of charitable sentiment on my part please.

PS: I hate to leave this fine discussion, but I must now go and perform some caloric output style work and cut my free loading grass.

[Fragony]

Which is why I believe the whole world needs to run under one system. Then you wouldn't have that problem.

On a scale ranging from 1 to 10 how realistic do you think that is? See that is why socialism and socialists tend to freak me out. It's not an idea I am living on it's a planet. Not gonna happen until the martians attack.

[Privateerkev]

On a scale ranging from 1 to 10 how realistic do you think that is? See that is why socialism and socialists tend to freak me out. It's not an idea I am living on it's a planet. Not gonna happen until the martians attack.

I don't know how realistic it is. It is simply what I believe will be the best way to reorder society in a more fair and equitable manner. And I do realize that we are living on a planet. One tenet of Socialism is sustainability. Capitalism, taken to it's logicial conclusion, is actually unsustainable. Therefore I see free-market capitalist purists as rejecting reality. And I don't mean you because I don't know how far you wish to take Capitalism.


True, any system can and will be exploited; corruption is in the very nature of man. Come let us reason together, however. I was speaking of that "work" which we do for wages, not all "work" that we do. As for the "lazy" you refer to, I am addressing those who are capable of making an honest wage, but refuse to-depending on the benevolence of those who do. This takes resources away from being able to provide for those truly in need, such as "the person who stays home and takes care of an elderly parent or child" you say seen as "not working". I say that we must reform both systems and dedicate more resources to educating people to a better way of thinking. The "baby" you refer to is not a baby at all, but in most cases a perfectly healthy adult who wants to take a nice vacation at home while the rest of us pay for it. Do not presume to equate this concept as a lack of charitable sentiment on my part please.

I presumed no such thing. It is just that I have heard the "lazy people will not work" claim many times. Instead of arguing that they will indeed work, I rather redefine the term "work" and "lazy". I believe the real number of "lazy" people will be low. There are many social controls that are implemented to police "rules". Just try cutting in line and you'll see what I speak of. I am confident the same will happen to those who don't work, but can.

It is doubtful that there will be a "pure" system of any kind anyways. Most systems are "hybrids". Where people differ is what kind of hybrid to have. I rather push for as pure a system as possible where your posts suggest you want a hybrid. From that we can find common ground. It is a lot easier working with you than with someone who wants pure anarchy.

As for corruption being the "nature of man", I reject the idea that there is a human nature. Things are learned, relearned, and forgotten. Babies are not born with corruption. I believe corruption comes about because of a Hobbsian view of "if I don't do it, I'll be less safe/secure". It's not that people are innately corrupt, it's that they believe it is in their best interest to be corrupt.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Socialism is tied in with minority rights of all kinds and hence is in no way totalitarianism. I swear we have had this argument before though...

Bah, more socialist lies! The smallest minority is the individual, whom socialists trample over in every one of their policies.

And of course, capitalism is a much better engine for economic growth (in that it is an engine for growth, whereas socialism is not), which makes all people better off.

CR

[Fragony]

I don't know how realistic it is. It is simply what I believe will be the best way to reorder society in a more fair and equitable manner. And I do realize that we are living on a planet. One tenet of Socialism is sustainability. Capitalism, taken to it's logicial conclusion, is actually unsustainable. Therefore I see free-market capitalist purists as rejecting reality. And I don't mean you because I don't know how far you wish to take Capitalism.

Fair enough. As for me (sorry for OT), I don't believe in any mutual cause or direction. Government should do the absolute basic, sovereignity, safety (not even necesary necesarily) and imo they are doing poorly enough just handling that.

[Privateerkev]

Bah, more socialist lies! The smallest minority is the individual, whom socialists trample over in every one of their policies.

And of course, capitalism is a much better engine for economic growth (in that it is an engine for growth, whereas socialism is not), which makes all people better off.

CR

Capitalism funnels money to a select few by exploiting cheap labor. It is an engine for economic growth but it requires growth to expand for the rest of time. This simply can not be sustained forever.

Capitalism operates off of 3 assumptions;

1.) That there is an unlimited supply of resources

2.) That there is an unlimited number of markets

3.) That any enviromental damage can be repaired.

Once you knock even one of these pegs out, Capitalism becomes unsustainable. If you try to fix one of these assumptions, you no longer have pure Capitalism but instead you have a hybrid.

If you have a hybrid, you have to figure out what ratio of Capitalism/Socialism to have.

[Fragony]

Capitalism operates off of 3 assumptions;

1.) That there is an unlimited supply of resources

2.) That there is an unlimited number of markets

3.) That any enviromental damage can be repaired.


Who told you that? That is simply not true, capitalism is based on the principle of mutual benefit from economic activity with as little interference as possible. If you see someone starving in the street and you give him something to eat that doesn't make you a socialist, just a normal person with a heart in his chest instead of a frozen microwavemeal.

edit, back to religion, we are all sinners at heart?

[Privateerkev]

Who told you that? That is simply not true, capitalism is based on the principle of mutual benefit from economic activity with as little interference as possible. If you see someone starving in the street and you give him something to eat that doesn't make you a socialist, just a normal person with a heart in his chest instead of a frozen microwavemeal.

That might be the "belief" but the practice of pure capitalism is to expand regardless of the consequences. Someone who is a pure capitalist would demand that the person on the street work for his meal. And if he didn't, then he deserved what he got. You are obviously not a "pure" capitalist and I would guess that few people are.

If you believe in limiting the expansion of capital or in redistributing the wealth in any way, then you are simply not a pure capitalist but someone who believes in a hybrid model. Your posts suggest that you believe in a hybrid.

[Fragony]

Your posts suggest that you believe in a hybrid.

Every extreme is wrong you always have to find the balance, but I don't think that doing the good thing is something that should be regulated by anyone, most of all the government because governments tend to do poorly at everything they do, they have the job and what they are supposed to be doing. Would you trust them with the distribution of food, the market does it much much better.

[Privateerkev]

Every extreme is wrong you always have to find the balance, but I don't think that doing the good thing is something that should be regulated by anyone, most of all the government because governments tend to do poorly at everything they do, they have the job and what they are supposed to be doing. Would you trust them with the distribution of food, the market does it much much better.

No, I do not trust the market to distribute food. I watch too many miss out on getting food when we can produce more than enough to feed everyone.

I do not believe you should pay for what you need. It just seems wrong to me.

[HoreTore]

No, I do not trust the market to distribute food. I watch too many miss out on getting food when we can produce more than enough to feed everyone.

The current world situation is a good example. We lack food, and what does the market do? Do they focus on mass-producing as much as possible, to make sure that people can afford it? Nope, some of them even hold food back and wait for the price to increase even more. Meanwhile, millions of people are starving simply because they can't afford to buy enough food...

[Xiahou]

Which is why I believe the whole world needs to run under one system. Then you wouldn't have that problem.
I think that sums up the mentality perfectly. What about productive "rich" people who don't want to be part of the system? Easy, you grow the system until it's one they can't leave. :sweatdrop:

As to what socialism is, the best and simplest definition I've seen is that it's government control/ownership of the means of production. There are many different flavors of socialism, but that's something they all have in common.

[HoreTore]

As to what socialism is, the best and simplest definition I've seen is that it's government control/ownership of the means of production. There are many different flavors of socialism, but that's something they all have in common.

Hah, wrong. Does "worker owned factories" say anything to you? ~;)

[Tribesman]

As to what socialism is, the best and simplest definition I've seen is that it's government control/ownership of the means of production.
So that means that every country is socialist then .

[Xiahou]

So that means that every country is socialist then .
To varying degrees, yes.

[HoreTore]

To varying degrees, yes.

Or.... and I know this is a radical suggestion, but... Maybe your definition is....wrong...?

[Privateerkev]

So that means that every country is socialist then.

I'd argue that many countries have components of socialism. Many have state control of something. It might be roads, schools, healthcare, army, ect...


I think that sums up the mentality perfectly. What about productive "rich" people who don't want to be part of the system? Easy, you grow the system until it's one they can't leave. :sweatdrop:

Exactly. Why should some get rich while many starve?

Leaving the world a patchwork of nation-states allows a "race to the bottom." Industry seeks out the cheapest labor and loosest laws. Countries that want industry to come to them try to cheapen their labor and loosen their laws. They each keep trying to outdo the other. Many are left without a living wage, clean water, medicine, shelter, or freedom from oppression.

[Don Corleone]

You're an avowed socialist, Hore Tore, which makes you something of an expert on the subject. What is your definition?

[rotorgun]

That might be the "belief" but the practice of pure capitalism is to expand regardless of the consequences. Someone who is a pure capitalist would demand that the person on the street work for his meal. And if he didn't, then he deserved what he got. You are obviously not a "pure" capitalist and I would guess that few people are.

If you believe in limiting the expansion of capital or in redistributing the wealth in any way, then you are simply not a pure capitalist but someone who believes in a hybrid model. Your posts suggest that you believe in a hybrid.

Let us forget for a moment all these concepts of capitalism or socialism. Assume that you are a mayor of a small village. Many types of people live in your village, for the most part all happy and productive. Also living there are some no account do nothings that roam the streets everyday begging for money or food. The first time such a person comes by and asks you personally for money you, being a good mayor and a philanthropist, generously give some thinking......it's only until the poor creature gets on his feet. Unfortunately, you see him continuing to ask for some money for a whole week. Later a whole month goes by, and still he begs....and people continue to help him. This is not an elderly man or a person with some disability, but a young, vibrant, probably virile person perfectly able to perform some kind of work. Do you really think that such a person deserves to have you go before the village council and demand that we support him? If you were my mayor, I would vote you out of office quicker than you could say welfare.

I would like to say that I am not opposed to your idea of a hybrid government. I am not entirely against socialism as long as there are some checks and balances.

PS: Have to bow out for a little while to go to my Doctor's appointment which my insurance (which I pay for in part, and part by my employer) will pay for.....that is to say unless you want to pay for Privateerkev? :beam:

[HoreTore]

You're an avowed socialist, Hore Tore, which makes you something of an expert on the subject. What is your definition?

*points to posts above*

~:)

[Privateerkev]

Let us forget for a moment all these concepts of capitalism or socialism. Assume that you are a mayor of a small village. Many types of people live in your village, for the most part all happy and productive. Also living there are some no account do nothings that roam the streets everyday begging for money or food. The first time such a person comes by and asks you personally for money you, being a good mayor and a philanthropist, generously give some thinking......it's only until the poor creature gets on his feet. Unfortunately, you see him continuing to ask for some money for a whole week. Later a whole month goes by, and still he begs....and people continue to help him. This is not an elderly man or a person with some disability, but a young, vibrant, probably virile person perfectly able to perform some kind of work. Do you really think that such a person deserves to have you go before the village council and demand that we support him? If you were my mayor, I would vote you out of office quicker than you could say welfare.

I do not see your analogy as accurate to the current world situation. Again I will state that there should be social controls and rules. What your describing is a collective action problem. To solve it will require almost everyone to give up something so everyone gets something.

Yes, if someone tries very hard, they will find a way to get out of working. Ironically it will take work to avoid working. But that is fine with me.


I would like to say that I am not opposed to your idea of a hybrid government. I am not entirely against socialism as long as there are some checks and balances.

I am not in favor of a hybrid system. I am simply willing to settle in order to get some of what I want. Because something is better than nothing. I am not so bound to a pure socialist utopian vision, that I am willing to discount progressive social change.


PS: Have to bow out for a little while to go to my Doctor's appointment which my insurance (which I pay for in part, and part by my employer) will pay for.....that is to say unless you want to pay for Privateerkev? :beam:

Your getting close to erecting a straw man there. I am very much in favor of a government run healthcare system. That would not mean me taking money directly out of my wallet to pay for your doctor visit. But it would mean me paying taxes to pay for your doctor visit. Your health is not only important to me as a moral issue, but it is actually in my best interests if your healthy. :yes:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I found this quote interesting and relevant:


The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.

[Privateerkev]

I found this quote interesting and relevant:

That quote is also making an assumption about our convictions which I do not agree with.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That quote is also making an assumption about our convictions which I do not agree with.

It's generally known as "Soviet Russia." Her point is that once the revolution is achieved, the state does not want to change.

[Privateerkev]

It's generally known as "Soviet Russia." Her point is that once the revolution is achieved, the state does not want to change.

Which unfortunately ends up replacing one oppressive system with another.

I'd like to think such a thing is avoidable.

[CountArach]

It's generally known as "Soviet Russia." Her point is that once the revolution is achieved, the state does not want to change.
I thought we had already determined that they were in no way similar to modern socialists?

Thanks for defending us Privateerkev, you are doing a great job.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'd like to think such a thing is avoidable.

Theoretically. However, socialist-only states do not have a very good track record in this regard.

Socialism, in theory, isn't necessarily oppressive. We don't need to establish that, it's true. The problem I have with socialism is that practically, there are better ways. I've always considered socialism "feel-good politics."

[Privateerkev]

Thanks for defending us Privateerkev, you are doing a great job.

thank you, :bow:

I'm, just trying to present a point of view. A thread pops up asking us to define socialism and people immediately come on here to attack the idea.

[Viking]

Socialism = state control over the market
Capitalism = private control over the market
Communism = socialism + authoritarianism (strong intelligence agencies used to control the population etc.)




We should also keep in mind that there is a difference between the economic system and the political system. The economic system is the "command economy" that I stated earlier. Where the political system is the idea of "more democracy". The more each person has a say, the better.

People bringing up Stalin and others are missing the point. North Korea is technically called the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Though they are not Democratic, they are not run by the people, and they are not a Republic. All because a system is called a certain name, does not mean that it holds the values attributed to that name.

Hurrah! It's the y-axis so many are not aware of; politics come on a two-dimensional map (as opposed to the one-dimensional left vs. right).

[HoreTore]

Theoretically. However, socialist-only states do not have a very good track record in this regard.

I'm sorry, but again you only show confusion. The countries you call "socialist-only" are leninist states(or later, maoist, who also based is theory on lenin). Leninism is a brand of socialism, but nothing more than that. Using it against socialism is really like using polygamism against christianity because it's practiced by Warren Jeff.

Socialism didn't just evolve through Lenin, a bunch of socialists didn't agree with him, and took their own path to the communist utopia, like the social democracy you find in western europe. It's still socialist, but not leninist. Heck, most of them have even discarded most of Marx' theories.

[Xiahou]

Or.... and I know this is a radical suggestion, but... Maybe your definition is....wrong...?
Why? Most every country has some socialist aspects to it, and every country has capitalist characteristics as well. 100% of either just doesn't happen- the question is: what's the right mix?

For me, it's as little state or collective control as possible- some will be unavoidable, but it needs to be kept to a minimum to preserve individual freedom.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm sorry, but again you only show confusion. The countries you call "socialist-only" are leninist states(or later, maoist, who also based is theory on lenin). Leninism is a brand of socialism, but nothing more than that. Using it against socialism is really like using polygamism against christianity because it's practiced by Warren Jeff.

The definitions of a socialist state:


In strictly speaking, any real or hypothetical state organized along the principles of socialism may be called a socialist state. The term socialist republic is used by those socialists who wish to emphasize that they favour a republican form of government. Furthermore, since socialism purports to represent the interests of the working class, many socialists refer to a state organized according to their principles as a workers' state.
According to Marxism, socialism is a stage of social and economic development that will replace capitalism, and will in turn be replaced by communism. Thus, in Marxist terms, a socialist state is a state that has abolished capitalism and is moving towards communism.
Several past and present states have claimed to follow some form of Marxist ideology, usually Marxism-Leninism. They referred to themselves as socialist states and since 1970s as states of real socialism. The first example was the Soviet Union, which was proclaimed a "socialist state" in its 1936 Constitution and a subsequent 1977 one. Another well-known example is the People's Republic of China, which is a "socialist state" according to its 1982 Constitution of the People's Republic of China. In the West, such states are commonly known as "communist states" (though they do not use this term to refer to themselves). A socialist state may be a country that uses the term "socialist" or "socialist republic" in its official name, constitution or the name or constitution of the ruling party, regardless of the actual political and economic system it has in practice. Examples include the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
Because there are several different branches of socialism, a country's claim to the label of "socialist state" or "socialist republic" is almost always disputed by some branch. Indeed, there are many socialists who strongly oppose certain (or all) self-proclaimed socialist republics. Trotskyists, for instance, are particularly known for their opposition to Communist states, which they do not view as adhering to communism at all, but rather to Stalinism.

While I do not dispute that certain elements of socialism are possible or necessary to carry out effectively while maintaining fairness and freedom, socialism in itself...

[Incongruous]

Socialism is an idea very much close to that of Anarchism, both disagree with the Liberal belief that property is sacrosanct and a must for the liberty of men. However they differ in that, whereas socialism curbs individual rights (according to Kropotkin) in order to achieve it's goal of a classless society, Anarchism is something which will happen naturally at the end of capitalism, the final stage of mans search for liberty and freedom. In this form Kropotkin claimed some ideological realtionship with Liberals. However socialists like Marx tended to view with the scorn that much older of underclasses, the peasant and the poor farmer, workers were much more heroic. But its meaning has been changed over the years. Just as Liberalism has been reformed beyond all recognition, no longer a light for individual liberty it has been worked into simply another way to make the rich richer and keep the poor down.

In the end its just another ideology, and failed to stand up to reality.

[CountArach]

The definitions of a socialist state:

While I do not dispute that certain elements of socialism are possible or necessary to carry out effectively while maintaining fairness and freedom, socialism in itself...
That's a textbook definition of what Socialism used to be, but now Socialism has recreated itself and is less of a transitory stage towards Communism and more of an ideology that has its own goal and its own way of achieving classlessness. It still retains some elements of its Marxist roots (Such as the class war), but it has shed a lot of its former ideals, including the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The spectrum of Socialism is so broad so that it can include people who believe in those ideals, as well as those who reject them (You can still be a socialist without believing in class warfare and you can still be socialist and believe in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat).

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Can you really say socialism recreated itself? It's a pretty broad movement that not all of it has swung towards the social democrats.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In the end its just another ideology, and failed to stand up to reality.

This post (or at least this sentence) has just been endorsed by THE MARTIAN.

:2thumbsup:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Capitalism funnels money to a select few by exploiting cheap labor. It is an engine for economic growth but it requires growth to expand for the rest of time. This simply can not be sustained forever.

:dizzy2: That's nonsensical, I'm afraid.


Capitalism operates off of 3 assumptions;

1.) That there is an unlimited supply of resources

Wow, that's wrong. The whole point of capitalism is that there are limited resources of everything - goods, labor, capital, and you have to decide what you want to prioritize.


2.) That there is an unlimited number of markets

I don't see how you can leap to that conclusion.


3.) That any enviromental damage can be repaired.

Again, wrong. Perhaps we should look and see whether the Soviets or the USA had the better environmental record.


No, I do not trust the market to distribute food.

It is protectionism and moronic subsidies for biofuels that's led to this crisis. Europe and the USA have large amounts of protection for agriculture, and large subsidies designed to take fields from growing food to growing less efficient than crude oil fuel so some yuppies can feel good about themselves. The question is, why oh why would we trust something so vital as the world's food supply to a bunch of bickering idiot governments?


I do not believe you should pay for what you need. It just seems wrong to me.

Food does not rain down like mana from heavens. Why should the people who grow food not be compensated? It's ok to steal it if we need it? That's what not paying for something is called. Instead, should farmers, and everyone, not be compensated according to the most just system available, capitalism?

Capitalism - that is, people being free to live as they want - provides the greatest benefit to everyone. If you cannot decide what wage you will work for, or what money you will accept for a good, then you are no better than a slave.

CR

[rotorgun]

I do not see your analogy as accurate to the current world situation. Again I will state that there should be social controls and rules. What your describing is a collective action problem. To solve it will require almost everyone to give up something so everyone gets something.

I agree with you in part here. I see nothing wrong with such cooperative measures, as long as there are some safeguards to prevent the wanton abuse of the public good.


I am not in favor of a hybrid system. I am simply willing to settle in order to get some of what I want. Because something is better than nothing. I am not so bound to a pure socialist utopian vision, that I am willing to discount progressive social change.


I misunderstood you than when you asked another person earlier if they would consider a hybrid form of government. It implied to me that you were so inclined as well. I am heartened to see that you are capable of compromise. That is the essence of true freedom IMO-to be able to sacrifice some of your desires to enable the greater good to go forward. I too am in favor of social change, and agree with some that all governments are "socialistic" to some degree. I just don't understand it as well as others, and fear some of its more communistic approach.


Your getting close to erecting a straw man there. I am very much in favor of a government run healthcare system. That would not mean me taking money directly out of my wallet to pay for your doctor visit. But it would mean me paying taxes to pay for your doctor visit. Your health is not only important to me as a moral issue, but it is actually in my best interests if your healthy. :yes:

But isn't paying taxes taking money directly out of your wallet as well? Unwarranted taking of money is called thievery is it not? Mandating me to do so to pay for benefits that others refuse to help subsidize, but still enjoy, is nothing much more than state sponsored and condoned stealing in my opinion.
I was only making a bit of a joke with you about having to pay for my Doctor's visit. Thanks though for your kindness in thinking of my health as a moral issue, but I still wouldn't want to hold you responsible for my health. That is my family's concern, or perhaps the concern of my closest friends, but I feel it is a private matter for me to take care of if possible.

I wish I could do more to help define Socialism with you, but I don't understand what recommends it. I shall have to follow this post more objectively I see.

I do enjoy the intellectual argument however, and mean nothing personal by my difference of opinion.

[HoreTore]

The definitions of a socialist state:



While I do not dispute that certain elements of socialism are possible or necessary to carry out effectively while maintaining fairness and freedom, socialism in itself...

Read that article again, and spot the glaring mistake in it. It focuses solely on those states who simple call themselves socialists. A country can call itself whatever they like last I checked, it doesn't have to have anything to do with facts, like North Korea calling themselves democratic...

Again, the states mentioned are leninist states. Blaming them on socialism as a whole is ridiculous. There are better examples, like Norway. Peaceful and democratic, and with around 40 years of almost complete socialist control, must be considered a socialist state...

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's amusing to me how something as fundamental as definition of terms can be so abused.

As far as I can see, the definition of socialism has been best expressed so far by Xiahou - with one tiny mistake, derived perhaps from his dislike.

Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organisation that advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Community not government.

Whilst most experiments in socialism have made the mistake of concentrating largely on state control, this is actually antithetical to the aims of socialism and leads to the tyrannies of Leninism and Stalinism. This is unsurprising as the most influential writer on socialism saw it as a mere transitional process towards communism (which does require state control albeit in the belief that the state would wither away eventually - oops). Socialism is inherently extremely democratic and requires a high level of subsidiarity and personal responsibility.

In this, it may well be too idealistic to exist - in the same way that belief in unregulated yet responsible capitalism has proven beyond the reach of mankind.

[Incongruous]

The whole thing about the Marxist theory (You can seperate this from Socialism if you wish) was that social change would have to brought about by men, not nature. Whatever you want to say about community, this occurance, it was accepted, had to brought on by the few in charge.

Already by '80's the socialists were being lambasted by Kropotkin for their wish to curb liberty in order to reform society.
This is the greatest problem with scoialist thought, the empowerment of the sate, which was allowed by this flaw in ideology. However it was the only realistic way for it to ever be enacted, I mean socialism was seen as a second rate threat to established society compared to Anarchism. Those champagne sipping middle class idiots were seeing their idology going down the drain. They had to do something, vile supression of everyone else was the only way in a revolution.
Whatever you may think about the ideology, its supporters were first rate pragmatists and political killers. You can apply this to any of the great ideological leaders, ever.

The fact is you simply cannot think up a nice neat way of governing the world from behind a pile of books in the library while sipping at a hot drink.
You can apply this one to trying to run the economy, its just utter rubbish.

[Ironside]

CR there's still one problem with current capitalism that needs to be answered. Although anyone else with a good answer is welcome.

Where will the new jobs be when the service sector becomes as industrialised as the agricultural and industrial sector?

With that I mean that very few people can do the jobs that required a lot of people previously. As personel is expensive it's in the interest of the market to do just that. Well, they can artificially cut down on salaries, but somehow I suspect that it would run against the theory that the growth will benefit everyone.

[Fragony]

Advanced economic society's always have lower birthrates, sign of wealth really.

[Ironside]

Advanced economic society's always have lower birthrates, sign of wealth really.

Interesting idea, but it won't work from a capitalistic framework, it's neither sustainable in the long run and two scenarios will most likely happen.

A. The huge retired population (compared to the rest) get pensions, which at this point are huge compared to today. While it could work pretty well, it's still socialistic in nature. Thus other meassures like considerbly shortening working hours would also work.

Or B. That cost is considered too much and removed. This will cause people to use the old pension insurance:
Lots of children. So that would make the population go up again, causing the described issue.

[Fragony]

Got me there. I would argue that because of the lower taxes people would have created enough wealth at that point but that argument is little more then me being childish.

[CountArach]

Got me there. I would argue that because of the lower taxes people would have created enough wealth at that point but that argument is little more then me being childish.
Yeah, plus that wouldn't describe where the pensions would come from.

[Fragony]

Yeah, plus that wouldn't describe where the pensions would come from.

Well there is pensions and savings, savings being your own responsibility, no pensions required at all but it has to be controlled to ensure a good wage making these savings possible. Maybe it would be a fun idea to make up a fictional country and see at how many layers of government we get.

[Privateerkev]

:dizzy2: That's nonsensical, I'm afraid.

Capitalism is the pursuit of profit. Profit is money stolen from the workers. While it is claimed the money is used to reinvest, this does not always occur. More often it is saved and then passed on through inheritance.


Wow, that's wrong. The whole point of capitalism is that there are limited resources of everything - goods, labor, capital, and you have to decide what you want to prioritize.

Yet in trying to expand capital, more and more raw resources are consumed. Eventually, the planet will simply run out. Capitalism has no good answer to this eventuality other than "go to the moon".


I don't see how you can leap to that conclusion.

When you saturate a market, you need to move on. But there is a finite number of markets. Like resources, these will run out eventually. Again, Capitalism is unprepared for this.


Again, wrong. Perhaps we should look and see whether the Soviets or the USA had the better environmental record.

Neither have good records. Capitalism assumes that damage can be repaired. It pushes for more industry regardless of the environmental cost.


It is protectionism and moronic subsidies for biofuels that's led to this crisis. Europe and the USA have large amounts of protection for agriculture, and large subsidies designed to take fields from growing food to growing less efficient than crude oil fuel so some yuppies can feel good about themselves. The question is, why oh why would we trust something so vital as the world's food supply to a bunch of bickering idiot governments?

This problem was here long before biofuels. There are countless accounts in history of nations exporting food to pay for industrial development while their own people starve.

My answer to your question is this: I trust government officials elected by the people more than corporations more interested in maximizing their quarterly profits.


Food does not rain down like mana from heavens. Why should the people who grow food not be compensated? It's ok to steal it if we need it? That's what not paying for something is called. Instead, should farmers, and everyone, not be compensated according to the most just system available, capitalism?

I have seen this idea called, "the freedom to starve to death." And yes, I believe it is perfectly ok to steal food. If my child is starving, and I have no money, I will take food so they will live. And I won't lose any sleep over it either.


Capitalism - that is, people being free to live as they want - provides the greatest benefit to everyone. If you cannot decide what wage you will work for, or what money you will accept for a good, then you are no better than a slave.

There are actually many levels in between freedom and slavery. But they have slowly been replaced by a wage-labor model since the industrial revolution.


I misunderstood you than when you asked another person earlier if they would consider a hybrid form of government. It implied to me that you were so inclined as well. I am heartened to see that you are capable of compromise. That is the essence of true freedom IMO-to be able to sacrifice some of your desires to enable the greater good to go forward. I too am in favor of social change, and agree with some that all governments are "socialistic" to some degree. I just don't understand it as well as others, and fear some of its more communistic approach.

Yeah, I get depressed when I see left-wing "purists" denounce progressive social change because it "doesn't go far enough". I want results right now that will improve people's lives in measurable ways. If that means settling for "tweaking" the current hybrid model then so be it.


But isn't paying taxes taking money directly out of your wallet as well? Unwarranted taking of money is called thievery is it not? Mandating me to do so to pay for benefits that others refuse to help subsidize, but still enjoy, is nothing much more than state sponsored and condoned stealing in my opinion.

I believe it is warranted. Taxation is overseen by the state and I elect the officials to the governing bodies. If I do not approve of the level of taxation, or how that tax is spent, then I vote for officials that are more along my line of thinking.


I was only making a bit of a joke with you about having to pay for my Doctor's visit. Thanks though for your kindness in thinking of my health as a moral issue, but I still wouldn't want to hold you responsible for my health. That is my family's concern, or perhaps the concern of my closest friends, but I feel it is a private matter for me to take care of if possible.

Well, I believe your health is my responsibility because we all live on the same ball of rock and I care about you. Plus, from a capitalist viewpoint, it is actually better if your healthy. Being unhealthy costs everyone billions of dollars. Plus it leads to a lot of lost productivity. Businesses would do better in the long term if their workforce was healthy. But shareholders demand immediate gratification.


I do enjoy the intellectual argument however, and mean nothing personal by my difference of opinion.

No offense has been taken. I enjoy a good lively debate. I learn a lot from people who hold different points of view. Unfortunately, not everyone has learned this little life lesson.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Capitalism is the pursuit of profit.

And?


Profit is money stolen from the workers.

Wow. Marx is applauding in his grave...

Profit is not money stolen from the workers, unless you are implying that company management should do their job for free, or minimum wage. If you set up the company, you are entitled to a bigger share, I think.

Socialism/Marxism/Whatever does not make everyone equally rich, it makes everyone equally poor, IMHO.

[Privateerkev]

Profit is not money stolen from the workers, unless you are implying that company management should do their job for free, or minimum wage. If you set up the company, you are entitled to a bigger share, I think.

The worker does not get wages equal to the worth of the item he is creating. He works extra so those at the top get more money. I don't see this as very fair...

[Fragony]

The worker does not get wages equal to the worth of the item he is creating. He works extra so those at the top get more money. I don't see this as very fair...

There is a bit more about a product then the end-result at the assembly line. Needs research, investment, planning, taking risks in general. The workers aren't taking any risks they just put the pieces together, they aren't risking anything, and they are being payed for that, why on earth would they have the right on the profit?

[Crazed Rabbit]

CR there's still one problem with current capitalism that needs to be answered. Although anyone else with a good answer is welcome.

Where will the new jobs be when the service sector becomes as industrialised as the agricultural and industrial sector?

With that I mean that very few people can do the jobs that required a lot of people previously. As personel is expensive it's in the interest of the market to do just that. Well, they can artificially cut down on salaries, but somehow I suspect that it would run against the theory that the growth will benefit everyone.

I see what you mean. But that's been going on since man has stopped devoting all his labor to growing/hunting food and capitalism has dealt with it nicely.


Capitalism is the pursuit of profit. Profit is money stolen from the workers.

Um...the way companies work is workers build stuff while managers run the factory. The profit from those goods are split up according to the law of supply and demand in regards to personnel.


Yet in trying to expand capital, more and more raw resources are consumed. Eventually, the planet will simply run out. Capitalism has no good answer to this eventuality other than "go to the moon".

So socialism's answer is to stop using all resources? You've heard of recycling, right?


When you saturate a market, you need to move on. But there is a finite number of markets. Like resources, these will run out eventually. Again, Capitalism is unprepared for this.

I'm beginning to think you don't ... really ... understand economics.


There are countless accounts in history of nations exporting food to pay for industrial development while their own people starve.

That sounds like the state control of the economy you love so much.


I trust government officials elected by the people more than corporations more interested in maximizing their quarterly profits.

The good intentions of those elected are irrelevant. The point is they aren't intellectually capable of managing the world's food supply. The Soviet Union was an importer of grain for a long time.


I have seen this idea called, "the freedom to starve to death." And yes, I believe it is perfectly ok to steal food. If my child is starving, and I have no money, I will take food so they will live. And I won't lose any sleep over it either.

So its ok if farmers starve to death, then?

Sorry, but this is too far off the deep end. I'm surprised socialism still has its adherents, but I guess they support it to feel good then out of any knowledge of economics.

CR

[Privateerkev]

Sorry CR but your comments are starting to get derogatory and insulting.

I'm done talking to you about this until you can have a civil discourse on the subject.

[Ice]

Sorry CR but your comments are starting to get derogatory and insulting.

I'm done talking to you about this until you can have a civil discourse on the subject.

You need to grow some thicker skin buddy. IMHO CR is not insulting you in the least and he is addressing all your points. If you want insulting, just browse the backroom for a while. There you will find it.

[Privateerkev]

You need to grow some thicker skin buddy. IMHO CR is not insulting you in the least and he is addressing all your points. If you want insulting, just browse the backroom for a while. There you will find it.

The skin is thick. It's just that I see little point in wasting my time with someone who rather make ad hominum attacks than actually debate the issue in a civil way.

and I'm not your buddy. :P

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The skin is thick. It's just that I see little point in wasting my time with someone who rather make ad hominum attacks than actually debate the issue in a civil way.


There is one ad hominem attack in the entire post. If you want personal attacks, get on Tribsey's bad side in some thread or other. ~;)

[Privateerkev]

There is one ad hominem attack in the entire post. If you want personal attacks, get on Tribsey's bad side in some thread or other. ~;)

It's not that I don't expect them to happen. It's just that I'm too tired to have the patience for that kind of conversation. :beam:

[Ice]

There is one ad hominem attack in the entire post. If you want personal attacks, get on Tribsey's bad side in some thread or other. ~;)

I trying to be polite, but that's what I was referring to.


and I'm not your buddy. :P

Everyone is my buddy.

[CountArach]

Profit is not money stolen from the workers, unless you are implying that company management should do their job for free, or minimum wage. If you set up the company, you are entitled to a bigger share, I think.
Well Company Management wouldn't be able to do their job without the 'lowest' worker. They end up doing most of the work, with Management functioning in an organisational role. I think you will find that most Socialists love the idea of Worker Collectives more than anything else (ie - the entire business is owned and operator by the workers using democracy as a decision-making tool)

Socialism/Marxism/Whatever does not make everyone equally rich, it makes everyone equally poor, IMHO.
Rich and poor are relative terms.

[Incongruous]

Relative to what?

Fact is socialism only thrives in states where freedoms are already limited and life is generally crap. They then proceed to take away even more freedoms because the people realise that Socialism is not really for them, then make everyone poor and keep them that way. Of coarse if you want to help the great leaders in their crusade against the enemies of the people, you might get a nice car, a cumfy office and loads of bullets.
All of coarse in the name of the people, who cannot be trusted to look after themselves.

In effect creating a regime just as good as the last one, but this time you really do have the people at heart, honest.

You will never have true socialism in countries where people have lifted themselves up from social opression. The lies just dont stick as well.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The skin is thick. It's just that I see little point in wasting my time with someone who rather make ad hominum attacks than actually debate the issue in a civil way.

and I'm not your buddy. :P

Ah, come on. I don't mean to insult. I haven't gotten really angry on this forum for a very long time. But, you know, when you start talking about why capitalism is bad, your criticisms just don't make that much sense.

You seem like a nice guy, just completely wrong. ~;p

Now here's a question socialism can't answer; how do you decide what to have the factories produce? That is, you've got a population and they all need certain goods - clothing, food, shelter, etc., and want others. So what do you decide to have the factories produce?

How do you decide what goods to produce with your limited resources, what do you prioritize? The fact is, socialism can't answer that question. You can't peek into the mind of every citizen and see if they'd rather have a new pair of pants or shoes. You can't know what the mass of people desires.

Capitalism uses supply and demand - and it works for every single person to decide what they want to spend their money on based on how much, they, as individuals, not cogs in the state economy, want a good and what they are willing to pay for it and thereby forgo other goods and services.

CR

[CountArach]

Relative to what?
I would think it is fairly obvious that wealth is relative to wealth...

@ CR - Who is to say Supply and Demand still wouldn't be in play? I believe that private industry has a role to play, albeit a much smaller one. Please show me where I or anyone else in this thread has said otherwise.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

(ie - the entire business is owned and operator by the workers using democracy as a decision-making tool)


You do realize that, in the corporate world especially, the best decision is not always necessarily the most popular one.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I would think it is fairly obvious that wealth is relative to wealth...

@ CR - Who is to say Supply and Demand still wouldn't be in play? I believe that private industry has a role to play, albeit a much smaller one. Please show me where I or anyone else in this thread has said otherwise.

A much smaller one? That's the problem; the state would seize every important industry and so have no way to prioritize those industries. Letting supply and demand remain for a few trivial markets would be irrelevant.

Like I said, no answer.


(ie - the entire business is owned and operator by the workers using democracy as a decision-making tool)

Oh, I missed that before. So heaven forbid there's an unpopular group in the workforce that can get the shaft by the majority, huh?

And you do realize workers can own (part) of their companies just by buying stock?

CR

[CountArach]

Yes, but nowhere near enough and not a high enough proportion to actually make a difference. Also that only goes for publicly listed companies.

[Incongruous]

I would think it is fairly obvious that wealth is relative to wealth...

@ CR - Who is to say Supply and Demand still wouldn't be in play? I believe that private industry has a role to play, albeit a much smaller one. Please show me where I or anyone else in this thread has said otherwise.

Yep, you got it, wealth is realative to wealth. How does this fact help the argument of socialism?
The success of Socialism is also relative to wealth, and fails in societies where people are not so economically challenged to fall blind to its lies and utopian dreams.

I find it surprising that you are not contending my attack on socialism.
Too much truth in what I posted?
I know you believe in the end product of socialism, a society of equality in every aspect (an idea with flagrant diseregard to the differing abilities of human beings), but how should it be implemented?

[Ironside]

I see what you mean. But that's been going on since man has stopped devoting all his labor to growing/hunting food and capitalism has dealt with it nicely.

CR

Uhm, not really. The birth of modern capitalism comes from the transit from agarian to an industrial society.

And more important, the basis the agriculture, industry and service sector has been existing for millenias, but after this shift you'll either need a new sector of a new system.


You do realize that, in the corporate world especially, the best decision is not always necessarily the most popular one.

You do relize that, in the corporate world unpopular, bad decisions are done all the time? Particullary those "I'm da boss and I'm gonna ger rich(er) by screwing the company" (and by some reason they get actually get employed as da boss :dizzy2: ).

Personally I feel that you'll need to balance the sence of competition with the sence of justice to get best system. Ignoring either has dire consequences.

[CountArach]

Yep, you got it, wealth is realative to wealth. How does this fact help the argument of socialism?
You said that everyone gets equally poor. If wealth is relative and everyone is poor, then no one is poor, because everyone is equal. That was just me correcting you on a point. Nothing more, nothing less.

The success of Socialism is also relative to wealth, and fails in societies where people are not so economically challenged to fall blind to its lies and utopian dreams.
Which lies would those be? Seriously - I don't know what you are referring to.

I find it surprising that you are not contending my attack on socialism.
Too much truth in what I posted?
Well I see nothing worth me commenting on. Please, point something out. Also I am not able to spend all my day on the internet and there are many, many other things I would prefer to do than pick apart every small attack on my ideology.

I know you believe in the end product of socialism, a society of equality in every aspect (an idea with flagrant diseregard to the differing abilities of human beings), but how should it be implemented?
We can achieve it through Democratic means, with an expansion of state control in the economy, and where it is appropriate a decentralisation of the decision making process to unions and the workers.

Also to the people who have been saying that Socialism = Totalitarianism, I will remind you that homosexual rights, environmental activism, the pro-choice movement and many other progressive and anti-government control movements are inextricably linked with Socialism. Please do not equate Socialism with Totalitarianism. Think of it as big government.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You said that everyone gets equally poor. If wealth is relative and everyone is poor, then no one is poor, because everyone is equal. That was just me correcting you on a point. Nothing more, nothing less.

By international evil capitalist standards, these people would be poor when they don't have to be.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, but nowhere near enough and not a high enough proportion to actually make a difference. Also that only goes for publicly listed companies.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Read up on what's happening with the Yahoo board of directors, for the most recent big example.


Uhm, not really. The birth of modern capitalism comes from the transit from agarian to an industrial society.

And more important, the basis the agriculture, industry and service sector has been existing for millenias, but after this shift you'll either need a new sector of a new system.

The point is that what used to take much more labor and people now takes much less, a process that's been going on for centuries. And it's been dealt with by the introduction of new markets - instead of just getting practical clothing, people can get tailored clothes. Or PDAs. Or cell phones. Or the bazillion forms of entertainment. The point is markets have been changing forever, and if we let the socialist fear of change take us over, we'd have basically none of the modern world we have now.


You do relize that, in the corporate world unpopular, bad decisions are done all the time? Particullary those "I'm da boss and I'm gonna ger rich(er) by screwing the company" (and by some reason they get actually get employed as da boss

And then those companies suffer, while the ones that make good decisions prosper. Unlike government supported monopolies who just have to raise taxes.


Also to the people who have been saying that Socialism = Totalitarianism, I will remind you that homosexual rights, environmental activism, the pro-choice movement and many other progressive and anti-government control movements are inextricably linked with Socialism. Please do not equate Socialism with Totalitarianism. Think of it as big government.

Anyone else seeing the irony? Socialism requires great government control over our lives; it is the enemy of individual liberty. And guess which president started the environmental conservation movement in the US? Teddy Roosevelt. Guess who championed gay rights in the last years of his life? Barry Goldwater, staunch libertarian conservative.


You said that everyone gets equally poor. If wealth is relative and everyone is poor, then no one is poor, because everyone is equal. That was just me correcting you on a point. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wow. :dizzy2:

Anyway, I've yet to seen an answer as to how socialism can prioritize industry without the profit motive and supply and demand capitalism has.

Not surprised, though.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

Anyone else seeing the irony?

well anti-goverment controls im assuming is controls on the goverment which is essentially untotalarian, and big goverment isn't nessecarily totalarian goverment, most socailists on issues outside of finiance want the goverment out of peoples lives.

Anyway, I've yet to seen an answer as to how socialism can prioritize industry without the profit motive and supply and demand capitalism has.


I feel just the key industries should be nationalised, eg Electricity, Water and Gas because the goverment will run them for people rather than profit.

[CountArach]

Anyway, I've yet to seen an answer as to how socialism can prioritize industry without the profit motive and supply and demand capitalism has.


I feel just the key industries should be nationalised, eg Electricity, Water and Gas because the goverment will run them for people rather than profit.
Yes, that is the same thing I believe. That was also my answer to you earlier CR.

Its too early in the morning, I'll get back to the rest later.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

OK, I have skim-read this entire thread and seen some good arguments on both sides. I'm confused and most probably way out of my depth, so I'm just going to stick with my view for now.

Socialism imo is a system of government, or a political viewpoint, whereby those with relative wealth contribute to support those who are less fortunate. Ergo, almost all states have an element of socialism in them. Communism would therefore be pure socialism. Imo, there has to be a balance, pure laissez-faire capitalism is not any more viable long-term than communism.

Communism would be the perfect system if humanity was conditioned to accept the essentials to survive. This is quite clearly not the case. In fact (and I know this is slightly off-topic, but indulge me), I was reading an article on consumerism yesterday. In it the author expressed the theory that human nature is to crave material objects, and as such we can never be truly happy by buying more, and indeed paradoxically, the more we indulge that instinct the more we crave to buy.

Back to topic. Communism has been proven as a failure on a number of levels, and far be it from me to bore all you obviously intelligent people with details and reasonings that you've probably heard before.

Laissez-faire Capitalism, or as I have heard it called, Pure Capitalism, is also far too extreme. This term is used to describe capitalist systems with as little government control as possible, and was prevalent during the industrial revolution in Britain and Europe. Due to this exploitation of the working class was easy to establish, and huge profits from the factory owners guaranteed, particularly if they were in business with their 'competition' and were able to form a cartel. It could be argued that this actually influenced Karl Marx and thus, indirectly, spawned Communism.

So we've established that neither Communism nor Laissez-faire Capitalism is viable. As such it makes sense that a mild capitalist system would work best, but how much control should the government exercise? And that is the million dollar (or in actual fact the multi-billion dollar) question.

If the government steps back and allows the market to function with little interference, then big business will eventually undercut small business, by offering more choice at lower prices and establish a sort of control over the market anyway, one that is furthermore detrimental to both the consumer and the government. There is also the issue that eventually such multi-million dollar companies would then be able to influence governments, by witholding supplies, or evn by bribery. Taking this road, higher prices mean that the public clamour for tax breaks, which cuts government income, leading to cuts in spending. No matter how well-intentioned, eventually this will have to result in the cutting of social benefits. Which, coupled with higher prices could lead to widespread poverty.

On the other hand tight government control and the fixing of prices etc. would be beneficial for those less well off. However, so-called 'big government' leads to the government then holding a position of power. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not entirely sure who said this, but I echo the sentiment. Eventually, even a democraticly elected government, if given too much power can become a monster. Also it begs the question how would such a government, that advocates tight control manage to get elected? Can you imagine big business fat cats, or even those moderately well-off voting for a government that will 'redistribute wealth'? In other words, only through concealing of motives could such a thing come to pass, at least in the first world. That I cannot condone.

In short, there is no ideal system. There is no chance at a utopian society where all are equal (I haven't mentioned this above but merely due to physical and mental differences). As a perfectionist I know these things, but as an idealist, I still give tacit support to socialist ideals. Despite this it is my considered opinion, that socialism is, while infinitely superior to communism, still subject to the same weaknesses, in that it relies on good intentions, and benevolent government, which as a cynic, I suggest cannot exist stably.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, that is the same thing I believe. That was also my answer to you earlier CR.

Its too early in the morning, I'll get back to the rest later.

That's not an answer. You said key industries would be controlled. That's not a bit of an answer to how they would be prioritized.


I feel just the key industries should be nationalised, eg Electricity, Water and Gas because the goverment will run them for people rather than profit.

That feel-good crap does no actual good. It is the very profit mechanism - the invisible hand Adam Smith spoke of - that benefits people the most.

What industries outside of utilities do you consider 'key'?

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What industries outside of utilities do you consider 'key'?


The ones that make the Politburo good vodka.

[CountArach]

What industries outside of utilities do you consider 'key'?
I don't know about LG, but for me it is largely resources, particularly ones that are harmful to the environment (Such as Uranium and Oil), because I believe that by doing this the government can influence environmental policy, rather than getting companies like Exxon and Shell having huge profits at the expense of the environment. I also think that there are some manufacturing sectors that are largely being outsourced that should be protected (Not nationalised though - some government ownership wouldn't go astray).

So how would they be prioritised? If people need what they supply then it should be nationalised and if the ownership of it by business is clearly detrimental to the nation or the world as a whole, then it should also be nationalised.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Its an interesting idea CA, but in practise I'd consider it unworkable. Whose word are we going to take that it is necessary, or harmful, the Government? Thats the problem with representative democracy, the people who have been elected by the collective nation still have their own agendas. Also, in this case, surely the nationalisation of these industries would be too much for a government to handle in one go, it would have to be a gradual process. How popular do you really think that this policy would be? If a government proposed it, they probably wouldn't be able to implement the whole strategy before being ejected from office.

While I agree in principle that if properly implemented such a scheme could be beneficial to society and the environment, I believe that you're being overly idealisitic if you imagine that it could actually take place in the near future, and that there wouldn't be serious problems with it.

[Strike For The South]

Large goverment spending and intervention always ends badly in the long run. Its always better to let the people adapt and overcome than have the goverment do it for them eeven if in the short run it seems counterproductive. History has shown us this time and agian. So why people preach a system of economics based upon these 2 tenantes is beyond me.


HOOVER WAS RIGHT!

[CountArach]

Its an interesting idea CA, but in practise I'd consider it unworkable. Whose word are we going to take that it is necessary, or harmful, the Government?
If the party runs on a platform where they talk about what they want to Nationalise, then I think that it is up to the people who elect them to decide.
Also, in this case, surely the nationalisation of these industries would be too much for a government to handle in one go, it would have to be a gradual process.
Yes I imagine it would take several terms in office to get everything done. That shouldn't be a good enough reason to stop it though.

How popular do you really think that this policy would be? If a government proposed it, they probably wouldn't be able to implement the whole strategy before being ejected from office.
Again, if they ran on this policy and explained that it would take time, but the end result would be worth it - then I think more people would understand. Also I think that the mindset of "it would be unpopular, so we shouldn't do it" is a huge problem in politics because it puts the good of the party above the good of the people.

While I agree in principle that if properly implemented such a scheme could be beneficial to society and the environment, I believe that you're being overly idealisitic if you imagine that it could actually take place in the near future, and that there wouldn't be serious problems with it.
I know there would be unforeseen speed bumps, but I maintain that these could be overcome. Being an optimist by nature helps me believe it will happen, but I do think that within 50 years we will see a lot more socialist aspects in the world as a whole, as people come to see the long-term unsustainability of Capitalism. I expect that everywhere in the western world will be a welfare state, though how much they would go beyond that I don't know.

Also, as I said - just because it may not work is no reason not to try it. It certainly didn't stop Reagan.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

If the party runs on a platform where they talk about what they want to Nationalise, then I think that it is up to the people who elect them to decide.
Yes I imagine it would take several terms in office to get everything done. That shouldn't be a good enough reason to stop it though.

I agree, but I just don't see the majority of people actually supporting nationalisation. At least not in the current socio-political climate.


Again, if they ran on this policy and explained that it would take time, but the end result would be worth it - then I think more people would understand. Also I think that the mindset of "it would be unpopular, so we shouldn't do it" is a huge problem in politics because it puts the good of the party above the good of the people.

It is a huge problem with contemporary politics and I personally agree that the end result would probably justify it. However the issue is that if a policy is unpopular, then there is a good chance that the voting public will demonstrate their disapproval during the next election or referendum. There's nothing like feeling ignored to make people irrational. There is also the standpoint that if a party is knocked out of office, it will be unable to implement other, less contraversial policies, that would also help people and the country.


I know there would be unforeseen speed bumps, but I maintain that these could be overcome. Being an optimist by nature helps me believe it will happen, but I do think that within 50 years we will see a lot more socialist aspects in the world as a whole, as people come to see the long-term unsustainability of Capitalism. I expect that everywhere in the western world will be a welfare state, though how much they would go beyond that I don't know.

Of course, given enough time, resources and manpower, almost any obstacle can be overcome. The question is whether the people would tolerate what could be seen as a 'waste' of taxpayers money. 50 years would be optimistic for a large-scale political change such as you describe, but I could see it happening, because, imo, capitalism in its current form is unsustainable. I can see most of the western world becoming welfare states, but have issues with your time-scale. Again, we can't be certain of any future events, so you may be right.


Also, as I said - just because it may not work is no reason not to try it. It certainly didn't stop Reagan.

Agree with the sentiment, but again can't see any current political body trying it.

Can you see Kevin Rudd nationalising the country in the near future? Or Brendan Nelson?

[Privateerkev]

Ah, come on. I don't mean to insult. I haven't gotten really angry on this forum for a very long time. But, you know, when you start talking about why capitalism is bad, your criticisms just don't make that much sense.

If you get angry from things said on the internet, you might want to re-examine how you spend your free time.


You seem like a nice guy, just completely wrong. ~;p

That's your opinion and your entitled to it.


Now here's a question socialism can't answer; how do you decide what to have the factories produce? That is, you've got a population and they all need certain goods - clothing, food, shelter, etc., and want others. So what do you decide to have the factories produce?

Produce what is needed. This doesn't have to be complicated.


How do you decide what goods to produce with your limited resources, what do you prioritize? The fact is, socialism can't answer that question. You can't peek into the mind of every citizen and see if they'd rather have a new pair of pants or shoes. You can't know what the mass of people desires.

I will repeat my last point. Produce what is needed. We're pretty smart and I'm confident we can find a way.


Capitalism uses supply and demand - and it works for every single person to decide what they want to spend their money on based on how much, they, as individuals, not cogs in the state economy, want a good and what they are willing to pay for it and thereby forgo other goods and services.

I am not as confident as you are that supply and demand works for everyone.

[CountArach]

I agree, but I just don't see the majority of people actually supporting nationalisation. At least not in the current socio-political climate.
Nope, not in the current climate. The world is shifting slowly back to the centre, and that isn't a position conducive to nationalisation.

It is a huge problem with contemporary politics and I personally agree that the end result would probably justify it. However the issue is that if a policy is unpopular, then there is a good chance that the voting public will demonstrate their disapproval during the next election or referendum. There's nothing like feeling ignored to make people irrational. There is also the standpoint that if a party is knocked out of office, it will be unable to implement other, less contraversial policies, that would also help people and the country.
Yes I imagine it would be like that, but when you consider that this goes hand-in-hand with other, more popular, programs like universal healthcare and more education funding, not everything will go badly. Gough Whitlam's idea of buying back the farm was a fundamentally good one and it was quite popular, except when it came to the way that his minister tried to finance it. Indeed Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are very popular in their respective countries after they nationalised oil and several other things. Nationalisation can be popular, if you put it in the right context at the right time.

Of course, given enough time, resources and manpower, almost any obstacle can be overcome. The question is whether the people would tolerate what could be seen as a 'waste' of taxpayers money. 50 years would be optimistic for a large-scale political change such as you describe, but I could see it happening, because, imo, capitalism in its current form is unsustainable. I can see most of the western world becoming welfare states, but have issues with your time-scale. Again, we can't be certain of any future events, so you may be right.
I see 50 years as being the end of the vanguard period, and then the next 50 years being where all of the real socialist work is done. I don't expect to see full scale socialism during my life, but I like to think my Grandchildren will.

Agree with the sentiment, but again can't see any current political body trying it.

Can you see Kevin Rudd nationalising the country in the near future? Or Brendan Nelson?
Don't even get me started on the Labor Party, let alone the Liberals... I campaigned for the Greens last election and even they are too conservative on many economic issues for me...

[Crazed Rabbit]

If you get angry from things said on the internet, you might want to re-examine how you spend your free time.

Ouch, ze barb, she stings!

:laugh4: Especially since you were complaining several posts ago.


Produce what is needed. This doesn't have to be complicated.

I will repeat the question then; what is needed? There is no other way to know than capitalism.


I am not as confident as you are that supply and demand works for everyone.

Oh right, we should rely on the magic socialist fairy who'll come from Marx himself to tell us what fantastic new system we should use.

CA, you know this 'nationalization' you speak of is bare-faced theft, right? That those industries you want the government to seize are only as big as they are, as important as they are, they only exist because small groups of people put their sweat and money into building something from nothing, into making a company that produces thousands of cars where cars used to be the province of the rich.

It is only because of their success at making a profit, at using the capitalist system, that there is any industry for those greedy socialist vultures to think of stealing!

People only need oil because of Rockefeller, they only need steel because of Carnegie, they only need cars because of Ford!

And the long term instability of capitalism? Excuse me while I laugh!

Which was it that faltered, the Soviet Union or the USA? Which country's economy is known as the 'Celtic Tiger' because it passed pro-business laws? Why is France getting rid of certain socialist laws to save its economy if socialism is so sustainable? Why is Cuba allowing capitalistic reforms? Could it be because even in Cuba the private farmers are so much more efficient than the state run farms?

Why should people found a new industry, to embark on great new productions, if only to have the state's talentless pigs seize what they have built? Go ahead and nationalize everything important, and 100 years from now car manufacturing or whatever will still be an important industry for you, as the rest of the world is using flying transports and has a whole different economy.

CR

[LittleGrizzly]

That feel-good crap does no actual good. It is the very profit mechanism - the invisible hand Adam Smith spoke of - that benefits people the most.

What industries outside of utilities do you consider 'key'?

Any power station i think should be in British hands, we would have much more control over our energy policy and it could be run similar to our national health service which i understand is actually good value for money, this way we won't have the situation of old people having to go without heating because the goverment would simply not cut thier power. The health service is something that i think is a key industry as well, its just too important to leave peoples health dependant on thier ability to afford insurance, from what i keep hearing a medicare is very ineffecient anyway...

One more service i think should be nationalised in the UK at least is the post office, post offices are closing around the country because mainly in small villages and towns they are not profitable, this is having a disproportionate effect on older people in these towns and villages who use the service as a social gathering point as well as a service. This would be a money losing service in some places around the country, this makes the nationalism seem ineffecient but it is being done for the people who need the service and is worth it for the cost imo, a few decades down the line when pretty much everyone is online i don't think the post office well be so important to some people and could probably be scaled back.....

[CountArach]

CA, you know this 'nationalization' you speak of is bare-faced theft, right? That those industries you want the government to seize are only as big as they are, as important as they are, they only exist because small groups of people put their sweat and money into building something from nothing, into making a company that produces thousands of cars where cars used to be the province of the rich.
I support compensating people in nationalised industries, I have no problem with that. I would also think that they would remain in senior management positions, they do after all have a great deal of industry experience that a government would be stupid to ignore.

Why should people found a new industry, to embark on great new productions, if only to have the state's talentless pigs seize what they have built? Go ahead and nationalize everything important, and 100 years from now car manufacturing or whatever will still be an important industry for you, as the rest of the world is using flying transports and has a whole different economy.
You make it sound as if once we reach Socialism we never go anywhere else again. Of course we keep re-evaluating the current system and the current economic climate. Hell, if nationalisation of industry doesn't work I'm all for undoing it. The thing is I believe that we should experiment with it and see what happens.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Yes I imagine it would be like that, but when you consider that this goes hand-in-hand with other, more popular, programs like universal healthcare and more education funding, not everything will go badly. Gough Whitlam's idea of buying back the farm was a fundamentally good one and it was quite popular, except when it came to the way that his minister tried to finance it. Indeed Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are very popular in their respective countries after they nationalised oil and several other things. Nationalisation can be popular, if you put it in the right context at the right time.

A good point that I have overlooked, although I doubt it would be enough. Indeed, Gough Whitlam was, imo, the best PM that Australia has had (bearing in mind that I only from 1945 onwards in terms of what happened in Australia, because I'm English originally). Only overexuberance and an obstructive senate stopped his term from being truly productive. Again context is all, and in most of the western world the time is not right.


I see 50 years as being the end of the vanguard period, and then the next 50 years being where all of the real socialist work is done. I don't expect to see full scale socialism during my life, but I like to think my Grandchildren will.

It would be nice to think so, but I fear human nature will defeat that ambition.


Don't even get me started on the Labor Party, let alone the Liberals... I campaigned for the Greens last election and even they are too conservative on many economic issues for me...

Australian political parties are all basically the same. Remember Labour claiming that the Libs had 'stolen' their policies (Or was it the other way around? :laugh4:).


I will repeat the question then; what is needed? There is no other way to know than capitalism.

I don't think (think being the key word), that the issue is with the captalist system itself, but rather the imitation laissez-faire system that is particularly prevalent in the USA.


Oh right, we should rely on the magic socialist fairy who'll come from Marx himself to tell us what fantastic new system we should use.

He didn't say that. Any system takes time to develop, so long as socialist values begin to creep into the collective consciousness then a system will eventually develop. With an aging population demographic, more emphasis will have to be placed on welfare in the near future, which is at least a step in the right direction.


CA, you know this 'nationalization' you speak of is bare-faced theft, right? That those industries you want the government to seize are only as big as they are, as important as they are, they only exist because small groups of people put their sweat and money into building something from nothing, into making a company that produces thousands of cars where cars used to be the province of the rich.

Idealism. While some businesses are created off the blood, sweat and tears of a small group of people who work incessantly in order to provide the best service possible, they are sadly few in number. The industries in question, electricity, water supply, food production, etc., can get away with providing inferior products or services due to the relative scarcity of providers. Nationalisation does make sense, but its something that few people in the western world, conditioned from birth to accept capitalism, want to hear about.


It is only because of their success at making a profit, at using the capitalist system, that there is any industry for those greedy socialist vultures to think of stealing!

So the businessmen in charge of Nike, aren't greedy 'capitalist' vultures? When they blatantly exploit the poor working class in developing countries to produce at cheaper prices. Its like the 19th century all over again. And they call it progress... :laugh4:


And the long term instability of capitalism? Excuse me while I laugh!

Communism and socialism are different things, so the collapse of the USSR is not relevant.

Any economic system which creates a vast economic imbalance must be inherently unstable. When the majority of the population cannot afford enough to survive then maybe you'll see...

[Brenus]

What a huge question!!!
First observation: Socialism as ideology and Economical Project exists only because Capitalism failures in large parts of the Society.
Second, Socialism pre-exists Communism, like Christ pre-exists the Vatican and Inquisition…
Third, Socialism isn’t laziness and taking advantage of the System. You will have people using systems like Managers increasing their Salary when companies are closing, huge fiscal advantages given by Capitalistic Governments, and exploiting laws loopholes to escape justice etc.

As a Socialist, I do not see real differences between the Soviet Apparatchiks and the big Industries Captains and Co. Do you remember Iraq’s contracts attribution?

To judge Socialism in regards about what was achieved in USSR is as to judge Capitalism in regards what was done in Nazi Germany or Chile under Pinochet. It was dictatorships….
The problem I have with Capitalist defenders is they ignore what and how the so-call Free-market States impose even in term of economy. I even don’t mention Armies, Police and Justice: these items won’t be privatised, I suppose…
To built dams, railways and monumental infrastructures and equipment, the State will take the land by law if necessary. In normal “free” market, the companies’ should negotiate and pay the price asked by the owners of the land to do the job. But, in recognition of the interests of the most, some lands are taken… Grabbing others properties (of the poorest) was and still is one of the most common things in “capitalist” countries, with the total complicity, agreement and protection of the “free-marketeers” governments…

Socialism tries to have ethnic. You can’t exploit others miseries to do a lot of money, every body have the rights of dignity, opinion, and some basic rights, as food, shelters, education, water, access to health…
People in favour of “capitalism” almost always use “I”. My interests, my health, my property, my car… They are not really concern by others, “they” are lazy, or weak, or whatever, “they” deserved what they are or the conditions “they” are living…
It reminds me the law in the Confederate States which prevented the Slaves to be taught then the reproach made against the Blacks to be illiterate…

“Socialism/Marxism/Whatever does not make everyone equally rich, it makes everyone equally poor, IMHO”: None sense…

“There is a bit more about a product then the end-result at the assembly line. Needs research, investment, planning, taking risks in general. The workers aren't taking any risks they just put the pieces together, they aren't risking anything, and they are being paid for that, why on earth would they have the right on the profit?”
How many managers did die in building bridges, factories, iron, etc…? Risks are with your life, not money, which most of the time belongs to somebody else anyway, as the latest financial scandals showed…
Even managers who failed miserably got huge pensions and stock options… Long life free market!!!! And the workers are fired without pensions: Who got the risks?:oops:
By the way try to work on a roof, just to experiment the "risk-free" workers’ life.:laugh4:

“I'm surprised socialism still has its adherents, but I guess they support it to feel good then out of any knowledge of economics.” I am surprised that hard core Capitalists supporters still exist, but I guess it to feel good about to know something a “dreamed” economy without any support from reality of humanity… And wrong ideas about Socialism…

“And you do realize workers can own (part) of their companies just by buying stock?” Without any control about how their money will be spent, and being at the end of the queue if the things go wrong… See latest bankruptcies…

“That feel-good crap does no actual good. It is the very profit mechanism - the invisible hand Adam Smith spoke of - that benefits people the most.”: State Controlled Companies is not as “principals” against Profit. But instead to target as much profits to pay shares-holders, it focus on delivering better services and research. It is largely ignored but EDF (actually a leading Energy Company) is State Owned Company, SNCF, one of the most efficient Railways Companies is Stare Own, as Air France… The actual Free Market Ideology just ignores facts and prefers dogmas…
The Electrical System collapsed in the USA (free-Market), Italy (free market) because the race for profits over takes on the public interests. The wealth of a minority is more important in Capitalism than the health of the majority.

“What industries outside of utilities do you consider 'key'?” The ones which were built with my ancestors taxes: Transport, Health, energy, as example.
Why are we paying taxes if we got no return on money?

“Now here's a question socialism can't answer; how do you decide what to have the factories produce? That is, you've got a population and they all need certain goods - clothing, food, shelter, etc., and want others. So what do you decide to have the factories produce?”
It is because it is not to Socialism to answer. Why should an economical and political social model decide what to produce?

Socialism is an idea, a political model which proposes an alternative solution to the Capitalist “jungle law”. It is not a totalitarian State… You will not find a more individual freedom lover than a Socialist. Yes, we dare to resist to the big financial lobbies, we dare to remind people that workers are humans; we dare to ask about the wisdom of our managers and to question their abilities. But most, we challenge their God, Money and dogmas…
I know, to find personal willing to work for the good of the majority and not only for their individual and egoistic interest is difficult, but not impossible. I met some in the Army and in Charities. When the global goal is bigger than you, when to protect your country, to fight for your freedom and to shield your family and your values can lead you to die, when saving others unknowned lives is important and valuable… And very rewarded in terms of pride, self-esteem, etc.

“Why is France getting rid of certain socialist laws to save its economy if socialism is so sustainable?” Because the French President is the valet of the big Capitalist and they want to make more money could be the others. To be honest, he just pay them back, he gives them their money back…:beam:

[Ironside]

The point is that what used to take much more labor and people now takes much less, a process that's been going on for centuries. And it's been dealt with by the introduction of new markets - instead of just getting practical clothing, people can get tailored clothes. Or PDAs. Or cell phones. Or the bazillion forms of entertainment. The point is markets have been changing forever, and if we let the socialist fear of change take us over, we'd have basically none of the modern world we have now.


The unlimited market. Would'nt that need an unlimited need for new products? See below what I consider suspect with that idea. Doesn't "the evergrowing market" usually be a pretty good sign of an economic bubble btw?

My focus is on a different tangent though, what I'm saying is that the growth of the market won't create jobs as fast as it removes them. The only sector were this isn't occuring atm is the service sector and to put an extreme example (I suspect it will happen much earlier), what will happen when the humans in the service sector can be replaced with cheaper andriods that function as well? Some will have to maintain the androids, but it will be much fewer than the jobs the androids will take.

I'm talking about what will happen after that modern capitalism has reached its dead end, in the same way that previous economic systems have done it. Personally, from what I can see the only system that would improve the conditions for most people at that stage is a form of socialism.


Communism would be the perfect system if humanity was conditioned to accept the essentials to survive. This is quite clearly not the case. In fact (and I know this is slightly off-topic, but indulge me), I was reading an article on consumerism yesterday. In it the author expressed the theory that human nature is to crave material objects, and as such we can never be truly happy by buying more, and indeed paradoxically, the more we indulge that instinct the more we crave to buy.

Depends, consumerism is a mindset. Did you know that one big complain after the Great Plague was that the workers were much lazier? It was because the lack of workers caused the salaries to rise. And as the worker didn't need more money they simply worked less. How do you think the modern market would handle a backlash to such ideas?

[Incongruous]

What a huge question!!!
First observation: Socialism as ideology and Economical Project exists only because Capitalism failures in large parts of the Society.
Second, Socialism pre-exists Communism, like Christ pre-exists the Vatican and Inquisition…
Third, Socialism isn’t laziness and taking advantage of the System. You will have people using systems like Managers increasing their Salary when companies are closing, huge fiscal advantages given by Capitalistic Governments, and exploiting laws loopholes to escape justice etc.

As a Socialist, I do not see real differences between the Soviet Apparatchiks and the big Industries Captains and Co. Do you remember Iraq’s contracts attribution?

To judge Socialism in regards about what was achieved in USSR is as to judge Capitalism in regards what was done in Nazi Germany or Chile under Pinochet. It was dictatorships….
The problem I have with Capitalist defenders is they ignore what and how the so-call Free-market States impose even in term of economy. I even don’t mention Armies, Police and Justice: these items won’t be privatised, I suppose…
To built dams, railways and monumental infrastructures and equipment, the State will take the land by law if necessary. In normal “free” market, the companies’ should negotiate and pay the price asked by the owners of the land to do the job. But, in recognition of the interests of the most, some lands are taken… Grabbing others properties (of the poorest) was and still is one of the most common things in “capitalist” countries, with the total complicity, agreement and protection of the “free-marketeers” governments…

Socialism tries to have ethnic. You can’t exploit others miseries to do a lot of money, every body have the rights of dignity, opinion, and some basic rights, as food, shelters, education, water, access to health…
People in favour of “capitalism” almost always use “I”. My interests, my health, my property, my car… They are not really concern by others, “they” are lazy, or weak, or whatever, “they” deserved what they are or the conditions “they” are living…
It reminds me the law in the Confederate States which prevented the Slaves to be taught then the reproach made against the Blacks to be illiterate…

“Socialism/Marxism/Whatever does not make everyone equally rich, it makes everyone equally poor, IMHO”: None sense…

“There is a bit more about a product then the end-result at the assembly line. Needs research, investment, planning, taking risks in general. The workers aren't taking any risks they just put the pieces together, they aren't risking anything, and they are being paid for that, why on earth would they have the right on the profit?”
How many managers did die in building bridges, factories, iron, etc…? Risks are with your life, not money, which most of the time belongs to somebody else anyway, as the latest financial scandals showed…
Even managers who failed miserably got huge pensions and stock options… Long life free market!!!! And the workers are fired without pensions: Who got the risks?:oops:
By the way try to work on a roof, just to experiment the "risk-free" workers’ life.:laugh4:

“I'm surprised socialism still has its adherents, but I guess they support it to feel good then out of any knowledge of economics.” I am surprised that hard core Capitalists supporters still exist, but I guess it to feel good about to know something a “dreamed” economy without any support from reality of humanity… And wrong ideas about Socialism…

“And you do realize workers can own (part) of their companies just by buying stock?” Without any control about how their money will be spent, and being at the end of the queue if the things go wrong… See latest bankruptcies…

“That feel-good crap does no actual good. It is the very profit mechanism - the invisible hand Adam Smith spoke of - that benefits people the most.”: State Controlled Companies is not as “principals” against Profit. But instead to target as much profits to pay shares-holders, it focus on delivering better services and research. It is largely ignored but EDF (actually a leading Energy Company) is State Owned Company, SNCF, one of the most efficient Railways Companies is Stare Own, as Air France… The actual Free Market Ideology just ignores facts and prefers dogmas…
The Electrical System collapsed in the USA (free-Market), Italy (free market) because the race for profits over takes on the public interests. The wealth of a minority is more important in Capitalism than the health of the majority.

“What industries outside of utilities do you consider 'key'?” The ones which were built with my ancestors taxes: Transport, Health, energy, as example.
Why are we paying taxes if we got no return on money?

“Now here's a question socialism can't answer; how do you decide what to have the factories produce? That is, you've got a population and they all need certain goods - clothing, food, shelter, etc., and want others. So what do you decide to have the factories produce?”
It is because it is not to Socialism to answer. Why should an economical and political social model decide what to produce?

Socialism is an idea, a political model which proposes an alternative solution to the Capitalist “jungle law”. It is not a totalitarian State… You will not find a more individual freedom lover than a Socialist. Yes, we dare to resist to the big financial lobbies, we dare to remind people that workers are humans; we dare to ask about the wisdom of our managers and to question their abilities. But most, we challenge their God, Money and dogmas…
I know, to find personal willing to work for the good of the majority and not only for their individual and egoistic interest is difficult, but not impossible. I met some in the Army and in Charities. When the global goal is bigger than you, when to protect your country, to fight for your freedom and to shield your family and your values can lead you to die, when saving others unknowned lives is important and valuable… And very rewarded in terms of pride, self-esteem, etc.

“Why is France getting rid of certain socialist laws to save its economy if socialism is so sustainable?” Because the French President is the valet of the big Capitalist and they want to make more money could be the others. To be honest, he just pay them back, he gives them their money back…:beam:

What on earth are yoy ranting about in the last pargraph?
We? Who the hell is that? Are you a worker? One of the prol? I frikin doubt it.
What god and what dogmas? Most capitalists I wager are godless.
Everyone needs a manager, you're just saying that we need one big one, the government. A manager with all the powers of the state under its control as well. Sounds good.
I mean how in heck do you suppose such an idea will be imposed in a democratic society? The most we get of anything these days is always middle of the road lite stuff.
I think perhaps you need a new ideology, socialism wont cut it anymore, people just need to think of the USSR and they squirm.

[CountArach]

We? Who the hell is that? Are you a worker? One of the prol? I frikin doubt it.
One can be proletarian without being part of the proletariat. A fine distinction, but it is there.

What god and what dogmas? Most capitalists I wager are godless.
Well Evangelicals certainly aren't Socialist...

I mean how in heck do you suppose such an idea will be imposed in a democratic society?
I don't know, maybe through voting :idea:

[Brenus]

“Are you a worker? One of the prol? I frikin doubt it.”: Yep, I am. Pure definition: I sell my force to work. Coming from a family of prol, as you said. You can still doubt of it but we, my family, were peasants, workers and soldiers, a Soviet by full right and definition…:laugh4:

What god and what dogmas: Money, my dear, and the holy market. You need to watch news and read newspapers, at least…

“I mean how in heck do you suppose such an idea will be imposed in a democratic society?”: I don’t want to impose, I want to convince that a better world is possible…

“I think perhaps you need a new ideology, socialism wont cut it anymore, people just need to think of the USSR and they squirm.” We agree on that. We need a new wording for a idea, but it will be still the good old ideal, you know, justice, freedom, dignity for all…

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I'm talking about what will happen after that modern capitalism has reached its dead end, in the same way that previous economic systems have done it. Personally, from what I can see the only system that would improve the conditions for most people at that stage is a form of socialism.

Nothing is eternal, particularly something which has so many inherent flaws as contemporary Capitalism. Eventually it will fold, whether through lack of resources or economic collapse (in the extreme case), or through democratic change and economic policies. I quite agree that the only system that is currently apparent that can improve the lives of the majority of people (and I know that sounds really Utilitarian, I'm not an adherent of that philosphy, just to make things clear), is socialism


Depends, consumerism is a mindset. Did you know that one big complain after the Great Plague was that the workers were much lazier? It was because the lack of workers caused the salaries to rise. And as the worker didn't need more money they simply worked less. How do you think the modern market would handle a backlash to such ideas?

As to your first and second points I was aware of them. What I didn't know was that the workers were happy to accept less money in order to work less. However, I'd be suprised if production needed to be at the old levels, considering the amount of people killed. From memory over one third of the workforce was killed, and the old and the very young were more susceptable, although the plague wasn't particularly discriminating.

However while I agree that consumerism is a mindset, it is one that afflicts the majority of people in the western (and by that I mean developed) world. In addition, the situation you describe above is very different to the one which is apparent today. We have an approaching resource shortage and a rapidly increasing population, not one that has been drastically cut in a very short space of time. In other words the modern market wouldn't be able to handle such a shift in ideology, but it will not need to without a huge disaster anyway (which would btw lessen many of problems facing the world in the 21st century, but I'm not advocating genocide).

[Ironside]

As to your first and second points I was aware of them. What I didn't know was that the workers were happy to accept less money in order to work less. However, I'd be suprised if production needed to be at the old levels, considering the amount of people killed. From memory over one third of the workforce was killed, and the old and the very young were more susceptable, although the plague wasn't particularly discriminating.

It was more to point out that it was general mindset at that time, it wasn't something that appeared due to the Plague.


However while I agree that consumerism is a mindset, it is one that afflicts the majority of people in the western (and by that I mean developed) world. In addition, the situation you describe above is very different to the one which is apparent today. We have an approaching resource shortage and a rapidly increasing population, not one that has been drastically cut in a very short space of time. In other words the modern market wouldn't be able to handle such a shift in ideology, but it will not need to without a huge disaster anyway (which would btw lessen many of problems facing the world in the 21st century, but I'm not advocating genocide).

Should probably been more clear in the last post, but there's several anti-cunsumerism tendencies today (that was the different mind-set I was focusing on) and at some point they will end up dominant. If nothing else, because you'll reach a point were the only reson to spend is to keep everything afloat.
To paraphrase Bush after 9/11: Spend, spend proud Americans, do not let the evil terrorists hurt the spending.

And when the anti-consumerism will hit, it should have pretty big consequences.

[Privateerkev]

Ouch, ze barb, she stings!

:laugh4: Especially since you were complaining several posts ago.

But I wasn't angry. I just saw continuing our conversation as a waste of my time due to the way you treat me. Big difference.

The next time you feel that something said on the internet "stings", I recommend the following cartoon:

http://xkcd.com/386/

It works wonders for me.

If you still find that your angry, because of things that are said on the internet, I recommend taking the night off from the computer. You'd be surprised how much things are put into perspective when you go out and spend time outdoors. :yes:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Perhaps we can get back to topic instead of making assumptions about posters' lifestyles?

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Meneldil]

Why is France getting rid of certain socialist laws to save its economy if socialism is so sustainable?

Didn't know that France was a socialist country, but thanks for pointing it out to me. With your lights, I might understand my country aswell.

As for your question, France is probably "getting rid of certain socialist laws" (sorry, but lol) because its President is a right-wing liberal moron trying to get as much money as humanly possible for him and his friends before leaving the office ? Mind you, I'm not sure that's the exact reason, but one could argue both facts are linked :holmes:

[Privateerkev]

Perhaps we can get back to topic instead of making assumptions about posters' lifestyles?

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Point taken. :bow:

But I was making no assumptions. CR stated quite plainly that he was getting angry.

As for getting off-topic, unfortunately this thread got off-topic long ago. What started as an attempt to define socialism became an oppurtunity for some to come in here and throw out red-herrings.

Such as:

A country that claimed it had socialism/communism did not work. Therefore, socialism/communism can not work.

A country that claimed it had socialism/communism was actually tolitarian. Therefore, socialism/communism inevitably leads to tolitarianism.

While we are smart enough to create a "market" to distribute goods, we are not smart enough to think of any other way to distribute goods so we must stay with the market because it is the best we will ever think up.

Those that believe in socialism/communism actually do not understand economics.

If there is socialism/communism, no one will want to work.
--------------------------------------------

Instead of attempting to define what socialism actually means, some rather throw out red-herrings such as the ones above. The red-herrings do little to serve the discourse and aren't even on-topic.

Which is regrettable because I believe a real conversation on the subject, which I admit some on both sides are trying to provide, would serve us well.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

What started as an attempt to define socialism became an oppurtunity for some to come in here and throw out red-herrings.

Such as:

A country that claimed it had socialism/communism did not work. Therefore, socialism/communism can not work.

A country that claimed it had socialism/communism was actually tolitarian. Therefore, socialism/communism inevitably leads to tolitarianism.

While we are smart enough to create a "market" to distribute goods, we are not smart enough to think of any other way to distribute goods so we must stay with the market because it is the best we will ever think up.

Those that believe in socialism/communism actually do not understand economics.

If there is socialism/communism, no one will want to work.

The conversation has evolved somewhat, and not for the better, as Kev and Banquo's Ghost have pointed out. I think the definitions we have are adequate (as in everyone knows what we are talking about now). As far as I am concerned the discussion is now on the merits and problems that Socialism can bring (and has been for a while). Its still related to the topic.

Thanks kev for pointing out the obvious. Some people are coming into the discussion with strong preconceptions (nothing wrong with that), and aren't trying to justify what they are saying (kind of an issue). The above are all misconceptions. Some may have been valid for past instances, but the future is not set in stone. There may be ways around them, better implementation and management for one.


Instead of attempting to define what socialism actually means, some rather throw out red-herrings such as the ones above. The red-herrings do little to serve the discourse and aren't even on-topic.

Which is regrettable because I believe a real conversation on the subject, which I admit some on both sides are trying to provide, would serve us well.

In fact there are several people trying to stimulate discussion, including yourself. This thread isn't dead yet!


Should probably been more clear in the last post, but there's several anti-consumerism tendencies today (that was the different mind-set I was focusing on) and at some point they will end up dominant. If nothing else, because you'll reach a point were the only reason to spend is to keep everything afloat.

Having thought about this, I believe we are dangerously close to the point where spending is merely for keeping the economy going. However, the majority of people don't see that at the moment. Many people probably don't realise that by buying goods that they don't need they will merely drive the economy to unsustainable levels. It probably doesn't even cross their mind.


To paraphrase Bush after 9/11: Spend, spend proud Americans, do not let the evil terrorists hurt the spending.

:laugh4: But so true. If consumerism afflicts any country badly, the worst has to be the USA.


And when the anti-consumerism will hit, it should have pretty big consequences.

Yes when the realisation hits there will be massive consequences. It is possible that there could be an economic collapse and depression across the developed world. This of course would then bring China to the fore. The social, economic and political consequences would be huge, and unpredictable.


Didn't know that France was a socialist country, but thanks for pointing it out to me. With your lights, I might understand my country aswell.

I wouldn't say completely socialist, but certainly more so than the USA, UK and Australia. As to the rest of western Europe, I couldn't say, I don't know enough.


As for your question, France is probably "getting rid of certain socialist laws" (sorry, but lol) because its President is a right-wing liberal moron trying to get as much money as humanly possible for him and his friends before leaving the office ? Mind you, I'm not sure that's the exact reason, but one could argue both facts are linked :holmes:

I didn't think Sarkozy was that far right-wing (again, probably lack of information), but if so then that is your reason. If he is right-wing, then why would he support socialism? Even if they're are not necessarily that bad, they could be relatively costly, and Sarkozy is bound to have his own plans (which need to be funded). So CR, political expediency is my argument for why these 'socialist laws' are being repealed.

To restate my stance:

Socialism is a beneficial ideology which has the grand aim of creating a state where everyone can live the best life possible.

While I support socialist ideologies, I don't believe it likely that it will be integrated for the foreseeable future due to obdurate resistance from the majority of people who have been conditioned by capitalists.

Furthermore, I see democratic reform as the only acceptable way of integrating these ideals into society.

Discuss. :smash:

[Privateerkev]

The conversation has evolved somewhat, and not for the better, as Kev and Banquo's Ghost have pointed out.

And part of that is my fault. I apologize to CR if any of my comments hurt him. It was certainly not my intention. I used to get mad at internet conversations so I took him seriously when he said he was getting angry. My subsequent posts were only meant as advice. (The advice worked for me.)


Thanks kev for pointing out the obvious. Some people are coming into the discussion with strong preconceptions (nothing wrong with that), and aren't trying to justify what they are saying (kind of an issue). The above are all misconceptions. Some may have been valid for past instances, but the future is not set in stone. There may be ways around them, better implementation and management for one.

Socialism is a very real threat to a small group of people who currently hold power. Therefore, they try to make it seem like a threat to all of us.


In fact there are several people trying to stimulate discussion, including yourself. This thread isn't dead yet!

Very true. Which is why I said, "which I admit some on both sides are trying to provide." Some people on here have illuminated real problems for the institution of socialism. I am under no illusions that socialism is perfect. I only believe that it is better for everyone. But the concerns people have are real and need to be addressed.


Having thought about this, I believe we are dangerously close to the point where spending is merely for keeping the economy going. However, the majority of people don't see that at the moment. Many people probably don't realise that by buying goods that they don't need they will merely drive the economy to unsustainable levels. It probably doesn't even cross their mind.

What is scaring me even more is the use of credit to keep the economy going. Many people were encouraged to finance their spending by taking out lines of credit on their houses that they already could not afford the mortgage to. I believe the mortgage crisis in America is only in it's infancy.


:laugh4: But so true. If consumerism afflicts any country badly, the worst has to be the USA.

And America's consumerism afflicts other countries as they provide the cheap labor to manufacture the goods sold in Wal-Mart.


Yes when the realisation hits there will be massive consequences. It is possible that there could be an economic collapse and depression across the developed world. This of course would then bring China to the fore. The social, economic and political consequences would be huge, and unpredictable.

I share your concern and it is what compels me to find an answer now instead of later.


I didn't think Sarkozy was that far right-wing (again, probably lack of information), but if so then that is your reason. If he is right-wing, then why would he support socialism? Even if they're are not necessarily that bad, they could be relatively costly, and Sarkozy is bound to have his own plans (which need to be funded). So CR, political expediency is my argument for why these 'socialist laws' are being repealed.

I'm not a fan of Sarkozy but Bush makes him look positively liberal by comparison.


Socialism is a beneficial ideology which has the grand aim of creating a state where everyone can live the best life possible.

While I support socialist ideologies, I don't believe it likely that it will be integrated for the foreseeable future due to obdurate resistance from the majority of people who have been conditioned by capitalists.

Furthermore, I see democratic reform as the only acceptable way of integrating these ideals into society.

Your probably right about democratic reform but I worry that it won't work fast enough.

[LittleGrizzly]

The constant spend and loan culture always seemed a bit crazy to me, i understand that people going out and spending money is good for the economy and makes it grow, what i don't understand is quite how the system can continue to grow and sustain itself, surely someone somewhere has to pay the bill eventually ? is the sub prime lending (is that what its called.. i forget ?) market basically a smaller scale version of international consumerism ?

[Privateerkev]

The constant spend and loan culture always seemed a bit crazy to me, i understand that people going out and spending money is good for the economy and makes it grow, what i don't understand is quite how the system can continue to grow and sustain itself, surely someone somewhere has to pay the bill eventually ? is the sub prime lending (is that what its called.. i forget ?) market basically a smaller scale version of international consumerism ?

NPR had a good one hour story on the housing crisis. They link it to the fact that the global pool of money in banks doubled in the last 6 years. But the number of good investments did not double. Investment houses went shopping around for things to sink the savings of other countries into. They found, and fell in love with, mortgage backed securities.

Basically take your mortgage, bundle it with other mortgages of the same type, and sell shares to it. It was expected to be easy money and the investment houses couldn't get enough. The banks wanted to keep making more and had to expand the pool of borrowers to meet the demand from on top. Combine this with a scramble for houses from borrowers due to the expanded opportunities and you see why the value for houses skyrocketed.

Desperate for more borrowers, banks started offering NINA loans which stand for No Income, No Asset. Basically, if you had a pulse, and signed the form, you got a loan for a house. No attempt was made to see if you could actually pay the mortgage back.

It was something that could only work if every link in the chain kept doing it's part. But it was unsustainable. While there is yet a consensus as to which link broke first, the links did break. Investment houses stopped putting their investor's money into mortgage backed securities, banks were left with mortgages that investment houses wouldn't buy and borrowers couldn't pay back. The worth of houses dropped because there was less demand. People couldn't pay back their mortgages and had to foreclose, which lowered the property value of everyone in the neighborhood.

At the very least the mortgage crisis proved there needs to be regulation of the financial industry.

[Ironside]

Having thought about this, I believe we are dangerously close to the point where spending is merely for keeping the economy going. However, the majority of people don't see that at the moment. Many people probably don't realise that by buying goods that they don't need they will merely drive the economy to unsustainable levels. It probably doesn't even cross their mind.

The problem with a bubble is that people doesn't need to realise that it's a bubble until it breaks and that breaking usually starts out very small if it's driven far enough.


Yes when the realisation hits there will be massive consequences. It is possible that there could be an economic collapse and depression across the developed world. This of course would then bring China to the fore. The social, economic and political consequences would be huge, and unpredictable.


I share your concern and it is what compels me to find an answer now instead of later.

The downside with a quick cure is that it can hurt more that the problem that it tries to fix. It's tricky to do it correctly. All I can say is that there's interesting times ahead, but I suspect that it usually it that way. :book:


Socialism is a beneficial ideology which has the grand aim of creating a state where everyone can live the best life possible.

While I support socialist ideologies, I don't believe it likely that it will be integrated for the foreseeable future due to obdurate resistance from the majority of people who have been conditioned by capitalists.

Depends on what scale, while it seems to moving away from Socialism today, the pendulum will probably turn again within a few decades. A good question is what's optimal for humanity though, we still seem to construct our own ineqaulity by ourself. Limiting it is certainly a good goal though.


Furthermore, I see democratic reform as the only acceptable way of integrating these ideals into society.

Discuss. :smash:

Your probably right about democratic reform but I worry that it won't work fast enough.

Democracy it is, working through revolutions doesn't seem to work well and without enough support you'll need oppression to make it work and that is hardly consistant with Socialism.



And America's consumerism afflicts other countries as they provide the cheap labor to manufacture the goods sold in Wal-Mart.

Our neightbouring capitalists will tell you that this also causes considerble growth if properly regulated (and this will also reduce eco-damage). What they don't talk about is when it isn't properly regulated.
Neither do they talk about the point were all nations are rich enough to not function as a cheap labour country.


The constant spend and loan culture always seemed a bit crazy to me, i understand that people going out and spending money is good for the economy and makes it grow, what i don't understand is quite how the system can continue to grow and sustain itself, surely someone somewhere has to pay the bill eventually ? is the sub prime lending (is that what its called.. i forget ?) market basically a smaller scale version of international consumerism ?

The faster the money travels the system, the larger the economy. Loans work as really good lubricant for that. They aren't all bad though, as some give atleast partial economical equality.
Things starts to get tricky when you start to loan out money that you haven't gotten yet, and it isn't certain that you'll get them.

[Privateerkev]

The problem with a bubble is that people doesn't need to realise that it's a bubble until it breaks and that breaking usually starts out very small if it's driven far enough.

But a good evidence that a bubble is a bubble is that it is built on things that aren't real or false assumptions. The housing bubble was built on the assumption that houses would continue to rise in value even though more were being built. Eventually you run out of people to buy the homes. Some people saw this early on but they were ignored.


The downside with a quick cure is that it can hurt more that the problem that it tries to fix. It's tricky to do it correctly. All I can say is that there's interesting times ahead, but I suspect that it usually it that way. :book:

True. But I worry that "slow progress" will just turn into stagnation. So I push for quicker change while still supporting incremental progressive measures. Because even small positive change is better than nothing.


Depends on what scale, while it seems to moving away from Socialism today, the pendulum will probably turn again within a few decades. A good question is what's optimal for humanity though, we still seem to construct our own ineqaulity by ourself. Limiting it is certainly a good goal though.

I support socialism because it seems to be an ideology that underpins social change that is in line with my values of equality and fairness. If for some reason socialism proves to be harmful to these values, I would drop it like a bad habit.


Democracy it is, working through revolutions doesn't seem to work well and without enough support you'll need oppression to make it work and that is hardly consistant with Socialism.

I have the feeling that the question of "when is revolution a moral imperative" could be a backroom thread all by itself.


Our neightbouring capitalists will tell you that this also causes considerble growth if properly regulated (and this will also reduce eco-damage). What they don't talk about is when it isn't properly regulated.
Neither do they talk about the point were all nations are rich enough to not function as a cheap labour country.

A very good point! There seems to be this assumption that a few countries will be on top of the heap while others will be happy to provide cheap labor and lax enviromental laws. But the developing nations want to be where we are. Which is physically unsustainable. The planet simply can not support every nation having the level of development that America has. So our government walks a fine line between getting countries to open up their land for development, while still keeping them subserviant through unfair trade deals.


The faster the money travels the system, the larger the economy. Loans work as really good lubricant for that. They aren't all bad though, as some give atleast partial economical equality.
Things starts to get tricky when you start to loan out money that you haven't gotten yet, and it isn't certain that you'll get them.

If you really want to get frightened by our financial system, look into "short selling". Basically you bet that a stock will go down in value. You borrow the money to sell the stock that you don't actually own. But you promise to actually purchase it at a later date. On that date, if the stock went down, you keep the difference. :dizzy2:

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

The problem with a bubble is that people doesn't need to realise that it's a bubble until it breaks and that breaking usually starts out very small if it's driven far enough.

I'd qualify that as most people. There are always some people who can see a crisis on the horizon, the very fact that we're discussing it proves that. Another problem is that as soon as the majority of people realise there is a bubble, it will burst, as people will panic and try to distance themselves from the coming chaos. As you say, the bursting can begin small-scale, but eventually it will become obvious and that's when it becomes a problem.


The downside with a quick cure is that it can hurt more that the problem that it tries to fix. It's tricky to do it correctly. All I can say is that there's interesting times ahead, but I suspect that it usually it that way. :book:

The quick fix is always a risk, but in this case I'm not even sure that there is quick fix. Long-term it will have to be.


Depends on what scale, while it seems to moving away from Socialism today, the pendulum will probably turn again within a few decades. A good question is what's optimal for humanity though, we still seem to construct our own ineqaulity by ourself. Limiting it is certainly a good goal though.

The pendulum will turn when people realise that capitalism is an inherently flawed system, but I'd suspect that that wouldn't be for a few centuries at this rate. What is optimal for humanity is a good question and one that will have to be answered by better minds than mine. I'd like to point out that inequality isn't constructed by human thought however, it is everpresent in our genetic makeup. Until all humans are clones, or at least as in a book I read recently a hive mind (now that was scary), intellectual and physical differences will make for an unequal society. However it is down to us to make it as fair as possible.


Democracy it is, working through revolutions doesn't seem to work well and without enough support you'll need oppression to make it work and that is hardly consistant with Socialism.

I should hope so, I'm definitely not advocating revolution!


The faster the money travels the system, the larger the economy. Loans work as really good lubricant for that. They aren't all bad though, as some give atleast partial economical equality.
Things starts to get tricky when you start to loan out money that you haven't gotten yet, and it isn't certain that you'll get them.

The whole issue is down to speculation. In my mind it doesn't make sense to give away money that doesn't exist yet. If the banks have the money then yes they should lend it (I agree that loans can provide the basis for a more equal economy), but if they don't then tough luck. They were just asking for trouble.


But a good evidence that a bubble is a bubble is that it is built on things that aren't real or false assumptions. The housing bubble was built on the assumption that houses would continue to rise in value even though more were being built. Eventually you run out of people to buy the homes. Some people saw this early on but they were ignored.

Thats because its too much like common sense. Economic 'experts' are far above realising that if supply outstrips demand prices go down. :laugh4:


True. But I worry that "slow progress" will just turn into stagnation. So I push for quicker change while still supporting incremental progressive measures. Because even small positive change is better than nothing.

I'd support your analysis, but what exactly are you proposing (apologies if you have already mentioned it, I must have missed it :bow:)?


I support socialism because it seems to be an ideology that underpins social change that is in line with my values of equality and fairness. If for some reason socialism proves to be harmful to these values, I would drop it like a bad habit.

Egalitarianism is sadly undervalued in todays society. Socialism is the political/economic model that most reflects egalitarian values, hence my tacit support for it also.


I have the feeling that the question of "when is revolution a moral imperative" could be a backroom thread all by itself.

And sure to raise the ire of our conservative friends... :laugh4:


A very good point! There seems to be this assumption that a few countries will be on top of the heap while others will be happy to provide cheap labor and lax enviromental laws. But the developing nations want to be where we are. Which is physically unsustainable. The planet simply can not support every nation having the level of development that America has. So our government walks a fine line between getting countries to open up their land for development, while still keeping them subserviant through unfair trade deals.

Unfortunately true.


If you really want to get frightened by our financial system, look into "short selling". Basically you bet that a stock will go down in value. You borrow the money to sell the stock that you don't actually own. But you promise to actually purchase it at a later date. On that date, if the stock went down, you keep the difference.

Gah!:no: :dizzy2:

[Privateerkev]

I'd support your analysis, but what exactly are you proposing (apologies if you have already mentioned it, I must have missed it :bow:)?

I was more talking about it in the abstract than any specific policy. We were talking about fast change and slow change. I prefer fast change but would support slow change. Because it is still change. I've said it earlier on this thread that it really bugs me when people on the left reject progressive social change because it "doesn't go far enough." I don't want people to starve so I can maintain some sort of ideological purity.

An example is the US minimum wage increase. It went up 2 dollars and 10 cents to 7.25 an hour. Now 7.25 an hour is far too low to live off of but I supported it anyways. Because it was better than the 5.10 that it was. I want the minimum wage to be higher but I also want people in need to get relief right this second. So, in my opinion, a modest increase is better than no increase at all.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I was more talking about it in the abstract than any specific policy. We were talking about fast change and slow change. I prefer fast change but would support slow change. Because it is still change. I've said it earlier on this thread that it really bugs me when people on the left reject progressive social change because it "doesn't go far enough." I don't want people to starve so I can maintain some sort of ideological purity.

An example is the US minimum wage increase. It went up 2 dollars and 10 cents to 7.25 an hour. Now 7.25 an hour is far too low to live off of but I supported it anyways. Because it was better than the 5.10 that it was. I want the minimum wage to be higher but I also want people in need to get relief right this second. So, in my opinion, a modest increase is better than no increase at all.

I see... and I concur, mostly. Fast change causes more unrest and more problems than slow change, if slow change is a viable option then it should be utilised imo.

I agree though that a small change is better than no change. This statement for example is genius...


I don't want people to starve so I can maintain some sort of ideological purity.

:applause: :applause: :applause: