and they all failed.
Printable View
and they all failed.
and there was much rejoicing
yeah, but which unlucky country has to bear the brunt of socialism for the 'betterment' of the rest of us?
and there was much rejoicing
"Socialism" as in reformatory Socialism as in Social Democracy as in the form that the revolutionary types accused - justifiably - of trying to correct the faults of the capitalist system and therefore preserve it and forestall the Revolution.
Which is also what the right-wingers here normally term "socialism" for short; not my problem if they don't know the difference between the moderate-reformatory and radical-revolutionary strains.
The latter gave the world such pleasantries as the USSR and PRC; the former, the Scandinavian welfare states and workers' rights in general.
A reformist socialist isn't a social democrat. Now you almost made me cry.
Around the same thing as far as practical policies go insofar as I am aware of. Differences in political liturgy don't particularly interest me.
Pfft, it's in the practical area where the labour/social democratic parties and the more generic socialist parties differ, as the social democrats steer more towards privatization(especially after Blair), while the socialists use(or wish to use, they're generally a lot smaller than labour) the state.
Ah, you were talking about parties. That's different of course; usually the SocDems/Labour are the more "centre" of the two, leading to the inevitable drift towards the political "middle ground" in competing for the voters there with their closest peers on the centre-Right whereas the "Socialist" parties tend to be further out in the Left (there sometimes being a Communist fringe beyond them).
Blair, though, was pretty much a turncoat if you ask me.
Um...Bush is going to be removed no matter what. The rest of the issues you listed are not issues of great importance this election cycle.Quote:
The government is not enough to make sure worker's rights are expected. Just look at USA at the moment, there are at least two issues of greater importance in the next election: 1. making sure those who wish to destroy the country (Bush administration and similar-minded) are removed from power before the damage is too big, 2. fight for various human rights issues such as death penalty, abortion, not teaching creationism in biology lessons, abolishing Guantanamo etc.
You what I find funny about the contention that employers will also try to get the cheapest employees? The idea that somehow management does not understand 'you get what you pay for'. Do any of you buy the cheapest car you find? Why would management always drive for the cheapest employees like you claim? Getting the best value for employees is very different from just getting the cheapest. Really, economics 101 people.
CR
Psst... "Marxism-Leninism" is good ol' Joe Dzugashvili's euphemism for "Stalinism" ~;)Quote:
Bah. There's Maoism and Marxist-leninism.
As for these killings and beatings, it's appaling and wrong. People should be allowed to state and defend what they think is right, regardless of the fact if it's moronic (or not). However, a little over a hundred dead unionists, eight hundred beatings, eight thousand people getting fired (allegedly) for being part of a trade union -- on a world population of six billion and a working world population of what, three, four billion? Terrible, yes, but don't you think this is a little bit too large of a fuss?
EDIT: Also Watchman, I believe the correct term used by revolutionary socialists and communists would be "revisionist socialism".
Then I guess outsourcing is just a collective fantasy we're all having around here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
As to "why" does management does that: simple - short term solutions. Picture board room, and manager with shiny colorful graphs: "Look, we're hiring these 4 <insert nationality here>, instead of one <American or whatever>, and we're saving 20k every year, and of course 4 people will do a much better job than just one guy!".
Come on, I'm sure you're not so disconnected from the real world, and you know all of this is going on.
I've read several examples of companies who had one department/section/project crash precisely because the "obviously cheaper" version turned out to be actually much more expensive in the long run.
Like the recent thing with the toys Made In China, where the problem turned out to have been at the initial planning stage rather than actual execution.
People can actually be amazingly stubborn about failing to recognize the coefficent between price and quality. All the more so if all they deal with is stock values and never a whiff of what those correlate to in reality.
Outsourcing, at least in regards to the computer industry, happens because the Indian engineers are just as talented as American ones, but much cheaper to hire. The Indian workers are a better value, not just cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
Ya, that's capitalism. Those people who make stupid decisions either start making better decisions or go out of business.Quote:
As to "why" does management does that: simple - short term solutions. Picture board room, and manager with shiny colorful graphs: "Look, we're hiring these 4 <insert nationality here>, instead of one <American or whatever>, and we're saving 20k every year, and of course 4 people will do a much better job than just one guy!".
Come on, I'm sure you're not so disconnected from the real world, and you know all of this is going on.
I've read several examples of companies who had one department/section/project crash precisely because the "obviously cheaper" version turned out to be actually much more expensive in the long run.
Do you have a beef with outsourcing? If you do, does that extend to the whole idea of international trade; namely buying things from other countries cheaper instead of making them yourself?
CR
You reminded me of a thought I once had, Rabbitt. Namely, that all of the "we need to be one world" crowd was going about it the wrong way. International trade will, via the exchange of value, slowly level the entire playing field and bring the world together more naturally than will any attempt to do so by fiat. A long slow process though....Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Reformist socialist, as in, changing socialism so much that it basically isn't socialism any more but yet another possible direction in the political spectrum of a liberal democracy? As in, social democrats?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I'd say the diffence between social democrats and socialists/communists is that social democrats wish to bring about the dreamed communism of Karl Marx from the inside of the capitalist society he saw, while Marxists et al wish to do so from the outside.
The main practical difference I know of is that one bunch wants to overthrow the whole Capitalist structure and build something better in its place, while the other wants to fix it where needed and as such actually keep the whole Revolution from happening on account of No Reason To.
Which is, obviously, why back in the day the Revolutionaries loathed the Reformists with the passion typically encountered in regards to heretics and reprobates.
Given which party for a while was actually all for Fascist takeover (on the account that they were the ultimate expression of everything wrong with the Capitalist sytem, and would hence only bring about the Revolution that much faster) and quite manifestly failed to factually deliver what it should, I figure it's pretty clear which camp I prefer.
No... Reformist socialist as in wanting to create the socialist state(and utopia) through stages of reform, not through a(or stages of) revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
In the easy version, the revolutionaries believe that there's no reason to wait, we can make it quickly. The reformists believe that the change will take a long time, and you go about it one piece at a time.
The social democrats seem to have found their place already, between a planned and market economy.
Revolutionaries call themselves revolutionaries. It's a damn good name, why would they want to call themselves something else?Quote:
EDIT: Also Watchman, I believe the correct term used by revolutionary socialists and communists would be "revisionist socialism".
That's the thing. Through various stages of reform implies working through the current system, and ultimately that entails making compromises either way; at some point either a revolution is required, or they remain nothing more than social democrats who still claim to have utopia in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Pure BS, there are certain jobs that, although we don't say so often these days (nearly tabboo - made tabboo by the right-wingers obviously) can be done by almost everyone. In those cases, lower salary = higher profit for the employer, it's as simple as that. Those are the positions where the workers are generally classified as "workers" and were the reason for the founding of socialism. A worker at MacDonalds, cleaning staff, assembly line workers, etc., are typically treated in this way by corporations unless there are unions to prevent it from happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
If I were to compare your ideas with those of the people of the 18th century, I'd say those of the 18th century were those who knew how to take us from the 18th century chaos into the rich and prosperous 20th century with democracy, freedom and justice. However, you are one of the people who know how to take us from the greatness of the 20th century to the darkness of the 18th century. And you call yourself enlightened...
Let's be careful with making personal statements about who is or is not "enlightened".
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
One word: Bah!Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
It doesn't mean "working within the system". It means changing the system(through reforming the capitalist system to the socialist system). It's more like a very very long revolution ~;)
So long as they stick to the established legal (usually reads as parliamentary) methods though, what's the meaningful difference to "social democrats" ?
Revolutionaries want parliaments too btw ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
But the usual difference is that the socialists wants less free market than the social democrats. Especially after the hated Blair.
Regarding revolutionaries and parlamentarism, one is reminded of what the "soviet" in Soviet Union originally meant.
Anyway, that doesn't sound like there was any practical difference between "reformatory socialist" and "social democrats" beyond the former being further to the Left in their political views.
Which seems to be pretty much what I was saying in the first place.
You've been in the backroom for some time now, haven't you? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Years, actually. "You never really quit the Agency." :cool2:
That's an interesting discussion we're working on for next week's SU lecture: was the Octoberrevolution actually a coup both against the temporary government and the soviets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Not really following where the thread has been going for a while, but still something I would like to see some thoughts on:
When the service sector will start to have a simular efficiency increase on the worked hours/vs productivity* done as the industry and agriculture sector (were you've got less people producing more), were will the jobs go? Or will they disappear, making job shortage a major problem?
*
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: