One thing that i cant understand with Socialism is:How do you keep balance?Lets say today we split all the money equally between each other,tomorrow someone has more then somebody other. :bow:
Printable View
One thing that i cant understand with Socialism is:How do you keep balance?Lets say today we split all the money equally between each other,tomorrow someone has more then somebody other. :bow:
that isnt socialism is it??? now i'm confused.
and YES I DONT SPAM ANYMORE ACCEPT IN TYOLT, OWS AND IN WAG
Do not mix socialism with communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
Redistribution of wealth in a socialist system does not necessarily have to come about by physically taking money, property and goods off those with the most and giving it to those with out. It can be done via gradual steps which in themselves bring about a fairer, more equal society.
An example of this is a minimum wage.
Maybe i just dont understand the concept enough,give me a example of socialism in use.Socialdemocracy is a familiar concept to me,because my country has been build on those principals.But i have always associated Socialism and Communism as one. :bow:
China?
There you go Kage.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
To Iliadn:I dont understand.I live in Finland.Ever heard of Nordic wellfare state.Or do you use China as an example of working Socialism?To JAG.I support minimum wages.But isnt it pretty far from ideal of Socialism?
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
It isn't far from socialist at all, it is a democratic socialist ideal. If you cannot overthrow the system, you use the existing system to grdually change the system. The minimum wage is one of the biggest policies to this effect.
And China is not a socialist state, unless someone wants to show me how it is, apart from stating that it is 'socialist', what things does it do to actually be seen as a socialist state.
To Iliadn:That case im even more confused.Chinas foreign trade resembles pretty much of free trade.The reason that China is intresting to foreign industry is that the wages are so low that the Western countries cant compete.And poverty is real issue in China.Their wellfare system is fare from ideal.If we are talking this kind of government model.I like to stay away from it as possible. :bow:
Exactly. They are a state based, capitalist regime. Heavy interference by central govt on their business' and economy but none the less, still a capitalist economy. They have no regard for their subjects and as far as I am aware there isn't a welfare state to speak of.Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
China? omg noooo!
if China's a working socialist country Hitler was a kangoroo who could fly.
It's not even socialist.
If you're defenition of socialism is selling evrything for almost nothing to compete, giving most people unhealthy jobs without giving them a good paycheck,...
that's sound more like the average capitalistic European country in the 1900 hundreds.
but then with hi-tech stuff and ofcourse not evry chinese has such a crappy destiny. but it's just an example, a bad example but an example ~:)
damn I'm bad in debating in English.
I personally believe that our Nordic model which is pretty similar to the German model,is good.Not perfect but good.I think that in order to support our citizens we need to have a strong exporting industry,to support our economy.This industry should rely on high quality of products rather then cheap production costs.If international markets were protected everywhere our Northern Nations would be really poor,because all our capacity would be spent to food production because the weather conditions here.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Im also pretty confuced how US justifyes its laws to shield their markets from Cheaper products exported from other countries.Isnt that against capitalism?
China is officialy social.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertgregoor
What about Taiwan?
then those Chinse leaders have real strange defenition of socialism if you ask me.
Taiwan: I wouldn't know, I don't know that much about it.
but almighty JAG will.~;)
China was the official socialist-ally of the USSR.
Cuba was you're ally to was it? And yeah, they were a real socialist country.
china was too
1. Use spell check;Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertgregoor
2. Turn off your sarcasm.
Those countries were officilly socialistic, as well as some African states, but it doesn't mean there was REAL socialism there.
Maybe there are not much chances to find TRUE socialist country now, but there are some which are on their way.
You are wrong! ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertgregoor
Right now, the 'more socialist' states are with no doubt the Scandinavian countries, then probably the Western European countries (UK and Irlande excepted).
And unlike what some people think, socialism doesn't slow down economic growth, because I'm fairly sure Norway, Sweden, Finland, Danemark and Spain know a decent growth of their GDP.
Oh, and if by Communism, you mean "all people live with the same resources", that's just BS. Some people will always deserve more than others, either because they are more intelligent, more willing to work, more charismatic, while some other are just lazy/stupid/whatever.
1. Once communism works the pop. will support. Problem is to get it going. But that is the same problem you have with democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertgregoor
2. There is enough work. So why should there be unemployment?
3. Why shouldn't there be an ideal world? I still believe it could and will be. Do not give up too soon!
4. There are so many different opinions about the ideal communism. Cuba isn't, I agree!
To oppose backroom conservatives, as well as other things like politics etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin
The LWC should do as every Socialist Club: Let's discuss how the ideal society. How is your personel ideal?
Read the ideas of your humanitas thread + some communistic and democratic ideas + main requirement - people will behave GOOD.
A bit childish answer, but so is the question.
How is my personel ideal?
Socialism within a democratic platform. Reduce military funding and channel it into education, social welfare, and medicare.
Legalization of same sex marriages. Uphold the right to abortions. Limit gun ownership.
That's it? It seems to be a very American way to think!
What do you mean with Socialism?
Just found a very interesting article on Spiegel Online:
American Capitalism vs. European Social Markets
I considered starting a separate thread for that one, but figured that such a thread would probably devolve into the typical US vs. EU discussion of which we had enough already, IMO.
It seems to fit quite well in the "Left Wing Club" as something to think about or to discuss ~:)
A society ideal for me, is true freedom. Something which NO state have been able to give, yet.
It is an excellent article! It is a pitty that we cannot discuss it with our conservative friends. But you are right, better keep it inside the club. No conservative ever dares to come here as it is not allowed to wear guns ~;)
Relatively equal division of property, and no wages above $150,000 for anyoneQuote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
The author of that article demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of economics.
Market forces will always fairly distribute the fruits. If one thinks one is not getting enough money at one job, they can go to other companies and seek out higher wages. If paying a higher wage is worth it to the companies, they will pay. If it isn't, they won't pay, and thus people are free to seek out the best deal for themselves.Quote:
Where capitalism stumbles, however, is in fairly distributing the fruits. It's complete fiction that the "invisible hand" will distribute the fruits. The fact is that if you let the market economy go unfettered without any controls, it will run wild and result in a "winner take all" society-- and that's what you have in the US and, increasingly, the United Kingdom.
Not only this, but this guy seems obessesed about 'the winner take all' system, as though there were a bunch of aristocrats lording it over the peasants and no middle class. In actuality, everyone benefits from capitalism. And, the income gap decreases during periods of economic growth in the US.
So you would steal property and kill over any motivation for someone to work any harder after they make $150,000 a year?Quote:
Relatively equal division of property, and no wages above $150,000 for anyone
Socialism most definately is not freedom. It regulates what trades you can make with people, whether it involve employment, housing, services, and dictates how you travel, what you allowed to do, how you can live your life, etc.Quote:
A society ideal for me, is true freedom. Something which NO state have been able to give, yet.
It also ruins the economy. Ex: The economic growth of the US vs Europe.
I don't wear my guns...openly ~;) .Quote:
No conservative ever dares to come here as it is not allowed to wear guns
Crazed Rabbit
Brilliant article - and the other articles by him are equally as good and I look forward to reading the others in the coming days - thank you very much for the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
What he states about the american way and European way working together is exactly the kind of society I want and exactly why I always idolise Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries so much, as they reach this goal so well.
I don't think he gives the UK enough credit though, believe it or believe it not, the UK is moving in the direction of a mixture of both models. Under Thatcher we had the most right wing, free market Prime Minister we have ever had and thus we moved quickly and extremely towards the US model. Since Labour has been in power however, there has been the necessary consolidation period and then in the past ~4 years a significant - if somewhat slower than people like me would like - movements back towards a more social model. We have introduced more benefits again, we have introduced more spending on public services and we have tried to introduce the belief in an equal, community based society. It is true the govt still firmly believes in privatisation and getting people into work, even if it means lower benefits than mainland Europe, but that is where the two system meet. It is an interesting time to be interested in politics over here, more so with the fact that Labour are still well supported by a clear majority of people in the country so we can really get the reforms through and entrenched.
Anyway, as I said very interesting articles and I think he is spot on. A society where social justice meets individual prosperity and benefits meet strong job opportunities is surely what we would all want.
36% is a majority? How do you calculate that? :dizzy2:Quote:
more so with the fact that Labour are still well supported by a clear majority of people in the country so we can really get the reforms through and entrenched.
Crazed Rabbit
The 36% is not indicative of the level of support we hold.
Firstly at the election many people vote - I believe it is as much as 30% of their share of the vote in areas - tactically for the Liberal Democrats, to keep the Conservatives out. Which of of course makes the support of the Labour party look less.
Secondly at elections many people did not vote because they - rightly - believed that it was in the bag for Labour. Or they protested against Blair for Iraq - note not Labour and not their policies at home.
As well as this there are not many policies Labour has introduced which has not been supported by a majority of the public - in opinion polls etc - there have been a few notable exceptions, but apart from that they have been supported.
Then there is the obvious look at the Conservatives and you see they have not gained any popularity since Labour entered office. That should - and is - be taken as a sign of Labours relative popularity compared to their opposition.
I don't intend to sound patronizing, but when it comes to the understanding of economics I have more faith in Jeremy Rifkin (considering his credentials) than in you (please correct me if I am wrong - but have you studied economics?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I think most people realized by now that this
is rather some kind of mantra that tells us how the "market" should work in an ideal world. Reality usually looks different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
You see the same flawed logic on stock markets. Ideally the capital markets would always set a afir value for listed companies . I think we all now that reality looks slightly different
Sorry, Rabbit, but your understanding is at least as remarkable as his.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I had economic lessons at university. First thing the teacher said was: The only purpose of economy is to create products. The fair distribution is not an issue of economy. You can measure if someone needs a good with his willingness to pay for it. That means if a millionaire is willing (and able) to pay for his 5th ship, he needs it. If a poor woman cannot afford to buy bread for her children, she does not need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Certainly you are free to chose another job. But that does the distribution of wealth not fair. There are no equal opportunities.
Compared to Germany the US has no middle class. And the gap of incomes is immense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
'Property is theft' ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
What kind pf Socialism do you mean? Anarchism for example does not regulate anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
First: European economy is not Socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Second: European economy is not ruined.
Crazed Rabbit, please get in touch with the guard at the entrance ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Just another question to fellow humanists - do you really consider yourselves a LWC sect ...? ~:confused:
Here is a riddle for a 'lefties'! Who wrote these words?
"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
Franc - easy, such a legend the man was. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon wrote that and much more besides.
Most humanists would probably be of the left, that is for sure. As to it being a 'sect' of the left, I am unsure.Quote:
Just another question to fellow humanists - do you really consider yourselves a LWC sect ...?
Why do humanitas are considered to be lefties?
They are not amongst themselves, but they are by conservatives. Simply, because humanism oppose cruelty, such as death penalty etc.
So in the eye of the conservative the humanists are whimps or liberals. Everyone not agreeing with a con is a liberal - in their little world.
So in your opnion such things as death penalty oppose socialism, and socialist can't kill his enemy?
dude, that wasnt what I said, was it?
Oh, and socialism is more economic. We also need to look at the social issues. You can believe in the socialist monetary system, and still believe in death penalty.
Social policy and economics, two different things.
Although, generally I believe most socialist oppose the death penalty, taken from personal experience, and isnt valid as such.
I've taken micro and macro econ AP (advanced placement) classes and got a 4 and a 5 on the AP tests (out of 5).Quote:
I don't intend to sound patronizing, but when it comes to the understanding of economics I have more faith in Jeremy Rifkin (considering his credentials) than in you (please correct me if I am wrong - but have you studied economics?)
Yes, but the flawed logic will correct itself. Those who judge company's worth correctly will be rewarded, those who don't won't have as much to spend next time, but will be wiser.Quote:
I think most people realized by now that this
is rather some kind of mantra that tells us how the "market" should work in an ideal world. Reality usually looks different.
You see the same flawed logic on stock markets. Ideally the capital markets would always set a afir value for listed companies . I think we all now that reality looks slightly different
I think we aren't using the same meaning of 'fair distribution'. I consider fair distribution to be people being paid according to what they have earned, while you, I think, believe fair distribution to be the goods being handed out according to need. The problem with your interpretation is that it does not encourage people to work harder and thus earn more, but rather to be needier and get more.Quote:
The fair distribution is not an issue of economy. You can measure if someone needs a good with his willingness to pay for it. That means if a millionaire is willing (and able) to pay for his 5th ship, he needs it. If a poor woman cannot afford to buy bread for her children, she does not need it.
Certainly you are free to chose another job. But that does the distribution of wealth not fair. There are no equal opportunities.
And I don't understand how being able to pay for a good means one needs it.
Finally, the economy, as I am sure you know, is a vastly complex thing. Yet some people think they can control it and bend it to their will, just by adding some laws.
Somehow, I just don't buy that. Do you think noone makes between $25k and $150k a year? I may just live here, but...Quote:
Compared to Germany the US has no middle class. And the gap of incomes is immense.
Crazed Rabbit
Oh ... that surely puts you into the position to judge his understanding of economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Not really - during the hightech-bubble time most money was actually made by incorrectly judging the values of companies - and being lucky enough that there were enough people to believe in the hype for a ,long enough type.Quote:
Yes, but the flawed logic will correct itself. Those who judge company's worth correctly will be rewarded, those who don't won't have as much to spend next time, but will be wiser.
An extreme bust-to-boom (and vice-versa) economy and (at best) "correcting the flawed logic" after the damage has been done hardly has enything to do with "always fairly distributing the fruits".
I hope they teach you more than catchphrases in AP classes.
I thought you knew it! What else do you know about PJP?Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
P.S.: I quoted him, because most people here seem to think that Socialism = Totalism. I wanted to show that this is wrong!!
Just cleared it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
Maybe people sometimes think so, because of quite unideal examples they saw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
I think on democrathic Socialism / Socialdemocrathy as the Unification of Workerunionists, moderate Socialists, Antifacists and leftwing-Intellectuals in one Party whoose political value is solidarity.
http://library.fes.de/library/netzqu...lder/fahne.jpg
Freedom, Equality, Fraternity! - Unity makes us strong!
However we have always trouble with RESOS damageing our Image and ability to do the work we are expected for.
However if we, in this case I mean the IUSY-Team whoose Chairman I am, have finished the Elections this September we'll get bowled with the planned DKMS-Action.
Would never work. One thing the left is unfortunately too good at is infighting and splintering. Solidarity is so meaningless anyway.Quote:
I think on democrathic Socialism / Socialdemocrathy as the Unification of Workerunionists, moderate Socialists, Antifacists and leftwing-Intellectuals in one Party whoose political value is solidarity.
We have always problems with the RESOS (REactionay SOcialistS). That is frequently known.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
That can be called splitting, or keeping our politics in a clean red. Socialism in its native form is an Idealist Philosophy.
Nope, Solidarity is the key to understand Socialism and the creation of the Socialist International. It is the major diffrence between us and Liberalism, is that the Socialist does primary not attempt to improove his own Position but instead steams the whole Commonwealth.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
The International Ideal is about creating acceptable conditions for as many human beeings as possible, however the Parties who are Members have too much differed from that thought.
The Collcetive mentality is indeed a thing Socialists chare with Conservatives, while Liberals are selfish individualists.
I think Stefan 's right. It might be hard to keep it working but I don't see a better way. What would you want? one man who rules them all? (hum... I know this line from somewhere... oh yeah, one ring to rule them all :p)Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
or would you have no "rulers" (couldn't come up with a better word) at all.
Both wouldn't work I think, so a socialist democrathy seems the best solution to me.
So, how would you do it then JAG?
Solidary is very important. But I think trying to unify and standardize Socialism is paradox. Let there be diversity. As long as you know good and bad, who needs it.
Seems I missed a lot of here.
The Reason for the Existance of the International is not standardisation, it is used for correspondence of democrathic Socialist Parties on matters of foreignpolicy. "Foreigntrade" is the Keyword to explain why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity! ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan the Berserker
Just out of curiousity, who waves that flag?
It would be great to have this flag as a symbol in the very first post, but unfortunatly it is not mine ( post ) - so I can't edit it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Welcome on board! ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan the Berserker
Ahahahahahah... hahahahahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
that's a good one..
ahahahahahaha..
oh stop..it's hurting hahahahahaha
This is as far as I have got in this pointless thread. I think there are a few more pages but none can top this.
IMO it is not more pointless then the other clubs here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Adav-fahne.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
Here a better Picture. It is the Banner of Ferdinand Lassalle, which was the first used Flag of the ADAV the successor of the SPD.
It shows the german translation of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!", the Motto of the French Revolution, the symbol of shaking hands with the date of the beginning of Lassalle's presidentship and the german sentence "Unity makes powerful!" on red ground.
The Banner was designed by workers from Katowice and was homemade by 1864, then handed out to Lassalle as a gift. The original survived the time and both world wars, being exhibited in a museum in Wroclaw in present days.
However you can find copies of the banner everywhere in Germany, for example pubs oftenly exhibit a copy together with other worker banners (we have many of them) or catholic banners. However we germans do have an general illness to like banners of any kind...
Maybe the founder of the thread will place it in the first post?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan the Berserker
good flag!
aren't those 3 words one of best words that exist?
vrijheid, gelijkheid en broederlijkheid...
If somebody still visits this place here is my quetion: can communism be reached through nationalism, or not?
There is no reason for saying no. But the thing is that eventually all forms of separation have to be wiped out, and i mean actual separation, like a Constitution, government, frontier. Not ideal separation, nationalism in it's good way should be accepted.
No, nationalism is so stupid! I believe that true comm. means that you love all men regardless their nationality.
Not those nationalism that was in Germany, but another one - supporting root population of the country, giving them various priveligis (sp?), and NOT opressions (correct word?) against foreigners.
~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Added the flag and a poster of Che Guevarra (for the artistic touch) to the first post. Thanks