Org Mobile Site
Thread: Left Wing Club
Maybe there are not much chances to find TRUE socialist country now, but there are some which are on their way.
Originally Posted by Gertgregoor:
so it would be a paradox.
A communism society would be a great society but doomed even if "perfectly" arranged not because it's bad or something but because people are.
Don't see me as a righty but I think socialism is good but real pure communism is doomed. tough I'd be really pleased if you'd prove me wrong.
sorry for bad English.
You are wrong! so it would be a paradox.
A communism society would be a great society but doomed even if "perfectly" arranged not because it's bad or something but because people are.
Don't see me as a righty but I think socialism is good but real pure communism is doomed. tough I'd be really pleased if you'd prove me wrong.
sorry for bad English.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Gertgregoor:
1:indeed but the difference is communism will have to have about 99% of the population to have the support otherwise it wouldn't work.
2:to bad there aren't enough jobs hum...
3:well that's my point, you could have a semie-communistic community but not a real one. We aren't living in a democratic state anyway.
4: that's what I'm thinking about a socialism but not the cuban way ofcourse
1. Once communism works the pop. will support. Problem is to get it going. But that is the same problem you have with democracy.1:indeed but the difference is communism will have to have about 99% of the population to have the support otherwise it wouldn't work.
2:to bad there aren't enough jobs hum...
3:well that's my point, you could have a semie-communistic community but not a real one. We aren't living in a democratic state anyway.
4: that's what I'm thinking about a socialism but not the cuban way ofcourse
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!
Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin:
I don't really think a club is needed, but whatever. So whats on the agenda?
To oppose backroom conservatives, as well as other things like politics etc.I don't really think a club is needed, but whatever. So whats on the agenda?
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.
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.
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?
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
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
Originally Posted by Franconicus:
That's it? It seems to be a very American way to think!
What do you mean with Socialism?
Relatively equal division of property, and no wages above $150,000 for anyoneThat's it? It seems to be a very American way to think!
What do you mean with Socialism?
The author of that article demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of economics.
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.
It also ruins the economy. Ex: The economic growth of the US vs Europe.
.
Crazed Rabbit
Originally Posted by :
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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
Relatively equal division of property, and no wages above $150,000 for anyone
So you would steal property and kill over any motivation for someone to work any harder after they make $150,000 a year?Relatively equal division of property, and no wages above $150,000 for anyone
Originally Posted by :
A society ideal for me, is true freedom. Something which NO state have been able to give, yet.
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
No conservative ever dares to come here as it is not allowed to wear guns
I don't wear my guns...openly No conservative ever dares to come here as it is not allowed to wear guns
.Crazed Rabbit
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane:
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
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. 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
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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
36% is a majority? How do you calculate that? 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.
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.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
The author of that article demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of economics.
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?)The author of that article demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of economics.
I think most people realized by now that this
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Market forces will always fairly distribute the fruits
is rather some kind of mantra that tells us how the "market" should work in an ideal world. Reality usually looks different.Market forces will always fairly distribute the fruits
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
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
The author of that article demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of economics.
Sorry, Rabbit, but your understanding is at least as remarkable as his.The author of that article demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of economics.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
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.
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.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.
Certainly you are free to chose another job. But that does the distribution of wealth not fair. There are no equal opportunities.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
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.
Compared to Germany the US has no middle class. And the gap of incomes is immense.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.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
So you would steal property and kill over any motivation for someone to work any harder after they make $150,000 a year?
'Property is theft' So you would steal property and kill over any motivation for someone to work any harder after they make $150,000 a year?
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
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.
What kind pf Socialism do you mean? Anarchism for example does not regulate anything.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.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
It also ruins the economy. Ex: The economic growth of the US vs Europe.
First: European economy is not Socialism.It also ruins the economy. Ex: The economic growth of the US vs Europe.
Second: European economy is not ruined.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
I don't wear my guns...openly .
Crazed Rabbit, please get in touch with the guard at the entrance I don't wear my guns...openly
.Just another question to fellow humanists - do you really consider yourselves a LWC sect ...? 
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."
"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.
Originally Posted by :
Just another question to fellow humanists - do you really consider yourselves a LWC sect ...?
Most humanists would probably be of the left, that is for sure. As to it being a 'sect' of the left, I am unsure.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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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?)
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). 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?)
Originally Posted by :
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
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.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
Originally Posted by :
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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
Compared to Germany the US has no middle class. And the gap of incomes is immense.
Somehow, I just don't buy that. Do you think noone makes between $25k and $150k a year? I may just live here, but...Compared to Germany the US has no middle class. And the gap of incomes is immense.
Crazed Rabbit
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
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).
Oh ... that surely puts you into the position to judge his understanding of economics.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).
Originally Posted by :
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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by JAG:
Franc - easy, such a legend the man was. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon wrote that and much more besides.
I thought you knew it! What else do you know about PJP?Franc - easy, such a legend the man was. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon wrote that and much more besides.
P.S.: I quoted him, because most people here seem to think that Socialism = Totalism. I wanted to show that this is wrong!!
Originally Posted by Sjakihata:
dude, that wasnt what I said, was it?
Just cleared it out.dude, that wasnt what I said, was it?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO