Why Do Socialists Hate Families?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
One of Ludwig von Mises’s most important contributions was to point out that economic calculation is impossible under socialism. Meeting consumer demands requires that factors of production are allocated to the right lines of production in the right quantities at the right time — and that they are combined in the right ways to produce what consumers want and need. Entrepreneurs make these decisions in a market economy, but they are dependent on the prices of factors of production to make their decisions. They must compare these prices to the anticipated prices of the consumer goods to be able to say yes or no to any production plan.
Socialism, however, means that private ownership of the factors of production is abolished, which means there can be no exchange of factors of production. No exchange means no prices, which are vital bits of information for entrepreneurs in a market economy. Whoever is in charge of making production decisions in a socialist regime will be “groping about in the dark” without the use of market prices for the factors of production.
This is why socialist experiments always end in disaster. The death toll for socialist experiments since the USSR is easily beyond 100 million. Resources are wasted instead of used to make food, medicine, shelter, energy, clothing, and other necessities.
Interestingly, another key tenet of socialism, besides abolishing the ownership of the factors of production, is abolishing the family. This is strange because the traditional nuclear family seems like it could be used in producing convincing socialist rhetoric: it is a good example of social bonds without private property, prices, and “capitalist exploitation.”
Yet, Marx, Engels, and many of their modern followers are anti-family. Marx and Engels write in The Communist Manifesto:
Abolition of the family! [...] On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime
will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
we plead guilty.
Marx and Engels make a distinction between bourgeois and proletariat families, but “both will vanish” once communism is realized, apparently because — according ot Marx — bourgeois families are predicated on exploitation. Men exploit their wives and parents exploit their children, all for “private gain.”
Engels writes in Principles of Communism:
What will be the influence of communist society on the family?
It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.
The communist society includes the public education of children and a breakdown of social norms on monogamy, family responsibilities, and dependence on any individual. According to ReviseSociology.com:
Marxists argue that the nuclear family performs ideological functions for Capitalism – the family acts as a unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. It is also the institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.
Modern Marxists argue that families are just propaganda channels for capitalism. Families instill acceptance of hierarchy and give the bourgeoisie a way to “reproduce class inequality” through inheritances. To this end, Engels approvingly quotes Marx in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State:
The modern family contains in germ not only slavery (servitus), but also serfdom, since from the beginning it is related to agricultural services. It contains in miniature all the contradictions which later extend throughout society and its state.
For Marx, the family represents a microcosm of capitalism. But why didn’t he identify it as a microcosm of socialism to argue that if socialism is feasible at the family level, then it could be feasible at a larger scale?
After all, family members do not use prices to convey information to each other about the demands for food, yard work, what vacation to go on, vacuuming, board games, transportation to events, or other things family members do for and with each other. While there are some items and rooms in the house that are used more often by one family member than the others, we do not really have justiciable “private property.” I am not accumulating IOUs from my daughter every time I provide food for her.
Exceptions to this norm or ideal are just that: exceptions. Sometimes parents pay their children to do certain chores, but we can hardly call that payment a market price. It’s more of an educational exercise to teach children responsibility and the value of money earned. No one could argue that these “prices” are the foundation for the family’s economy, preventing them from falling into calculational chaos.
I can’t say why Marxists so dislike the family except to say that it’s only fitting that the people so wrong about human nature would be wrong about the institution of the family. But it’s worth exploring how families can thrive without prices when macroeconomies crumble without them.
Knowledge
One answer is that families are kind of like Crusoe on his island. Crusoe can allocate factors of production toward his wants and needs without prices because they are his wants and needs. He knows exactly how much time to work toward the production of coconuts and berries because he knows he prefers the marginal unit of one food to the other.
Family members do not share a mind, but they are intimately aware of what the other members want and need, more so than anybody outside the family. This is sometimes communicated directly, like when deciding on what to cook for dinner, but it is also something learned over time. After spending so much time with somebody, you become like an expert entrepreneur who is able to anticipate the other’s preferences.
This doesn’t scale up to the national level, obviously. I do not have intimate knowledge of what some random individual in Wisconsin will want to eat seven months from now, but this is the sort of anticipation entrepreneurs make on a daily basis, many times unknowingly by producing capital goods in intermediate stages of production years before the random Wisconsinite even realizes he is hungry. As said before, they can only make these production decisions with the help of market prices for the factors of production.
Care
Another reason families don’t fall apart without prices is that family members actually deeply care about each others’ wellbeing, and sometimes they do know what’s best for you even when you disagree. It’s not enough to say that a mother knows what her child wants and needs, she must also want the best for her child. Thus, families overcome (or are pretty good at dealing with) a knowledge problem and an incentive problem.
While I don’t want the random Wisconsinite to go hungry seven months from now, it’s not a high priority for me. I don’t have anything against that guy in Wisconsin, it’s just that I can only care about so many causes, and my family is more important to me, due to quite a few factors including proximity, my religious beliefs, my own subjective preferences (frankly), and the expectations of friends and other family.
Market economies overcome this with prices. By offering to pay for various goods and services, I offer an incentive to others to provide for me. This works vice versa in a division of labor, and it works beautifully. The most famous passage in the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith describes this phenomenon:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
The dictators, central planning boards, and workers’ collectives of socialism cannot care for each individual like we care for our family members, and they cannot care for each individual’s specific wants and needs like entrepreneurs in a market economy can, even if it is a profit motive. I’d rather a greedy capitalist sell me the food I want than a central planning board arrange for my starvation in the name of free food.
Outside Information
Finally, families are little price-free islands in a sea of prices. We can easily refer to market prices to help us make decisions in the home as a family. While there are no prices within the household, there are prices outside the household that help us economize resources. This is how socialist countries can last as long as they do. They rely on the prices of various goods and services in other countries. Even firms need external markets for factors to be able to properly reckon profits and losses and make investment decisions.
In this sense, Marxists are, in a sense, right to refer to families as units of consumption. My wife and daughter’s happiness is my happiness. We have the same budget, so we know our individual spending choices impact each other. Large purchases are only made with consensus. Therefore, the unity of the family is a positive, not a negative like the Marxists suggest.
This cannot work at the national level, as we have seen. Or, it does work, but only for a short while and at a severe disadvantage to having market prices both outside and inside the country. Nations are not “units of consumption” like individuals or families with a single budget and closely aligned preferences over a commonly-owned set of resources.
Conclusion
These ideas on how families survive the economic calculation problem imply that strong, thriving families are ones in which the members know a lot about each other, care a lot about each other, and are unified in their decision-making. Knowledge about each other can only come by many shared experiences and honest communication. Care for each other can be rooted in shared religious beliefs and the duties and affections that come from the shared faith. Unity naturally flows once these are established.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
they hate traditional families because families that work together in a capitalist society tend to hand economic success down to their children while ignoring "the collective"
why should parents kids inherit a multi-million dollar farm or business? born into economic security while the rest have to work for it? that is not fair to the collective socialists say.
socialism is jealousy based ideological bs that does not lift everyone up it brings everyone down to the bottom level.
-----------------poor as dirt--------------
unless one is born into or attains govt leadership, then they are rich bitch... LOL
I agree and find Warren's wealth tax idea to be one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard from a politician. It rewards the idiots that foolishly squander their wealth and punishes those that save and build a secure and well managed estate.
The Warren wealth tax STARTS at 50 million dollars. If you don't have 50 million dollars you don't pay a penny of wealth tax.
Yes it hits the little guy and they always use billionaire’s as an example of the people they are targeting with their theft. The reality is it hits the small business owners hard.
If a small businessman has 50 million dollars of personal individual wealth then he has been blessed by being in this society and should pay a little more (relatively) in taxes.
He already does. Confiscating his assets is evil and unconstitutional.
they already do pay more than us mere mortals.
why do people who work smarter and harder owe you something?
jealous much?
Probably what she proposed isn't even legal.
We don't tax wealth here.
They pay a smaller percentage on income than we "mere mortals" do. Especially if they decide to purchase a personal jet plane.
It's already been looked at, it is legal.
Under Republican leadership you are absolutely correct, the wealthier you are, the smaller your tax requirements are.
Prove it then.
Sure----only the GOP has never taxed wealth, right?
Do tell us all about how Democrats have done so when they have held the power to do it.
Whether you choose to admit it or not, the wealthy among us pay far more than their "fair" share of collected taxes in this country.
We do tax property, so the precedent is almost established.
No, you posed the question. If you are too lazy to look it up yourself, I'm not going to do it for you.
Funny that your reply has nothing to do with my comment that you are replying about. Did you want to reread it?
Done what? What the hell are you blathering about????
Nothing to admit. The wealthy pay a smaller percentage of income taxes than the rest of us. Amazon, after an 11 BILLION dollar PROFIT, GOT A REFUND! That is not an uncommon occurance.
Why do you think Trump is fighting so hard to prevent the release of his taxes? He has paid little to no taxes more than likely.
The GOP have designed loopholes that are accessible only for the wealthy, unless you believe that middle income America likes to buy personal jet planes (as just one example).
a smaller percentage? yes. do they send less money to the IRS? not a chance.
Why are you arguing about something that I'm not even talking about??? Are you trying to deflect and change the subject? Is that the best you can do?
American's are required, by law, to pay taxes partially based on a percentage of their income. Why should the wealthy be required to pay a smaller percentage than most working Americans? Why is the GOP so intent to shrink that percentage more and more, putting the bulk of taxes on the working man's shoulders?
Amazon made an 11 BILLION DOLLAR PROFIT in 2018. Under the GOP tax plan, they RECEIVED OVER 100 MILLION DOLLARS IN A TAX REFUND ! Do you want to try and justify that policy?
Amazon Didn't Pay Taxes in 2018, Will Receive Refund
Amazon Will Pay a Whopping $0 in Federal Taxes on $11.2 Billion Profits
Why do you insist on perpetrating the lie that the wealthy don't pay their fair share?
The middle class doesn't pay a dime more because someone richer got a tax cut. Someone poor doesn't pay a bit more because anyone above them in earnings got a tax cut. That isn't how taxes work.
Why do you insist on perpetrating the lie that the wealthy do pay their fair share? Fair share equals the same percentage of income being taxed at the same rate.
I also noticed that after you jumped into someone else's conversation, you never addressed my question. Can you justify the Amazon 2018 tax situation? Getting hundred million dollars refund based on 11 billion dollars of pure profit.
Wouldn't a really fair share be paying the same percentage of taxes paid as income earned? Why should the top 10%, who don't receive 70% of all incomes earned, pay more than 70% of taxes collected?
In any case, the premise that taxing the rich less means other classes pay more is simply ludicrous and false.
Why would I need to justify Amazon's tax liabilities? I didn't write the damn tax code. See, I blame the people who write the laws when they are bad laws. I don't blame people following the law.
I damn sure think they should pay, but then again, I think that every person should pay.
But what does personal tax rates and taxes paid have to do with corporate tax rates?
How do you expect people who live under the poverty line to pay taxes? Do the homless also pay taxes in your plan?
You could exempt those making less than what a full-time minimum wage job would pay.
And amend the tax code to ensure that anyone would never, under any circumstances (including businesses) ever get a penny more back than what they paid in.
We should stop using the tax code to influence behavior.
A person earning full-time minimum wage still cannot afford to rent an apartment except in the most backward parts of the country. That is still a poverty wage.
Yeah, everything doesn't always work out perfect.
Too bad.
Only around 3% of people make just minimum wage, and many move off of minimum when they have been employed for a while.
Only about 2% of full-time workers make just minimum wage.
So much for facts and truth
So much for your argument...
You just showed my proof
you would not know either if it bit you on the ass.
Another hypocrite
And when have you offered anything. Like never
Ever...
Socialism requires a great deal of unquestioning loyalty to the state. Familles engender loyalty naturally, so they are seen as counter to the collective goals.
This is absolute nonsense because there are theories of anarcho socialism that deny the power and oppose the existence of a government. You should read Noam Chomsky and Peter Kroptokin for some ideas.
You are wrongly assuming that all forms of socialism are authoritarian. If you hadn't guessed they are also anarchists. Left anarchy is unlikely to be possible for the next 200-500 years because before it is feasible on a large scale as a form of social organization, we must evolve beyond independence for the people to embrace the interdependence of a society where we all must voluntarily cooperate to survive and thrive.
The best that we can do at this time is free market socialism where the private workers own the means of production and the capital with the state still providing many services, such as they do now.
Have you ever read Chomsky and Kropotkin? I'd also suggest Bakunin.
What Chomsky promotes is profoundly different from what you have in your mind. He agrees with you, by the way, on the condemnation of what you define as socialism.
Theories. Right.
Well....in practice, socialism requires a shitload of unquestioning loyalty to the state.
That is absolutely not the "best" we can do.
I doubt you and epistte are talking about the same thing. What you mean by socialism (given your focus on the State) and what she means by socialism (a libertarian socialism based on distributed economic control) are at severe odds.
Of course we're not.
Yes. She's talking about hypothetical situations that will not ever exist in real life. I'm going with the socialism described in the article, which deals with the ugly mess that real-world socialist states devolve into.
Well at least you admit that you are purposely not trying to communicate.
What bis being described in the article is a scare tactic designed to create a false dilemma analogy.
How can impossibly require an unquestioned loyalty to the state when the state does not exist? It does require that people see themselves as part of a very interconnected and interdependent society that we must cooperate to survive and thrive, but that concept should be understood since kindergarten when we were taught to work and play well with others.
Do you not see yourself as part of an interconnected and interdependent society?
Are you going to attempt to redefine facts as opinions as you did in a previous thread?
That is your opinion.
Not really. But your comment may qualify.
As does the trump administration. So you are saying that the trump administration is socialism. Very good
Who am I trying to scare, in your disingenuous reply?
Where is my false dilemma analogy? If you are going to make that claim either identify where I have created a false dilemma or plan to apologize for accusing me of creating a logical fallacy.
So much for intelligence. You really don't know anything about history or, for that matter anything else.
So much bs so little time
And yet you always seem to fit it in. Well done. We're so proud of you.
That describes socialism. It’s the crappiest 💩 economic system on earth.
What does the word 'socialism' mean when you use it in a sentence? Socialism is an economic system in which _____________________?
Keep spilling it out so I can point it out
So little knowledge on display
Are U a goalie ?
Careful of that 5 whole lott
"engender", transgender, happy ending ender...
.
There is a dash of socialism in capitolistic societies, cause without it,
The People would rise up against the Top, who continue to feed the bottom, just enough.
They don't want rebellion, they want complacency by the Flocking Flock of Flockers, like ewe.
.
Member Movie Meet the Flockers
.
i do, but it has nothing to do with that which i stated prior
And Dictatorships require a great deal of unquestioning loyalty to an individual, often one who claims only they can fix everything but demand no oversight, you'll just have to trust them. I'm far more fearful of America turning fascist under Trump than I am it turning socialist under Bernie which simply won't ever happen. Anyone scared of America turning socialist might as well fear the ghost of Liberace coming up through their toilets to turn them gay.
But, of course, this depends on what the individual means by 'socialism'.
Sure. That individual becomes "the state".
Neither is ever going to happen. The idea of the United States "turning fascist" is absolute raving hysteria. It's up there with "Obama's gonna take my guns" and "liberals want to enact Sharia law". If you're determined to be fearful, be fearful of something more likely....like an alien invasion or an asteroid falling on your head or being eaten by zombies.
Sure. But the far left of the Democratic Party, along with non-Democrat Bernie Sanders, are actively trying to socialize wide swathes of American life. They will almost surely fail, but they are loudly and proudly working to screw up as much as they can.
If Trump is not at minimum censured, it will be a clear sign that the rule of law no longer applies to the President. If Trump is above the law after having clearly obstructed justice, even Judge Napolitano on Fox admitting they were each impeachable offenses and he listed 12 instances, then we as a nation have taken one giant step towards fascism.
Fascism: noun - a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Dictator: noun - a. a person granted absolute emergency power. especially, history : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome. b. one holding complete autocratic control : a person with unlimited governmental power
If Trump is above the law, and the Republican Senate won't hold him accountable, then he is as close to a dictator as this nation has ever had. And right now he is adding blocking Congressional subpoenas to his high crimes and misdemeanors. Will Republicans follow the law or will they kowtow to their base who neither know the law nor care, they just love the WWE Trumpmania that is destroying the constitutional fabric of our government that has been keeping us safe and free for over 240 years. They do this because they feel it has been applied to broadly to protect minorities, atheists, LGTBQ and Muslims who they see as getting "extra" rights by being given the same rights as any other law abiding, tax paying American citizen.
Not at all. We are watching it in slow motion. The American public is fucking stupid, and the executive branch has been consolidating power for years.
So much bs, so little time
Again a display of knowledge in your comments. Reading would help.
Here's a start:
13b. Comparing Economic Systems
Karl Marx, German philosopher, economist, and revolutionary, laid the ideological groundwork for modern socialism and communism.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels turned the world upside down.
Until the publication of their 1848 Communist Manifesto , much of the western world followed a course where individuals owned private property, business enterprises, and the profits that resulted from wise investments. Marx and Engels pointed out the uneven distribution of wealth in the capitalist world and predicted a worldwide popular uprising to distribute wealth evenly. Ever since, nations have wrestled with which direction to turn their economies.
Capitalism
Communism
Karl Marx, the 19th century father of communism, was outraged by the growing gap between rich and poor. He saw capitalism as an outmoded economic system that exploited workers, which would eventually rise against the rich because the poor were so unfairly treated. Marx thought that the economic system of communism would replace capitalism. Communism is based on principles meant to correct the problems caused by capitalism.
The most important principle of communism is that no private ownership of property should be allowed. Marx believed that private ownership encouraged greed and motivated people to knock out the competition, no matter what the consequences. Property should be shared, and the people should ultimately control the economy. The government should exercise the control in the name of the people, at least in the transition between capitalism and communism. The goals are to eliminate the gap between the rich and poor and bring about economic equality.
Socialism
Socialism, like communism, calls for putting the major means of production in the hands of the people, either directly or through the government. Socialism also believes that wealth and income should be shared more equally among people. Socialists differ from communists in that they do not believe that the workers will overthrow capitalists suddenly and violently. Nor do they believe that all private property should be eliminated. Their main goal is to narrow, not totally eliminate, the gap between the rich and the poor. The government, they say, has a responsibility to redistribute wealth to make society more fair and just.
There is no purely capitalist or communist economy in the world today. The capitalist United States has a Social Security system and a government-owned postal service. Communist China now allows its citizens to keep some of the profits they earn. These categories are models designed to shed greater light on differing economic systems.
Here's something else to help you:
3 ideolodgy venn diagram - by Agnes Lee [Infographic].htm
More hysteria.
So this dictator with unlimited power... Is this the guy who built the wall? The one who repealed the ACA? Is this the one who threw that misbehaving reporter out of the WH press conference?
No? Oh.... so the idea that he's somehow powerful is just more irrational hysteria.
By which you mean "his tax returns"...which nobody but emotional liberals cares about anyway, which is doubly idiotic in light of the fact they absolutely won't understand them.
[delete]
Slow motion....like...it might happen in 500 years? OK. Maybe.
First of all, ...
Authoritarian rule is the opposite of the condition wherein the people have distributed economic control (the objective of socialism). It is a direct contradiction. Further the claim that socialism precludes a market economy exposes the author's lack of understanding of this subject matter. A command economy (the opposite of a market economy) is not a defining characteristic of socialism just like cronyism is not a defining characteristic of capitalism. The concept of a command economy is basically that the State attempts to control the dynamics of supply and demand by directing prices, distribution, production, etc. Given the complexity of a national economy, no nation has yet come close to making this work. Accordingly, sensible views of capitalism and socialism invariably rely upon a market economy.
The author has the common USSR-exemplar mindset where single-party, authoritarian, command-economy rule is presumed to be what socialism is all about largely because the USSR, et. al. labeled its practices as 'socialism'.
Second, on the family per Marx, ...
The author extrapolates quite a bit. Marx is talking about aristocratic families where the father, who typically holds the purse strings, directs his family as he sees fit. He is talking basically of the dynamics of dynasty (including arranged marriages). A society with a socialist economic system would not have dynasties because there would be no controlling minority (by definition). This bit is frequently pulled out under the auspices that Marx is against families (disregarding that Marx was himself a family man).
Further, the various 19th century views on how society would evolve and thus the impact on families held by Marx and Engels does not define socialism. These are opinions on the makeup of society if there were no aristocracy.
Finally, ...
Socialism, simply put, is a category of theoretical economic systems where a minority does not control the economy. No national economic system of socialism has ever existed and is unlikely to exist in any of our lifetimes (if ever). An authoritarian State such as the former USSR is the polar opposite of socialism. Unless, of course, someone can explain how Soviet peasants, as a whole, had control over their economy. The USSR State (a minority of the nation) controlled the economy; the people did not. This theme continued with other nations which implemented authoritarian rule and called it 'socialism' ... with Venezuela being the most recent example. It is ironic that one remarkably common slogan-level understanding of socialism invariably labels socio-economic/political systems wherein the State holds all the economic cards as 'socialism'. To wit, the conditions that give the greatest power to a ruling minority are deemed 'socialism' yet socialism is the opposite of minority control.
Maybe the AOC and Bernie Faction TYPES really do understand that ! It's always great when your parents do everything for you, for a small fee. That's the Bernie and AOC Mantra !
It is NOT ironic that One claims "Socialism" after Listening to "Bernie and his Butt Train of ass kissing Wannabe Presidential Candidates". The WANTS of his entrails, needs the State to hold all the economic cards ! They've said so daily, and Bernie and his Entrails Agree !
FIRE all insurance companies and their serogates, raise taxes, then give the people what they claimer for. Nurse Maids !
"One of Ludwig von Mises’s most important contributions was to point out that economic calculation is impossible under socialism."
Someone should tell Bernie, and all the other "Ass Kissing" Liberal Presidential candidates !
Some one on the right should tell all the ass kissing trump fascist authortians that he's done
Then why do you shovel bs so much
Government out of the way = anti-statism. Libertarians are anti-statists. Capitalism is an entirely different dimension. Capitalism can exist with authoritarian rule and, on the other extreme, can exist in a laissez-faire system. Capitalism is simply minority control (minority=aristocracy, capitalists/bourgeoisie, State officials) over the means of production and distribution.
I suspect when you think of capitalism you think of free market economy. Free market economy is not a defining characteristic of capitalism nor is it even necessary for capitalism to exist. It is desirable and is one of the critical factors of USA success, but it is not capitalism.
Pretty much all you do fish
Why Do Socialists Hate Families?
Self loathing?
Many to all of the following are very family orientated Countries, in some instances perhaps more so than us (the 50% divorce rate is not conducive to the family dynamic).
Money Smarts 303
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World
By Peerform · On December 6, 2012
The term socialist has been thrown around quite a bit in the past few years. Not since the cold war has the term garnered so much attention in the press and from politicians. But when you look at countries who actually have a socialist economic structure, you can see some similarities to the United States – but there are some really stark differences.
Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger.
Every nation on your list has a capitalist economic system.
I wish it were more widely understood. Bernie Sanders, et. al. should not be self-labeling as socialist. First off, they are generally social democrats promoting Statism with a capitalist economy funding it. Second, as your seed illustrates, 'socialism' is (for most people) nothing more than a pejorative.
Maybe Sanders, et. al. think 'socialist' has a better ring than 'statist'? I would advise them to go with 'social democrat'. Not only is that term technically accurate for what they propose, but it is easy to look up and understand. Further, those who are too lazy to research the topic (and thus lack clue one) can make some accurate sense out of 'social democrat' by inference: "oh, a democrat who is very focused on social issues".
Indeed. Social democrat is a much more accurate label, hence why I myself use it.
And their citizens (except for China) tend to be the happiest on the planet.
None of those countries are actually socialist, not even China.
Why do righties hit their wives? See how that works? You ought to be ashamed...
This guy brings up religion a lot. Like that is what holds everyone together.
He also makes little sense.
If he had no money to buy the food, he would starve.
I have to laugh, socialism is nothing more than a boogie man for the right. Everything the right is against is labeled as such, even when there is no basis in reality.
For real, they like the word because it sounds scary (to them) but they apply it incorrectly virtually every single time.
Socialism seems to be the new bogeyman for 2020, I guess the Muslim thing has gotten old and using AOC and Omar just doesn't seem to be getting much traction.
The aspects of Socialism that have crept into our system to date seem to be quite popular (ie: Social Security, Medicare). With a hybrid system that we use (some folks forget, we pay into both systems neither is free), Socialism (for lack of a better term) is more along the lines of collective bargaining for the masses.
I believe it was TG that mentioned (I apologize if not) that the simple answer is to call it something other than Socialism as it is not, in its purest form.
even though the word social is in there?
those are not examples of socialism. and neither are roads, fire stations and public works.
socialism is an economic system.
new boogeyman ya say? there is nothing new about socialism. we know all about it.
you will never see socialism in this country at a federal level. the only chance is at the state level
if your state writes you a check monthly? we honestly do not even care. in fact we would love to see a state like NY or california go full batschit like that until they are begging for federal money to bail them out. of course we will say no. because austerity and receivership will be thy name.
I stated they were hybrids. As to the bogeyman, seems there always has to be someone, Mexicans, Muslims, Sharia Law and all the other blah, blah over the years.
I recommend that we call things by their proper labels. A proper label is one that has a consistent, accurate meaning for the concept at hand. The label 'socialism' is so overloaded at this point, it essentially has no meaning. Labeling something 'socialism' provides no information other than to express a negative or positive position. Bernie Sanders is a prime example of one who uses 'socialism' as a positive term yet he is actually talking about social democracy (a variant of capitalism).
For example Sean Treacy @ 7.1.11 defines 'socialism' as (essentially) the system of the former USSR. You, in contrast, consider 'socialism' to be State controlled programs such as Social Security and Medicare. You two are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Sean thinks 'socialism' is brutal authoritarian rule with a State-controlled command economy where you see it as, essentially, social democracy (the system in place in most of the nations you listed in your post @ 6 ).
Seems counterproductive for people to talk about 'socialism' without a clear understanding of at least the principles of a system that was (by Marx) envisioned as the next stage of economic evolution from capitalism. Given people do not (it would seem) bother to research the complex subject of socialism, my suggestion is that we at least be specific in our complaints. There are plenty of clear phrases and terms for negative aspects that are surgical compared to the ambiguity of the label 'socialism'. For example:
If one is against increased government involvement in economic and/or social matters then one is against Statism. If one is against government trying to make things 'fair' (impossible and undesirable, by the way) then one is against attempts to make a pure egalitarian society. And so on ...
People toss the label 'socialism' around with many varied meanings (and almost always missing the core concepts of Marx' position and those of modern day theoretical systems for socialism). My conclusion is that most people desire to use 'socialism' as a pejorative for ' factors in a socio-economic/political system that I dislike ' and have no interest in accuracy.
Excellent comment.
I concur.
Thank you for making my point better than I.
That is pretty much it right there. The word socialism has become so garbled that it is meaningless. It really does seem like no two people have the same definition for socialism, thus no productive discussion can even be had about its merits or flaws.
I tend to go with Marx himself on it, but seeing as how almost no one has ever even read the Communist Manifesto (yet have a lot to say about it) I am never talking about the same thing as someone else.
Another right wing stupid comment. Do you understand the word social. You just proved you don't
Why do you keep commenting with such ignorance
Fair enough. But for the left, socialism is simply a way for young broke people to try to justify making somebody else pay their bills.
I would say some people believe that, but still, free government cheese is not an economic system.
Now wait a minute Jack. Is socialism (to you) authoritarian rule with a command economy under a brutal dictator or is it redistribution of wealth? Or is it some kind of bizarre hybrid?
Your posts will make no sense unless you define what you mean by 'socialism'.
Lol don't wait for a coherent answer.
That should have been what was quoted.
yepp, they tried that with obamacare
the feds commanded we buy something or pay a fine and we told them to fuk off on both counts.
it worked out well.. LOL
Comments like that explain why conservatives have no healthcare plan. They don't know jackshit about the issue and know their base doesn't either. Proof is in their words and actions. We are currently going backward to the worthless policy and medical bankruptcy days, and people with preexisting conditions will soon not be able to afford and obtain medical coverage.
If you are being serious then you do not understand the concept of a command economy.
More ignorant comments
think what ya like my friend, all you need to know is we win and the left loses.
get used to that.
if socialism is the retirement plan? think again.
cheers
if you thought I was serious you don't understand the concept of sarcasm.
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
It doesn't matter how I define it. I'm talking about how they define it.
And if U define it differently...
than they, ?
This just might be why TiG inquired, but im not here to speak for him, just curious, Y U do not answer his question.
Amazing how different your take is on things, but,
to each his own.
Referring to this:
First, 'the left' does not have a single, clear definition for 'socialism'. The usages are all over the map.
Second, if you are going to implicitly define socialism as: "a way for young broke people to try to justify making somebody else pay their bills" then why even use the term 'socialism'? You are referring to statist policies which focus on redistribution of wealth.
Basically, what is the value people see in using a word that has no meaning unless it is qualified by the person using the term?
Yes. Which is how most leftists use the term.
What's a leftist?
Conservatives tend to equate socialism with authoritarian rule, command economy, expropriation of industry, pure egalitarianism, etc. That is, they will focus on the worst factors of historical socio-economic/political systems and call these 'socialism'. Oddly, many will also somehow equate it with social democracy too.
Liberals/Progressives seem to consistently equate socialism with social democracy (statism, redistribution of wealth, public services).
Typically both sides of the ideological coin miss the point.
( From what I have observed. )
I don't disagree.
"Making somebody else pay their bills" was simply a crude description of redistribution of wealth.
A person who desires major disruption to our current systems in favor of liberal ideology.
This is in contrast to a "liberal", who is a person who seeks minor, non-disruptive changes to our current systems moving toward liberal ideology.
In over-simplified terms... a liberal feels a headache and wants to take a couple aspirin, a leftist wants to sever the head.
You know I love you more than my 42 pairs of CFM pumps in various styles and colors, but I didn't have time to read the entire article, so I skipped to the conclusion. I agree a million percent, and on a side note, you should show your softer, family-man side a little more often.
if any of those CFM's happen to glow under a blacklight and have the matching lingerie, please call me immediately.
LOL.
Do any of these look familiar?
https://www.pleaserusa.com/regular.asp?div=1%5FPLEASER&dpt=10%5FPF&WebFormat=12&PW=150&PH=150
no. what I had in mind usually has a strangulation warning for small children and animals under the arch.
I always knew that you were a humanitarian.
Socialists do not 'hate' families.
Conservatism, on the other hand, despises everything and fears all which it seems 'the other.'
Too late! Wall Street finance functions the same way as did the USSR. And Wall Street finance hates families.
Increasing dependence on Wall Street finance is making the United States more socialist.
Could you explain this? First define what you mean by 'socialist'.
socialism -- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
What is the means of production for Wall Street finance? Who owns that means of production? How is that means of production organized and managed? And how is the economic benefit distributed?
Wall Street functions according to the basic definition for socialism.
Thanks for being among the rare individuals to put forth their definition.
Wall street does not produce anything. The means of production (and distribution) refers to the resources that produce the necessary goods underlying an economy. These include land, natural resources, facilities, equipment, etc. You can include capital in that as well. And, from that, I suppose you could argue that Wall Street provides capital. Rather than argue subtleties let's just go with that. Premise: Wall street is one (of several) mechanisms for capitalization.
So, given that premise, how is increased dependence on Wall street as a mechanism for capitalization making the USA 'more' socialist? My guess is that you will argue that the ability for the public to own and trade securities gives them distributed control over how capital is used. That is, people vote for the companies they want to succeed and ipso facto direct capital to them?
Is this what you have in mind?
Where in the basic definition of socialism is the requirement to produce anything? Socialism is about collective ownership and/or regulation of the means of production and distribution. That is what Wall Street finance does, own and regulate the means of production and distribution for the benefit of a collective.
That is the concept of means of production. The idea is that control over the economy means controlling what is produced, where it is produced, how much is produced, etc. This is the core concept. The means of production is entirely irrelevant if nothing is produced.
Why make the distinction between means of production and the action of production? Socialists are defined as collective owners and regulators, not as collective producers and distributors.
Karl Marx avoided the issue of supply and demand altogether; focusing attention on value rather than price. Marx advocated valuation based on labor required to produce something (which later became known as the Labor Theory of Value). However, Marx didn't really address the disparity in valuation of labor. Some labor is more valuable than other labor. The end result of Marx's equivocation isn't that different from supply-side economic theory advocated by neo-liberal economists.
Wall Street finance functions in the manner of a socialist collective as espoused by Karl Marx. Wall Street finance conforms to the basic definition of socialism. And the resulting outcome of collectivized Wall Street finance isn't too different from outcomes observed in national economies that have adopted socialist/communist models of organization. Karl Marx's economic theories removes the natural self regulating influences within an economy. Socialism doesn't eliminate greed (except by magical thinking) but does provide a way for greed to dominate an economy by removing self regulating influences within an economy.
I was noting that having a means of production necessarily goes with actually producing. There is no point to a means of production if one is not producing. The idea of means of production (and distribution) is that the products are the lifeblood of the society. Everyone depends upon these products - they are the essence of the economy. Those who control the means, thus control the economy. This is the essence of "Das Kapital".
I disagree, Marx most definitely recognized a profound difference in the value provided by individuals. He did not hold an egalitarian view that all labor is equal. But what does this have to do with your original point about Wall Street?
Simply restating your original claim does not clarify or support it.
If we are talking about socialism per the principles of Marx, then there is no national economy that has adopted socialist/communist models of organization.
Marx saw everything in value terms. Thus, in his mind, everything could be calculated by looking at the value chain. This is a naive position (given modern knowledge of economics) but he thought that prices could all be calculated and that with a highly evolved industrial structure that provides for all the needs of society (his utopic view again) there would be no need for an agent to set prices. In his mind, no need for a market and no need for an entity to determine prices (as in a command economy). Lenin was probably the biggest proponent for a planned economy - one that set prices dynamically based on high participation by the workers. But Lenin was basically rolling his own version of socialism whose foundation was entirely at odds with Marxism. Nonetheless (in theory) it did intimately involved the workers in the detailed 'planning'. He died before taking any action towards his planned economy. Stalin took over and implemented instead a pure command economy (centralized consolidation of economic power) which is the exact opposite of Marxism. Modern socialist theories do not (of course) blindly follow the 19th century views of Marx. Market based socialism is the most common form and for the obvious reasons - as of today there is no system superior to market dynamics for setting prices and managing supply and demand. ( This may change in the future. )
How did greed get into this discussion? Again, if we are talking about socialism per Marx then his system is absolutely self-regulating (as he saw it) - it was all calculated. If we are talking about modern theories of socialism, the self-regulation is primarily accomplished with a market economy. So where are you going with this?
Precisely. But the socialist emphasis is on controlling the means rather than the activity. The means represent the supply of labor and resources necessary for the activity of production. That's little different than the supply-side ideas of neo-liberal economists.
That's simply not true. A nationalized collective organized on Marx's model of socialism/communism naturally results in statism. And Marx was not a proponent of egalitarian democracy; regulating the means of production and distribution requires a central authority.
Yes. However, Marx used his concept of value to avoid dealing with the influence of supply/demand in a marketplace determining division of labor and resources. Marx's ideas for division of labor and resources is exemplified by a quote attributed to Henry Ford, "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black."
Greed was the underlying motivation for Karl Marx to develop theories of collective social and economic organization. Marx was attempting to displace the greed made possible by concentrated capital and private individual ownership/regulation of labor and resources. Karl Marx's theories are all about greed. However, Marx's theories do not eliminate greed; Marx only provides a different mechanism of organization that still allows greed to become the dominate controlling influence for labor and resources. In reality Marx's theories only replaces economic greed with political greed.
Labor is not a means of production, technically it is a mode of production. The socialist 'emphasis' is on who controls the means of production.
Statism is the opposite of what Marx described.
Now I am convinced that you are simply making things up.
Marx' concept of the value of labor was all about producers of value benefiting from the surplus value they produced.
My guess is that you have not studied Marx and are trying to infer Marx' intent by extrapolating from what the USSR did. That is a mistake. Marx would have rejected the USSR as the opposite of what he sought.
Labor is the primary means of production. Capital does not create capital, only labor creates capital. Karl Marx experienced the beginnings of mechanization (machine labor) and how mechanization was displacing human labor. Machine labor most definitely is a means of production; therefore, human labor is also a means of production.
Karl Marx advocated representational governance that was essentially based upon the model of a stock market. The collective would essentially consist of shareholders who owned/regulated the means of production and would receive economic benefit in the same manner as a shareholder. The stock exchange on Wall Street represents the fundamental working model for socialism and communism.
I confess that it has been many decades since studying Marx. However, that does not alter that Marx advocated transforming global economics based upon the model of publicly owned businesses issuing stocks that are traded on a public exchange. Marx was advocating the model of finance displacing supply/demand as the mode for organizing labor/resources and distributing economic benefit to the collective.
Wall Street finance conforms to the basic definition and ideology of socialism/communism. As the United States becomes more dependent upon Wall Street finance, the United States becomes more socialist.
Nerm if you are going to use Marx-based terminology then be consistent. Labor is part of a mode of production; it is not included in the means of production. I have brought this to your attention twice now. Arguing with me will not change the facts: look it up.
Repeating your claim (which I have already addressed) does not make it right. One of the last things Marx would have supported is the means of leveraging the labor of others by owning stock. Surely you see the parallel between an owner of an enterprise using profits to acquire more means to then produce even more profit and a shareholder using returns to acquire more stock to (potentially) produce even higher gains. If anything, Marx was against one person leveraging the labor of others for that individual's personal gain.
Sorry, this is wrong in too many ways to even take seriously.
Could you provide a link? I would like to know who is feeding this to you.
Provide a link for this amusing claim too. The endgame for Marx was most assuredly not a system of 'fictitious capital' as Marx called it.
I read das Capital and that idea was not in my copy.
You stated this far more politely than I likely would have.
Agreed. This is a variation on the meaning of 'socialism' that is new to me.
Nerm's version of Marx sounds more like Adam Smith.
Seems to me too much attention is being paid to outcome rather than implementation. According to the economic theory, workers are to control and regulate the farms, factories, mines, etc. where they work and have a vote in how those farms, factories, mines, etc. are to be managed and what will be produced. That is the model of shareholders and proxy voting. Working provides a proxy vote in regulating the workplace. The implementation of socialist theory is based upon the model of stock exchanges.
The difference is that the medium of exchange is no longer money (proxies are not traded under socialism); the proxies are earned by working. But the system of shares and proxy voting functions the same as it does with stock exchanges. Marx noted that all labor is not equal; some work requires more knowledge, skills, and abilities than other work. Some workers are naturally more efficient than other workers. Some workers are more adept at planning, organizing, and forecasting than other workers. I don't believe Marx satisfactorily resolved those natural disparities.
Be wary of the political rhetoric and hype promoting socialism. The political nonsense establishes a society where workers are the governing class; that is not a classless society. The political nonsense also promises equal outcomes; however, even Marx admitted there would not be equal outcomes.
Yes. Weren't you aware that the starting point for Karl Marx was Adam Smith's description of economics? Marx's theories are an extension of Adam Smith's description of economics. Everyone focuses attention on Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' but seem to have forgotten that Smith also authored 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments'.
You presume far too much influence by shareholders over the specific decisions of a company. Shareholder votes are few and generally perfunctory. A shareholder is primarily interested in return on investment. The details of how that is accomplished generally are not a common concern and the shareholders have almost no say in the mechanics anyway. In contrast, workers who also own their enterprise have substantial say in what the enterprise does (new product lines, safety, expansion, etc.) and how it does it (election of management councils, etc.). And this influence extends into socio-political factors such as what takes place in the community. There is no realistic comparison between a shareholder today and the level of detailed involvement in a fully functioning system of socialism (per theory).
Correct. Marx recognized that inequality is natural and valuable. He did not seek a pure egalitarian system. Also, Marx was heavy on critical analysis of capitalism and had very little (in comparison) to say about how socialism would work (and almost nothing on how communism would work).
I agree. Those currently promoting socialism are typically promoting statism ... specifically social democracy.
Equal outcomes would be a nightmare and it could only work under absolute oppression. Marx did not seek a pure egalitarian system - especially not with respect to outcome.
Here is the definition of controlling interest -- the holding by one person or group of a majority of the stock of a business, giving the holder a means of exercising control.
Do not confuse the disparity in share ownership with lack of influence. Controlling a majority of shares (and proxy votes) allows direct control over decisions and daily operation of an enterprise. Those with a controlling interest can win every vote. Marx's theories were intended to overcome the disparities created by ownership but not alter how the system of collective organization functions.
Controlling interest is precisely what Marx would oppose. I presumed you were excluding controlling interest since that directly contradicts your analogy.
Yes, those with controlling interest can indeed influence details (they can, for example, directly influence actions by the board of directors). But even so, the decisions of a company are profoundly more detailed than those dealt with at the board level. So even here it is indirect except on the major decisions (e.g. picking a new CEO). And your standard shareholder has almost no influence on company operations (my point).
Correct. But the concept of controlling interest illustrates Marx's point that concentrating influence and control through ownership is the problem. The objective of socialism is to eliminate concentrated influence but not to eliminate collective organization. Marx wasn't advocating anarchy.
Your explanation is to simply state that which has never been argued.
Nobody has claimed that Marx was advocating anarchy and nobody has claimed that socialism per Marx did not seek to eliminate concentrated influence.