Why Do Socialists Hate Families?

  
Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  3 months ago  •  203 comments

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
will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime
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

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    3 months ago

Read the article before you have a tantrum over the title. Stay on the seeded topic.

 
 
 
epistte
1.1  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    3 months ago
Read the article before you have a tantrum over the title. Stay on the seeded topic.

Your entire argument is a false dilemma analogy.

 You have created a biased and exaggerated ideal of what you think that socialism is and that argues that unless we do as what you believe that is the conclusion. You ignore the fact that your idea is both exaggerated and misleading idea of what others have envisioned. 

 Libertarian economics do not work in an interconnected society because they ignore the basic facts of macroeconomics. We are not 350 million people living separated with no impact on others with government spending and the financial actions of others, but those critical concepts are ignored by libertarian economic ideas. Put it more bluntly, your libertarian economic ideas do not see the interconnected forest, and instead, only see the individual trees. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.2  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    3 months ago

How Politics in Trump’s America Divides Families

A progressive family in suburban Philadelphia refused to take down a “Black Lives Matter” sign when conservative relatives came to visit.  

KILEY BENSE NOV 26, 2018
lead_720_405.jpg?mod=1543176373Kenan and Margaret Sayers in front of their home in Elkins Park, PennsylvaniaNATALIE PISERCHIO

Margaret sayers’s yard signs are still standing, staked in a row in the thick ivy that covers part of her front lawn in suburban Philadelphia. “Families Belong Together,” the first sign reads, above an illustration of two outstretched hands embracing a red heart. The second sign is a bright blue “Hate Has No Home Here” poster, which features the same phrase in English, Urdu, Arabic, Korean, Hebrew, and Spanish. But it’s the last sign, the one that reads, simply, “Black Lives Matter,” that became a source of tension when Sayers’s extended family visited from North Carolina to celebrate her son’s high-school graduation last spring.

“At least a week before their arrival, I was engaged in an internal struggle,” Sayers says. “I knew that the signs were going to be inflammatory.” Unable at first to decide what to do, Sayers called a family meeting with her husband and two children, who are 18 and 20, to ask whether they thought the signs should stay up or come down. Her son and daughter immediately told her that the signs should remain where they were. “I thought, This is a moment where I can stand for my beliefs, and I can stand by what I value,” Sayers’s son, Kenan, told me. “And I don’t want to look back and say, well, ‘I could have done this, but I didn’t.’”

Both of Sayers’s children are adopted, and Kenan is black. Sayers, who is white, says now that if it weren’t for the “Black Lives Matter” sign, she might have removed the signs temporarily for the sake of keeping the peace with her family. But she could see no way to explain to her son why the “Black Lives Matter” poster should be put away because his grandparents and aunt were coming to the house.

Read: What’s the answer to political polarization in the U.S.?

Before the trip, Sayers got a text from her sister, Terryn Owens, asking her to take down any political signs displayed in her yard for fear they would upset their conservative parents. “I texted her, ‘If you can tell me appropriate language to tell my son why we have to take the Black Lives Matter sign down, I will do it,’” Sayers says. Her sister’s response was one of shock and dismay. “You have a Black Lives Matter sign?”

Signs on the Sayerses’ lawn (Natalie Piserchio)

Sayers was so distressed by her sister’s response that she felt unable to engage other than to reply that the signs would stay where they were. The exchange also upset Owens, who said that Sayers’s decision to call the family meeting over the sign left her children “with the vision that their grandparents and aunt are racist,” and that she had already told Sayers it was fine for the signs to be left in place.

Sayers told me that she originally put up the “Black Lives Matter” sign because she was drawn to the movement’s principles of “diversity, inclusion, and restorative justice.” Soon after she bought the sign, a neighbor left a postcard on her front stoop thanking her for displaying it.

Read: How the American two-party system became so divided

“My family loves my kids … They would never intentionally hurt my kids,” Sayers says. “But I think they have no idea how much that [removing the sign] would have hurt my son.”

The story of america in 2018 is really two stories. For so many events in political life, two unreconcilable accounts unfurl in parallel, and which story you trust seems to say more about your identity than it ever has before. These dueling narratives can make it feel impossible to have a productive conversation with anyone who believes the other story—and that includes members of your own family. In the lead-up to the 2016 election, a survey conducted by ABC News found that 37 percent of Americans had experienced increased tension with relatives or friends because of the campaign. The fracturing of the country at large finds expression on a personal level at birthday parties and barbecues and holiday dinners. How do you sit at the table with someone you love but with whom you cannot agree on even the most fundamental facts? Should you try to change their minds? Should you sit at the table with them at all?

How left-leaning Margaret Sayers and her right-leaning family view Brett Kavanaugh’s emotionally charged confirmation process is illustrative of the two stories: Was Christine Blasey Ford a heroic witness for the truth, sacrificing her well-being on a national stage for the greater good? Or was she a political pawn, being manipulated by the Democrats in order to torpedo a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court? Was Kavanaugh an unhinged and possibly predatory villain? Or was he a decent man who may have had a beer-drinking problem as a teenager?

Sayers’s main form of activism is fund-raising for left-leaning political candidates by planning open-mic nights and story slams, and having local bands perform at Third Floor Theater, a performance space located within her home. (Natalie Piserchio)

Sayers is a clinical psychologist and told me she thought her experience had informed her reading of Ford’s testimony. “I believe her, I’m sure, in part because I have a mental-health background, and I know about trauma and I know what it looks like and how it can affect people for years and years,” she says. Sayers thought Ford’s inability to remember some details of the incident made her more credible. “That is an incredibly common thing,” she said, for someone who has survived trauma to have trouble remembering the aftermath of an incident. They are more likely to remember specifics like the smell of cigarette smoke or the color of the skirt they were wearing that night—or, in Ford’s case, the sound of her attackers’ laughter. Sayers says she can’t imagine that Ford could have fabricated the story or that she would have put herself through the spectacle of the hearing if she wasn’t telling the truth. Ultimately, though, what convinced Sayers that Kavanaugh was unfit to serve on the Supreme Court was not Ford’s testimony but Kavanaugh’s. His “partisanship,” combined with a lack of a thorough investigation into the allegations against him, was disqualifying, she thought.

Owens, a retired attorney, had a very different perspective on the hearings. In her view, the allegations against Kavanaugh, from so long ago, were not enough to “convict” him and were unsubstantiated. She blamed Dianne Feinstein’s office for not releasing Ford’s letter to the FBI sooner, which would have triggered an investigation earlier. She thought “something” might have happened to Ford, but she was not convinced that Kavanaugh was involved. Owens, who has one son, also had a personal reaction to the hearings. “Any mother of a son should live in fear if Kavanaugh loses this because some woman says he did something wrong in college,” she says. She couldn’t understand why her sister didn’t consider this dimension: “She’s got a son.”

Donnie Douglas, Sayers and Owens’s brother and the editor for 22 years of The Robesonian, the local newspaper in Lumberton, North Carolina, where all three grew up, watched some of the hearings and says he thought the process was “beyond ridiculous.” Douglas described himself as a moderate on social issues and a conservative on fiscal matters. “They were talking about flatulence and a high-school yearbook,” he says. “And I don’t know anything about him as a judge [after watching]. Nothing.” Douglas says he thought most people had already made up their minds before the interviews started. “My sister was always going to believe the lady,” he says of Sayers. “She has no idea what happened. I don’t either, but Margaret was always going to be all in on [Ford].”

Read: The growing partisan divide over feminism

Both Douglas and Owens brought up Monica Lewinsky when asked about Kavanaugh. “If I was going to have a conversation with my sister, I would say, ‘Did you believe Monica Lewinsky?’” Douglas says. Owens says, “Liberals weren’t bothered by what happened to Monica Lewinsky, but they’re all up in arms about what happened to Christine Ford.” Douglas says he thought most Americans viewed Kavanaugh’s fitness for the Court and the allegations against him only through the lens of their political views, just as they had lined up for or against Bill Clinton based largely on party affiliation during his impeachment proceedings 20 years ago.

Both sayers and owens say their relationship, once close, has been strained by their political opinions. Sayers says she feels that their relationship has worsened significantly since Donald Trump’s election, though they have always disagreed. But Owens thought their relationship had become fraught much earlier than that, beginning when Barack Obama was elected in 2008.

Sayers and Owens have settled into an uneasy silence when it comes to politics, a silence that has spread to other aspects of their relationship. They talk and visit less than they used to. Owens unfriended Sayers on Facebook “a long time ago,” seeking to avoid her sister’s political posts. After the discussion of the signs turned contentious, the matter was not raised again. But Owens and their parents ended up leaving Pennsylvania a day early.

Steve Sayers sits in his Elkins Park home with his children, Kenan and Douglas Sayers. He and his wife, Margaret, adopted them as infants. (Natalie Piserchio)

“It’s really painful,” Sayers says of feeling “estranged” from her family. “We’re in a cold-war place.” Owens says she tries to avoid offending her sister and wishes they could talk about their views more openly. “Anything I say is going to be taken wrong,” she says. Owens expressed frustration that her sister often “shuts down” instead of talking about the sources of their disagreement. “I think she perceives me as being way more conservative than I am,” Owens says. “But if you can’t discuss it, you can’t change it.”

In the wake of the midterm elections, both sisters are cautiously optimistic, though for different reasons. Owens told me that after some reflection, she thought that it might be a good thing for Democrats to control the House of Representatives, because it might open up new avenues for Congress to work with the president on passing legislation on issues that both sides could agree on, such as infrastructure. “What the two houses need to do is work together and work with Trump to do something for the American people,” she said.

Sayers has mixed feelings about the midterms. “I was really disappointed about Beto and Amy McGrath,” she says, of Beto O’Rourke, who lost to Senator Ted Cruz in Texas, and McGrath, who lost a House race in Kentucky. “But I am hopeful the Republicans will be reined in a little bit” in Congress. She isn’t optimistic that much will get done.

Decades of living in the Northeast have faded Sayers’s North Carolina accent to a soft suggestion that slips out only on certain vowels, while her sister still speaks in the rounded cadences of the South. And yet despite the divergent paths the sisters have taken, despite their ideological opposition, they are much more alike than they are different. By all accounts, both are giving, generous people, committed to helping others in need. Owens does quilting for cancer patients. Sayers runs fund-raisers and community events on the top floor of her house. And each told me that she truly does want to understand the other’s point of view, an unusual sentiment in a world where few are willing even to listen.

There is a third story: The divide between us is really not so wide. The truth is that a majority of Americans agree on a staggering range of controversial issues, from guns and immigration to Roe vs. Wade and health care. One of the key findings in a 2018 report called “Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape” is that 67 percent of Americans fall into an “exhausted majority,” caught between extremely politically engaged, committed, and vocal groups on the left and right. This majority shares “a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.” The people in the middle want compromise and communication. But as liberals and conservatives move further apart, those things become less likely.

If you want to change someone’s mind, empathy is just as important as expertise. If you are hostile or defensive or begin with the assumption that the person you are talking to is not also a thinking, feeling human being, persuasion is an unlikely outcome of your interaction. “I think people forget that you can have respect for somebody without agreeing with them,” Kenan, Sayers’s 18-year-old son, told me when I asked him what he thinks about the inability of so many Americans to have a civil conversation about politics. “Respect and agreement aren’t the same thing.”

Kenan Sayers, who attends the University of North Carolina, with his mother, Margaret Sayers (Natalie Piserchio)

Sayers struggles to extend the respect she brings to most every other aspect of her life to people who hold political views that she finds indefensible, a tension she feels is also expressed in the Quaker faith she practices. “One of the central tenets of Quakerism is that there is a light within everyone. I really do believe that. That is part of what draws me to Quakerism,” she says. “But also my faith tells me I have to speak up in the face of injustice.”

It’s true that there are limits to compassion, gulfs that are uncrossable. Some people will never be persuaded to think differently, no matter who tries to convince them or how they’re approached. There are some family dinners that we have no choice but to leave. But there may be more room at the table for understanding—and change—than we realize.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2  The Magic Eight Ball    3 months ago

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

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2.1.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.3  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1    3 months ago

Warren also wants to force the middle class and poor to pick up the tabs for the debt the upper class accumulate taking out loans for college.

Disgusting.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1.2    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
2.1.5  Cerenkov  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    3 months ago

He already does. Confiscating his assets is evil and unconstitutional. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.6  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    3 months ago
then he has been blessed by being in this society and should pay a little more (relatively) in taxes.

they already do pay more than us mere mortals.

why do people who work smarter and harder owe you something?

jealous much?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 months ago
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.

Probably what she proposed isn't even legal.

We don't tax wealth here.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.6    3 months ago
they already do pay more than us mere mortals.

They pay a smaller percentage on income than we "mere mortals" do.  Especially if they decide to purchase a personal jet plane.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    3 months ago
Probably what she proposed isn't even legal.

It's already been looked at, it is legal.

We don't tax wealth here.

Under Republican leadership you are absolutely correct, the wealthier you are, the smaller your tax requirements are.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.9    3 months ago
It's already been looked at, it is legal

Prove it then.

Under Republican leadership you are absolutely correct, the wealthier you are, the smaller your tax requirements are.

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.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    3 months ago

We do tax property, so the precedent is almost established.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    3 months ago
Prove it then.

No, you posed the question.  If you are too lazy to look it up yourself, I'm not going to do it for you.

Sure----only the GOP has never taxed wealth, right?

Funny that your reply has nothing to do with my comment that you are replying about.  Did you want to reread it?

Do tell us all about how Democrats have done so when they have held the power to do it.

Done what?  What the hell are you blathering about????

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.

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).

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.13  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.8    3 months ago
They pay a smaller percentage on income than we

a smaller percentage? yes. do they send less money to the IRS?  not a chance.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.13    3 months ago
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

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.14    3 months ago
Why is the GOP so intent to shrink that percentage more and more, putting the bulk of taxes on the working man's shoulders?

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.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.15    3 months ago
Why do you insist on perpetrating the lie that the wealthy don't pay their fair share?

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.16    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.16    3 months ago
Can you justify the Amazon 2018 tax situation? Getting hundred million dollars refund based on 11 billion dollars

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?

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.19  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.18    3 months ago
I damn sure think they should pay, but then again, I think that every person should pay.

How do you expect people who live under the poverty line to pay taxes?   Do the homless also pay taxes in your plan? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.1.19    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.21  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.20    3 months ago
You could exempt those making less than what a full-time minimum wage job would pay.

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.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.1.21    3 months ago

Yeah, everything doesn't always work out perfect.

Too bad.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.1.21    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2    3 months ago

So much for facts and truth

 
 
 
Cerenkov
2.2.1  Cerenkov  replied to  Don Overton @2.2    3 months ago

So much for your argument...

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.2  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Cerenkov @2.2.1    3 months ago

Historically speaking on this site he has never mounted an argument on any point.

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.3  Don Overton  replied to  Cerenkov @2.2.1    3 months ago

You just showed my proof

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.2.4  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Don Overton @2.2    3 months ago
So much for facts and truth

you would not know either if it bit you on the ass.

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.5  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.2.4    3 months ago

Another hypocrite

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.2.6  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.2    3 months ago

And when have you offered anything. Like never

 
 
 
bugsy
2.2.7  bugsy  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.2    3 months ago
Historically speaking on this site he has never mounted an argument on any point.

Ever...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3  Jack_TX    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @3    3 months ago
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.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.1.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  epistte @3.1    3 months ago

Marxism is a cancer with a history of despicable violence and genocide.

Why would you want people to read the scum that promote it?

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.2  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.1    3 months ago
Marxism is a cancer with a history of despicable violence and genocide. Why would you want people to read the scum that promote it?

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_anarchism

 Have you ever read Chomsky and Kropotkin? I'd also suggest Bakunin.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.1    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @3.1    3 months ago
This is absolute nonsense because there are theories of anarcho socialism that deny the power and oppose the existence of a government.

Theories.  Right.

Well....in practice, socialism requires a shitload of unquestioning loyalty to the state.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  epistte @3.1.2    3 months ago
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.

That is absolutely not the "best" we can do.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.4    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.6    3 months ago
I doubt you and epistte are talking about the same thing.

Of course we're not.  

   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.

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.7    3 months ago
Of course we're not.  

Well at least you admit that you are purposely not trying to communicate.   

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.9  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.7    3 months ago
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.

What bis being described in the article is a scare tactic designed to create a false dilemma analogy.

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.10  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.4    3 months ago
Theories.  Right. Well....in practice, socialism requires a shitload of unquestioning loyalty to the state.

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?

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.11  epistte  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.5    3 months ago
That is absolutely not the "best" we can do.

That is your opinion.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
3.1.12  Cerenkov  replied to  epistte @3.1.9    3 months ago

Not really. But your comment may qualify.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.1.13  Don Overton  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.4    3 months ago
Well....in practice, socialism requires a shitload of unquestioning loyalty to the state.

As does the trump administration.  So you are saying that the trump administration is socialism.  Very good

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.14  epistte  replied to  Cerenkov @3.1.12    3 months ago
Not really. But your comment may qualify.

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. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.1.15  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @3.1.1    3 months ago

So much for intelligence.  You really don't know anything about history or, for that matter anything else.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.2  Don Overton  replied to  Jack_TX @3    3 months ago

So much bs so little time

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.2.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Don Overton @3.2    3 months ago

And yet you always seem to fit it in.  Well done.  We're so proud of you.

 
 
 
XXJefferson#51
3.2.2  XXJefferson#51  replied to  Don Overton @3.2    3 months ago

That describes socialism. It’s the crappiest  💩 economic system on earth.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.2.2    3 months ago

What does the word 'socialism' mean when you use it in a sentence?    Socialism is an economic system in which _____________________?

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.2.4  Don Overton  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.1    3 months ago

Keep spilling it out so I can point it out

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.2.5  Don Overton  replied to  XXJefferson#51 @3.2.2    3 months ago

So little knowledge on display

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
3.2.6  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Don Overton @3.2.5    3 months ago

I'd punctuate that sentence with !  Irony!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @3    3 months ago
Familles engender loyalty naturally, so they are seen as counter to the collective goals.

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

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @3    3 months ago
Socialism requires a great deal of unquestioning loyalty to the state.

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.4.1  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4    3 months ago
Anyone scared of America turning socialist might as well fear the ghost of Liberace coming up through their toilets to turn them gay.

jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

But, of course, this depends on what the individual means by 'socialism'.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.4.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4    3 months ago
And Dictatorships require a great deal of unquestioning loyalty to an individual,

Sure.  That individual becomes "the state".  

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.

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.

Anyone scared of America turning socialist might as well fear the ghost of Liberace coming up through their toilets to turn them gay.

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.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.4.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @3.4.2    3 months ago
The idea of the United States "turning fascist" is absolute raving hysteria.

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. especiallyhistory : 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.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
3.4.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Jack_TX @3.4.2    3 months ago
The idea of the United States "turning fascist" is absolute raving hysteria.

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. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.4.5  Don Overton  replied to  Jack_TX @3.4.2    3 months ago

So much bs, so little time

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.4.6  Don Overton  replied to  Jack_TX @3.4.2    3 months ago

Again a display of knowledge in your comments.  Reading would help.  

Here's a start:

13b. Comparing Economic Systems

00019393.jpg
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

  • Capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production and on individual economic freedom. Most of the means of production, such as factories and businesses, are owned by private individuals and not by the government. Private owners make decisions about what and when to produce and how much products should cost. Other characteristics of capitalism include the following:
  • Free competition. The basic rule of capitalism is that people should compete freely without interference from government or any other outside force. Capitalism assumes that the most deserving person will usually win. In theory, prices will be kept as low as possible because consumers will seek the best product for the least amount of money.
    00019395.jpg
    Image from Capitalism Magazine ( http://www.CapitalismMagazine.com). Used with permission.
    The antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft is one way that the government has tried to promote competition. Supporters of Microsoft say that forcing Microsoft to allow companies to bundle arch-rival Netscape's web browser with Microsoft Windows is not unlike making Coca-Cola include a can of Pepsi in each six-pack it sells.
  • Supply and demand. In a capitalist system prices are determined by how many products there are and how many people want them. When supplies increase, prices tend to drop. If prices drop, demand usually increases until supplies run out. Then prices will rise once more, but only as long as demand is high. These laws of supply and demand work in a cycle to control prices and keep them from getting too high or too low.

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.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.4.7  Don Overton  replied to  Jack_TX @3.4.2    3 months ago

Here's something else to help you:

3 ideolodgy venn diagram - by Agnes Lee [Infographic].htm

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.4.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4.3    3 months ago
If Trump is not at minimum censured, it will be a clear sign that the rule of law no longer applies to the President.

More hysteria.

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. especiallyhistory:one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome. b. one holding complete autocratic control :a person with unlimited governmental power

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.

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.

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.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.4.9  Don Overton  replied to  Jack_TX @3.4.2    3 months ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.4.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.4.4    3 months ago
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. 

Slow motion....like...it might happen in 500 years?  OK.  Maybe.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4  TᵢG    3 months ago

First of all, ...

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.

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.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @4    3 months ago
Socialism, simply put, is a category of theoretical economic systems where a minority does not control the economy.

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 !

 
 
 
It Is ME
5  It Is ME    3 months ago

"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 ! 

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.1  Don Overton  replied to  It Is ME @5    3 months ago

Some one on the right should tell all the ass kissing trump fascist authortians  that he's done

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Don Overton @5.1    3 months ago

No one is ass kissing on this article, we are trying to take the fork away from you so you don't put your eye out with socialism.

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.1.2  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.1    3 months ago

Then why do you shovel bs so much

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.3  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Don Overton @5.1.2    3 months ago

When the government moves out of the way, everyone in our society you claim to support does better. You can't help them but Capitalism can.

What's that like? When you realize everything you believe doesn't work?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.3    3 months ago
When the government moves out of the way, everyone in our society you claim to support does better. You can't help them but Capitalism can.

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.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.5  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    3 months ago

I struggle to connect with the libertarian convention. I like my anarcho-capitalist group I associate with. Much more at home with them.

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.1.6  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5.1.1    3 months ago

Pretty much all you do fish

 
 
 
luther28
6  luther28    3 months ago

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:

  • China
  • Denmark
  • Finland
  • Netherlands
  • Canada
  • Sweden
  • Norway
  • Ireland
  • New Zealand
  • Belgium

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1  TᵢG  replied to  luther28 @6    3 months ago
But when you look at countries who actually have a socialist economic structure ...

Every nation on your list has a capitalist economic system.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.1.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    3 months ago

Good point.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.1.1    3 months ago

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".

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6.1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    3 months ago

Indeed. Social democrat is a much more accurate label, hence why I myself use it.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.2  cjcold  replied to  luther28 @6    3 months ago

And their citizens (except for China) tend to be the happiest on the planet.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  luther28 @6    3 months ago

None of those countries are actually socialist, not even China. 

 
 
 
JBB
7  JBB    3 months ago

Why do righties hit their wives? See how that works? You ought to be ashamed...

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JBB @7    3 months ago

Marxism killed close to 100 Million and Venezuela is adding to those numbers.

You really think you can polish that turd and expect it to shine?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1    3 months ago

Why do you call it Marxism?   

Venezuela's situation is a result of authoritarian rule which expropriated private property controlled by the State (not the people), implemented a command economy and engaged in ridiculous levels of redistribution of wealth.   None of that is what Marx called for.    Marx sought an system in which all workers had democratic control over what to build, where to build it, how much to spend, etc.   Practical or not, the workers would, in Marx' view, run the entire show.   They would not be recipients of other people's work (their wealth) they would be recipients of the value they produced.    Other than Chavez' labeling of his initiatives, Venezuela directly violates what Marx sought.

Stalin and Chairman Mao, as brutal dictators, killed millions of their own people.   This has nothing to do with Marxism and everything to do with the wrong people in positions of great power seeking ultimate power.   The USSR, even under Lenin, tossed the Marx playbook out the window right off the bat.   Marx described socialism as an interim to communism that would take place in a mature industrial society where capitalism basically was crumbling under its own weight.   At the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, Russian industry was infantile with most of the population still rural peasants; the exact wrong side of the scale for socialism to emerge.   Lenin nonetheless grabbed the opportunity to seize power after the Russian Revolution(s) left the nation with a hapless provisional government.   He then tried to roll his own socialism by expropriation, redistributing wealth and giving (naive) workers and peasants power in the fledgling industries via the soviet councils.  This barely got off the ground before Russia was back at war defending its borders.   By 1920 when Russia was again secure, Lenin faced horrible quality of life issues and realized that he had to implement capitalism (albeit state capitalism vs. private sector capitalism) before there would be any chance of dealing with the complexities of something like socialism.   Lenin had a long term ideal of eventually having the workers be in control but he finally realized that this was going to be a very long process (my guess is he realized this would be many decades).    Regardless, Lenin died during the beginning stages of his plan only to be replaced by Stalin whose only goal was personal power.   Stalin continued with the Lenin language (and promises of a better quality of life) but basically trashed Lenin's plan and focused exclusively on authoritarian rule.   Stalin's murders had nothing to do with Marxism;  just good old fashioned consolidation of power by any means.

 
 
 
Don Overton
7.1.2  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1    3 months ago

Do you  really know what Marxism even is?  I doubt it

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7.1.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1    3 months ago
Marxism killed

There has actually never really been a Marxist revolution, nor any country practicing what Marx would call communism, or even socialism. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    3 months ago

It is funny how little people who trash socialism or communism actually understand about it or Marx's actual views. He would have denounced Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Chavez etc. if he were alive when they pulled their shit.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.4    3 months ago

I agree.  Especially in the USA, the super majority use 'socialism' to mean something entirely different from what it actually means.   The meanings are also all over the map.   To some it means social programs, to others it means command economy, etc.   

Reminds me of Marx' view of the French Marxists of the 1870s who rejected practical, incremental movement and sought instead revolutionary change with Marx offering:  "what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist".   

It is easy to adopt a label; it is far more difficult to truly understand the thought process and objectives embodied by the label.

 
 
 
epistte
7.1.6  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.5    3 months ago
I agree.  Especially in the USA, the super majority use 'socialism' to mean something entirely different from what it actually means.   The meanings are also all over the map.   To some it means social programs, to others it means command economy, etc. 

Socialism can be a command economy but those have a nasty habit or trampling on human rights, being dictatorial and then failing in violent revolutions after about 50 years.

 I think what most people in the US see as socialism is the democratic socialism of western Europe with strong social welfare programs and support for unions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @7.1.6    3 months ago

Most people probably do see 'socialism' as social democracy:   regulate capitalism funding statist public offerings.

Socialism can be a command economy ...

Capitalism could be implemented with a command economy too (although I do not recommend command economies at our current stage of sophistication).   Command vs. market is not a defining characteristic for either capitalism or socialism.   Both could be either.

† (has been)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.4    3 months ago
It is funny how little people who trash socialism or communism actually understand about it or Marx's actual views. He would have denounced Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Chavez etc. if he were alive when they pulled their shit.

Let me put it this way...

When Mitt Romney "denounces" Donald Trump, do you suddenly think "oh...Mitt must have been right all along and we should all start following him"?    Or do you think "one full of shit rich asshole is finally telling off another full of shit rich asshole"?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7.1.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  Jack_TX @7.1.8    3 months ago

I think "fuck them both."

Sorry if you don't like it, but Marx version of socialism or communism is essentially one of a democratic utopia. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7.1.10  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.7    3 months ago
Capitalism could beimplemented with a command economy too

But wait, fascists are socialists, or some such shit. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    3 months ago
zuela's situation is a result of authoritarian rule which expropriated private property controlled by the State

That's a feature of socialism, not a bug. Subordination of the economy to the political is a defining characteristic of socialism and violet oppression is a necessary accompaniment to achieve it.  Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez, the shining path, Castro, Ho Chi Minh.... The proof is in the pudding. 

ced by Stalin whose only goal was personal power.

That's simply wrong. If you are familiar with his reign at all, you'd know he was as true a a believer   in socialism as there ever was. He was obsessed with interpreting the world through a socialist lens.  The purges that killed millions  are what you get when take the Marxist belief in the "new man" seriously. Ridding the state of those old enough to have been corrupted by the old regime and allowing the pure, young "new man" brought up in the socialist paradise  to ascend to power was designed to speed up the revolution. 

i know, I know, all the millions of people who've sacrificed their lives in the n called themselves socialists aren't real socialists. Just like  the 12 guys in a church in San Jose consider themselves the only "Real Christians" and the hundreds of millions elsewhere in the world throughout history  who've called themselves Christians aren't Christians at all, they are really satanists!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.12  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    3 months ago

Every attempt to institute a Marxist government has resulted in a shift in the balance of power from the people to an authoritarian leader. The ideology is so corruptible every case has resulted in tyranny and economic failure. 

It's time to abandon the ideology entirely.  It cannot be done.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.11    3 months ago
Subordination of the economy to the political is a defining characteristic of socialism and violet oppression is a necessary accompaniment to achieve it.  Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez, the shining path, Castro, Ho Chi Minh.... The proof is in the pudding. 

At least you have defined what you mean by 'socialism'.   To you 'socialism' is brutal authoritarian rule and a State-controlled command economy.  That system is horrid.

That's simply wrong. If you are familiar with his reign at all, you'd know he was as true a a believer  

All I can tell you is to reread your history.   Of the two, Lenin was the 'true believer';  Stalin was simply a brutal dictator with a shiny label.

i know, I know, all the millions of people who've sacrificed their lives in the n called themselves socialists aren't real socialists. 

Depends on what you mean by 'socialist'.   Per your meaning Stalin was a true 'socialist' and Lenin was not.   Per the facts, Lenin tried to implement his understanding of Marxism but given he did not have a mature industrial society where capitalism has created an untenable class disparity (the conditions Marx held as the segue into socialism) he had to roll his own system from the start.    History calls his system Leninism.   When Lenin died, so did Leninism.   Stalin's focus was consolidation and retention of power.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.12    3 months ago
Every attempt to institute a Marxist government has resulted in a shift in the balance of power from the people to an authoritarian leader.

Not sure what a 'Marxist government' would be.   Marx did not lay out a specific system.   Most of his work is a critical analysis of capitalism.   That is, he identified the problems (as he saw things) with capitalism.   His key solution was to have a system of distributed economic control where the members of society have democratic control over social, political and economic factors and that is based upon shared control of the productive resources of the economy.

Lenin was the first person to try to implement principles of Marxism but he violated a key principle right off the bat by trying to force a socialist economic system within a nation that was still recovering from serfdom and had at best a fledgling industrial system.   Per Marx, socialism would occur when a mature, industrial capitalist society is stressed with class disparity.   Russia had the class disparity but had no means to start the socialist engine.    Lenin soon realized that he had to build a mature capitalist society in Russia before he could take on the far more complex challenges of socialism.

Stalin killed all of this when Lenin died and what became of the USSR is basically the work of a brutal, murderous dictator.    The systems that followed the USSR were following the single-party, authoritarian rule, command-economy system of Stalin - the opposite of what Marx called for.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.15  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Don Overton @7.1.2    3 months ago

Yes it's an ideology that has a tract record of paving the way for a violent dictator.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.16  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.14    3 months ago

My point is the surrender of power among the population attempting to achieve social and economic equality always ends the same way. The most violent and ruthless Marxist takes power in the form of a dictatorship.

Man is incapable of achieving the Utopian society with this ideology. Corruption destroys it each and every time.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.16    3 months ago
My point is the surrender of power among the population attempting to achieve social and economic equality always ends the same way.

Surrendering power by the people is the exact opposite of Marxism (if you go by Marx himself).

Social and economic equality is not an objective of Marxism.   Equality would be intolerable given everyone brings different skills, attitude, etc. to the table.   Marx criticized gross disparity in economic control; he did not seek a purely egalitarian society wherein everyone earns the same amount of money, etc.

The most violent and ruthless Marxist takes power in the form of a dictatorship.

Do you define Marxism by labels that people apply to themselves or do you go by what Marx actually wrote?

Man is incapable of achieving the Utopian society with this ideology. Corruption destroys it each and every time.

Utopia is likely impossible and, even if it were possible, the focus is always on improving the condition (short term).    Marx, for example, posited communism as his utopic view but spent almost no time defining it or explaining how it might come about.   He focused mostly on the problems he saw in capitalism and on the likely transition from a mature capitalist society under stress via socialism (non-minority, distributed control over the productive resources of the economy).

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.18  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.17    3 months ago

It is a flaw in his logic. 

The ideology results in a dictatorship and never leaves that process. The necessary dictators never relinquish power. The people are left powerless.

History is undeniable.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.19  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.13    3 months ago

Lenin too was a butcher of his own people. How is that any better? Lenin was the better Marxist? He killed fewer or more? LOL

The True believer was a tyrant too.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.18    3 months ago
It is a flaw in his logic. 

What is a flaw in his logic?

The ideology results in a dictatorship ...

No point in repeating my answer to this.

Lenin too was a butcher of his own people. How is that any better?

Are you serious?   I was comparing Lenin and Stalin relative to their fidelity to the principles of Marxism per Marx.   Why do you present this as if I was talking about the moral character and/or brutality of those two?

Lenin was the better Marxist? He killed fewer or more? LOL

I assume the serious part of our discussion is over.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.21  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.20    3 months ago

When the end result of the ideology in a historical sense always ends the same, those affiliated with government enjoy wealth while the population endures poverty there isn't much to discuss.

The ideology is nothing more than a front to a corrupt dictatorship.

Point me to the model that has worked, and don't point me to a capitalist democracy with a welfare system. Those aren't socialist or communist states.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.21    3 months ago

What I have been explaining is that the Marxist ideology has not been implemented in any system.   The systems that we can all point to as horrid are all authoritarian rule  where the people are not in control of even their lives much less the economy.    This is not Marxism that evolved into authoritarian rule, rather it is the result of power plays which merely self-label as Marxism or socialism.

Venezuela, for example, did not even attempt to create a system of distributed economic control but rather a State-centric irresponsible benevolent dictatorship that expropriated private industry, tried to implement a command economy, wasted resources by spending them on the people and essentially ruined a healthy economy.  

 
 
 
epistte
7.1.23  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.21    3 months ago
Point me to the model that has worked, and don't point me to a capitalist democracy with a welfare system. Those aren't socialist or communist states.

I have previously explained a socialist market economy with a constitutional republic form of government is nothing like the scare tactic model that you are trying so desperately to defend but you and a few others do not want to acknowledge that the possibility exists and works.  You are trying to claim that the only possible model of socialism is an abusive authoritarian dictatorship with a command economy but that isn't true. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.24  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.22    3 months ago

I hear you loud and clear but I am a person who relies on history. Thus I believe the Ideology to be flawed as one can never achieve the intended outcome.

The politician or the revolution in some cases indoctrinates the population into believing the outcome will provide the perfect society. The power shift never transfers back to the population as Marx intended.

It's the unintended consequences, tyranny and poverty.

Meanwhile we have an economic political system that has proven historically more successful, providing more wealth to more people than any other system. Why would we abandon such a system in favor of one that has failed over and over throughout the last century?

The sales pitch is always the same as is the outcome.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.24    3 months ago
I hear you loud and clear but I am a person who relies on history.

What do you think I am talking about other than history?

The politician or the revolution in some cases indoctrinates the population into believing the outcome will provide the perfect society. The power shift never transfers back to the population as Marx intended.

First, the power shift to the State never should occur!   Second, yes that is what I am talking about - the politician makes all sorts of promises and does not deliver.   Calling something Marxism is not the same as actually delivering Marxism (odd grammar but you get the idea).

Meanwhile we have an economic political system that has proven historically more successful, providing more wealth to more people than any other system. Why would we abandon such a system in favor of one that has failed over and over throughout the last century?

I am not promoting Marxism over our system so that question does not apply here.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.26  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  epistte @7.1.23    3 months ago

Hugo Chavez told the people of Venezuela that. That is in fact what they tried to develop there, it was the sales pitch. Daniel Ortega also tried this too. Both failed miserably once again they established a dictatorship.

Marxism and Marxism lite historically always give way to tyrannical dictatorships. My faith in a US attempt to achieve such a system is nonexistent based on global history.

Show me where a socialist economy has worked? Let's see the evidence of success?

I'll save you the trouble, it does not exist.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.26    3 months ago
... it was the sales pitch ...

Exactly.

Show me where a socialist economy has worked? 

Do you know of a situation that was not simply a sales pitch?    I do not.    Nor do I expect to see any actual evolution towards a national economic system that would qualify as socialism in my lifetime.    None exist and I do not expect to see one.

The closest thing to a working system of socialism might be Mondragon in Spain.   But that is a corporation, not a nation.

 
 
 
epistte
7.1.28  epistte  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.26    3 months ago
Hugo Chavez told the people of Venezuela that. That is in fact what they tried to develop there, it was the sales pitch. Daniel Ortega also tried this too. Both failed miserably once again they established a dictatorship.

Marxism and Marxism lite historically always give way to tyrannical dictatorships. My faith in a US attempt to achieve such a system is nonexistent based on global history.

Show me where a socialist economy has worked? Let's see the evidence of success?

I'll save you the trouble, it does not exist.

Venezuela was never going to be a privately owned market economy. Nor did it have a constitutional republic with the same civil rights protections as the US Constitution. 

Those of us who understand the idea are looking at your constant scare tactics of Marxism and laughing at either your tactics or how little you know of the subject if you expect to go alow with your partisan economic horror story.

  You have a binary idea of socialism but the idea that I am trying to educate you about is an economic hybrid that you do not understand.  It also appears that you do not want to educate yourself as to the possibilities because change is scary to you.  In the 1780s our Constitution was a radical idea that had never been tried before. My idea would be easy to achieve and from the outside would look a little different from what people know right now.   There are many private companies that already operate on this model in the US and they are quite successful. 

 
 
 
epistte
7.1.29  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.27    3 months ago
The closest thing to a working system of socialism might be Mondragon in Spain.   But that is a corporation, not a nation.

I was not aware of Mondragon. Thanks for the information. It will give me something to research at 2:00 am.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.30  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.27    3 months ago

As we have discussed before on an enlightening article you seeded, I find a corporation that operates withing the capitalist system to be unobjectionable. 

I value voluntary participation.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7.1.31  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.14    3 months ago
Not sure what a 'Marxist government' would be.   Marx did not lay out a specific system. 

Honestly, the best I can deduce is that Marx ultimately envisioned a peaceful anarchist society where there really was no government. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7.1.32  Thrawn 31  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.18    3 months ago
The ideology results in a dictatorship and never leaves that process. The necessary dictators never relinquish power. The people are left powerless. History is undeniable.

That is not something unique to socialism or marxism. For virtually all recorded history humans have been ruled by dictators in one form or another. Perhaps our species is simply predisposed to it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.31    3 months ago

I think he saw no need for a State and that government would be cooperative and natural.    Not sure how he expected that to happen since Marx never got into any details on his utopic view steady-state communism.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.13    3 months ago
I can tell you is to reread your history.   Of the two, Lenin was the 'true believer';  Stalin was simply a brutal dictator with a shiny labe

I would tell you the same.

The idea that once can distinguish between the two on the difference of brutality is not creditable.  Unfortunately, you seem to have fallen for the simplistic revisionism Marxist historians spun  have to explain how a fanatical socialist like Stalin could butcher so many millions.  For anyone familiar with the man and his work, it's transparent. 

Stalin, as any objective study will demonstrate, was a fanatical socialist in the way only true believers can be.  Time and time again he undertook programs that put his life and rule at risk because that was how he interpreted the demands of theory. To him, the forced collectivization that murdered millions was required by the revolution, even though it it put his rule in danger. Same with the mass purges designed to clear the government of communists corrupted by connection to the old regime and to allow the youthful, uncorrupted  "new men" who could advance the revolution.

This is a man who, while facing war to the west and east and purging millions from his party putting his survival in danger, spent countless hours painstakingly editing party textbooks by hand to ensure the theory was correct.  The idea that he was just a "brutal dictator" is simply preposterous and doesn't withstand the slightest scrutiny. 

 Per your meaning Stalin was a true 'socialist' and Lenin was not.

Not at all. They were real people dealing with real life situations, not debating theory in a schoolroom. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.34    3 months ago
The idea that you distinguish between the two on the difference of brutality is not creditable.

Brutality is not really my point here, but Stalin clearly was far more brutal than Lenin (for the record).   The key distinction between Lenin and Stalin that I made is that Lenin had the intention of implementing what he thought were Marxist principles and Stalin did not.   

The idea that he [Stalin] was just a "brutal dictator" is simply preposterous and doesn't withstand the slightest scrutiny. 

I presume you are serious.   Given that, I do not know what to say to you.   Your claim is as wrong as claiming Hitler was just trying to make the world a better place.  Do you have a link that supports your position that Stalin was not a brutal dictator whose focus was on his own power?   History seems to be at total odds with your view.

Stalin, as any objective study will demonstrate, was a fanatical socialist in the way only true believers can be.  Time and time again he undertook programs that put his life and rule at risk because that was how he interpreted the demands of theory.  The forced collectivization that murdered millions was required by the revolution, even though it it put his rule in danger. Same with the mass purges designed to clear the government of communists corrupted by connection to the old regime and to allow the youthful, uncorrupted  "new men" who could advance the revolution.

What a bizarre reinterpretation of history.   Stalin's murderous campaigns were designed to kill off those who would politically oppose him.   Where do you see him working to give the people of the USSR economic power?  He did the exact opposite consolidating all power with himself and murdering all opponents.   Again, you need to supply a link to show where you are getting this distorted view of history.

My guess is that you define 'socialism' as 'the political principles of Stalin'.   If so then your argument fails as soon as you try to equate Stalinism with Marxism.

They were real people dealing with real life situations, not debating theory in a schoolroom. 

A non sequitur.   Yes they were real people dealing with real life.   We have been discussing what they did in real life.

 
 
 
Don Overton
7.1.36  Don Overton  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.3    3 months ago

What government hasn't.  Our government went on a genocide hunt.  How stupid that comment was fish 

 
 
 
Don Overton
7.1.37  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.30    3 months ago

No you don't  you want everyone to move to your point of view.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.38  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.35    3 months ago

 but Stalin clearly was far more brutal than Lenin (for the record

Fine, but that's like arguing Ted Bundy was more brutal than Jack the Ripper.  Brutal murderers are brutal murderers.

Do you have a link that supports your position that Stalin was not a brutal dictator whose focus was on his own power

Are you trying to argue that being a brutal dictator who cared about retaining power is somehow incompatible with being a socialist? Because that would be gaslighting the forum.

History seems to be at total odds with your view.

Nonsense. Any serious study of Stalin recognizes he was a socialist. 

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.38    3 months ago
Brutal murderers are brutal murderers.

Agreed, so let's move beyond the brutal murder sidebar.

Are you trying to argue that being a brutal dictator who cared about retaining power is somehow incompatible with being a socialist?

No.   I am pointing out the historical fact that Stalin's objective was the consolidation and retention of power.   He had no intention of providing distributed economic control to the people of the USSR.

Nonsense. Any serious study of Stalin recognizes he was a socialist. 

Better to evaluate a figure on what he actually did rather than how he publicly self-labeled.   Show me where Stalin tried to economically empower the people.   Attempting to do that should cause you to realize that empowering the people economically was the exact opposite of what Stalin tried to accomplish.

The only way one can factually argue that Stalin tried to implement socialism in the USSR is by defining 'socialism' as 'whatever Stalin did'.   (And that is what you -and many others- have been doing.)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
7.1.40  Jack_TX  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7.1.9    3 months ago
I think "fuck them both."

Exactly.  Now you're getting it.

Sorry if you don't like it, but Marx version of socialism or communism is essentially one of a democratic utopia. 

Sure.  Or at least it would be if I were a nine year old.  But I'm not.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.41  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.39    3 months ago
He had no intention of providing distributed economic control to the people of the USSR.

Probably not. What socialist in his right mind would expect he could take an agrarian, quasi feudal society and advance it to the end stage socialism within a single generation?

Stalin, like Lenin and Trotsky and any other socialist saw their role as a conduit to speed up the  process and enable Russia to reach that stage much faster than it otherwise would of.  To argue that his failure to complete the impossible means he's not a socialist is not defensible.

Better to evaluate a figure on what he actually did rather than how he publicly self-labeled. ttempting to do that should cause you to realize that empowering the people economically was the exact opposite of what Stalin tried to accomplish

I did. You seem to be confusing outcomes with intentions. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.41    3 months ago
Probably not. What socialist in his right mind would expect he could take an agrarian, quasi feudal society and advance it to the end stage socialism within a single generation?

I agree.   Further, socialism (per Marx) evolves from a base of capitalism.   If one is attempting to seed socialism (per Marx) then Russia was not fertile ground.  Russia needed to first evolve into a mature industrial society.   This is what Lenin finally realized a few years before he died.

Stalin, like Lenin and Trotsky and any other socialist saw their role as a conduit to speed up the  process and enable Russia to reach that stage much faster than it otherwise would of.  To argue that his failure to complete the impossible means he's not a socialist is not defensible.

Lenin (and Trotsky) tried to short-cut the process of evolution and force grow socialism.   Stalin, (if you would actually do research you would know this), was after consolidated power.   His actions violated the labels he promoted.    Again, show me where Stalin worked to provide distributed economic freedom to the people of Russia.   ( You cannot do this.   Hint.  )

I did. 

... the opposite.

 
 
 
Ender
8  Ender    3 months ago

This guy brings up religion a lot. Like that is what holds everyone together.

He also makes little sense.

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

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.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
8.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Ender @8    3 months ago

Tell that to the entire population of the once wealthiest nation in South America.

 
 
 
Ender
8.1.1  Ender  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @8.1    3 months ago
In his inaugural speech, in January 1999, Chavez called for a “political revolution” before tackling social or economic issues. Taking advantage of the popular euphoria following his victory-and in violation of the existing constitution-he convoked a Constituent Assembly possessing absolute power to write a new constitution and to “redefine the state.” This Assembly, made up of his followers, went on to dissolve the democratically elected Congress and dismiss all the members of the Supreme Court, as well as the Attorney General, the General Comptroller, and most of the judges in the country, only to replace them with bureaucrats loyal to the president. In a letter to the Supreme Court, Chavez stated that “the president had exclusive authority on the management of state affairs,” thus appearing to place himself above the law.

Parts of that sound familiar.

Say it all you want and they can call themselves what they want, yet having basically a dictator is in no way a socialist economy. Spending money on societal welfare is not a socialist economy.

 
 
 
Don Overton
8.1.2  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @8.1    3 months ago

See what happens when you get an authoritarian government in power like trump is trying hard to have

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.1.3  pat wilson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @8.1    3 months ago

Did you not read TG's post to you. 7.1.1 ?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
8.1.4  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Don Overton @8.1.2    3 months ago

You do realize there has been no change in our form of government since the 2016 election. There have been no amendments to the constitution and all the checks and balances in our branches of government remain. 

Your statement is inaccurate and silly.

 
 
 
Don Overton
8.1.5  Don Overton  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @8.1.4    3 months ago

Good Lord the ignorance of that comment scares the shit out of me.  No wonder the right is so hated at this point.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
8.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Ender @8    3 months ago

For real, they like the word because it sounds scary (to them) but they apply it incorrectly virtually every single time. 

 
 
 
luther28
8.2.1  luther28  replied to  Thrawn 31 @8.2    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.2.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  luther28 @8.2.1    3 months ago
(ie: Social Security, Medicare)

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. 

 
 
 
luther28
8.2.3  luther28  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.2.2    3 months ago
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 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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  luther28 @8.2.1    3 months ago
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.

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:

  • authoritarian rule
  • pure egalitarian society
  • redistribution of wealth
  • command economy
  • statism
  • social democracy
  • expropriation of private property
  • public programs
  • State capitalism

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.

 
 
 
lib50
8.2.5  lib50  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.4    3 months ago

Excellent comment.

 
 
 
luther28
8.2.6  luther28  replied to  lib50 @8.2.5    3 months ago

I concur.

 
 
 
luther28
8.2.7  luther28  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.4    3 months ago

Thank you for making my point better than I.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
8.2.8  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.4    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Don Overton
8.2.9  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.2.2    3 months ago

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

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @8    3 months ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Ender
8.3.1  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3    3 months ago

I would say some people believe that, but still, free government cheese is not an economic system.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3    3 months ago
But for the left, socialism is simply a way for young broke people to try to justify making somebody else pay their bills.

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'.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
8.3.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @8.3.2    3 months ago
Capitalism could be implemented with a command economy too

Lol don't wait for a coherent answer. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
8.3.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Thrawn 31 @8.3.3    3 months ago
Your posts will make no sense unless you define what you mean by 'socialism'.

That should have been what was quoted.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.3.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Thrawn 31 @8.3.3    3 months ago
Capitalism could be implemented with a command economy too

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

 
 
 
lib50
8.3.6  lib50  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.3.5    3 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.3.7  TᵢG  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.3.5    3 months ago
yepp, they tried that with obamacare

If you are being serious then you do not understand the concept of a command economy.

 
 
 
Don Overton
8.3.8  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.3.5    3 months ago

More ignorant comments

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.3.9  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Don Overton @8.3.8    3 months ago

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 :)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.3.10  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  TᵢG @8.3.7    3 months ago
If you are being serious

if you thought I was serious you don't understand the concept of sarcasm.

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.3.11  TᵢG  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @8.3.10    3 months ago

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.3.12  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @8.3.2    3 months ago
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'.

It doesn't matter how I define it.  I'm talking about how they define it.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
8.3.13  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3.12    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.3.14  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3.12    3 months ago
It doesn't matter how I define it.  I'm talking about how they define it.

Referring to this: 

Jack @8.3 - But for the left, socialism is simply a way for young broke people to try to justify making somebody else pay their bills.

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?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.3.15  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @8.3.14    3 months ago
You are referring to statist policies which focus on redistribution of wealth.   

Yes.  Which is how most leftists use the term.

 
 
 
lib50
8.3.16  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3.15    3 months ago

What's a leftist? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.3.17  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @8.3.15    3 months ago
Which is how most leftists use the term.

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. )

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.3.18  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @8.3.17    2 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.3.19  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @8.3.16    2 months ago
What's a leftist? 

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.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
9  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9    3 months ago

What did Trail Dust do with my clip on tie they tacked to the wall when I was 8?

It's gone forever.

 
 
 
devangelical
9.2  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @9    3 months ago
42 pairs of CFM pumps in various styles and colors

if any of those CFM's happen to glow under a blacklight and have the matching lingerie, please call me immediately.

 
 
 
epistte
9.2.1  epistte  replied to  devangelical @9.2    3 months ago
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

 
 
 
devangelical
9.2.2  devangelical  replied to  epistte @9.2.1    3 months ago

no. what I had in mind usually has a strangulation warning for small children and animals under the arch.

 
 
 
epistte
9.2.3  epistte  replied to  devangelical @9.2.2    3 months ago
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.

 
 
 
bbl-1
10  bbl-1    3 months ago

Socialists do not 'hate' families.

Conservatism, on the other hand, despises everything and fears all which it seems 'the other.'

 
 
 
Nerm_L
16  Nerm_L    3 months ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @16    3 months ago
Increasing dependence on Wall Street finance is making the United States more socialist.

Could you explain this?    First define what you mean by 'socialist'.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
16.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @16.1    3 months ago
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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @16.1.1    3 months ago

Thanks for being among the rare individuals to put forth their definition.

What is the means of production for Wall Street finance? 

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?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
16.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.2    3 months ago
Wall street does not produce anything. 

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @16.1.3    3 months ago
Where in the basic definition of socialism is the requirement to produce anything? 

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
16.1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.4    3 months ago
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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @16.1.5    3 months ago
Why make the distinction between means of production and the action of production? 

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".

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.  

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?

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. 

Simply restating your original claim does not clarify or support it.   

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.

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.

Karl Marx's economic theories removes the natural self regulating influences within an economy. 

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. )

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.

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?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
16.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.6    3 months ago
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".

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.

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.

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.  

Marx saw everything in value terms.

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."  

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?

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @16.1.7    3 months ago
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. 

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.

That's simply not true.  A nationalized collective organized on Marx's model of socialism/communism naturally results in statism. 

Statism is the opposite of what Marx described.

And Marx was not a proponent of egalitarian democracy; regulating the means of production and distribution requires a central authority.  

Now I am convinced that you are simply making things up.   

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' concept of the value of labor was all about producers of value benefiting from the surplus value they produced.

In reality Marx's theories only replaces economic greed with political greed.

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
16.1.9  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.8    3 months ago
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.

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.

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.

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @16.1.9    3 months ago
Labor is the primary means of production.

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.

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.

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.

The stock exchange on Wall Street represents the fundamental working model for socialism and communism.

Sorry, this is wrong in too many ways to even take seriously.

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. 

Could you provide a link?   I would like to know who is feeding this to you.

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.

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.

 
 
 
epistte
16.1.11  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.10    3 months ago
Could you provide a link?   I would like to know who is feeding this to you.

I read das Capital and that idea was not in my copy. 

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.

You stated this far more politely than I likely would have.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  epistte @16.1.11    3 months ago
I read das Capital and that idea was not in my copy. 

Agreed.   This is a variation on the meaning of 'socialism' that is new to me.

 
 
 
epistte
16.1.13  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.12    3 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
16.1.14  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.10    3 months ago
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.

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.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
16.1.15  Nerm_L  replied to  epistte @16.1.13    3 months ago
Nerm's version of Marx sounds more like Adam Smith.

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'.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @16.1.14    3 months ago
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. 

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).

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.

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).

Be wary of the political rhetoric and hype promoting socialism. 

I agree.   Those currently promoting socialism are typically promoting statism ... specifically social democracy.   

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.  

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.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
16.1.17  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.16    2 months ago
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).

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.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @16.1.17    2 months ago
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).

 
 
 
Nerm_L
16.1.19  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @16.1.18    2 months ago
Controlling interest is precisely what Marx would oppose.

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @16.1.19    2 months ago

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.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

lib50
tomwcraig
devangelical
ArkansasHermit-too


48 visitors