Page 6 of 49 [ 777 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 49  Next

Dr_Manhattan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 11 Feb 2016
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 145

23 May 2016, 2:33 pm

I got like 10% of the way through when I noticed the guy making the comment was from a communist country. Communism =/= Socialism. I'm sympathetic for him, but as a socialist, this is misinformation from the mouth of someone who still has a chip on his shoulder from how a communist regime treated him. The only people who oppose socialism are the rich, or "elites". Capitalism, in its purest form, encourages competition; our "capitalism" relies on a system that can be best described as cannibalism. In fact, capitalism and socialism in their most unrefined forms practically meet in the middle.



Dr_Manhattan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 11 Feb 2016
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 145

23 May 2016, 2:38 pm

I misread. He was instead associating said economic theory with the worst of the worst, which is guilt by association.



Dr_Manhattan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 11 Feb 2016
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 145

23 May 2016, 2:39 pm

It never actually said he lived in these countries.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

23 May 2016, 2:40 pm

Socialism is not Communism. It's compatible with Democracy as well as capitalism. European style socialism means that government in principle exists to serve society, not business. We can socialize (centralize) certain functions that we deem too important for profit, like warfare, health care, childcare, education, infrastructure, and more. We can leave relatively unimportant things to the blind evil of capitalism.

Don't be a sucker to capitalism, it wasn't designed with you in mind.



Dr_Manhattan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 11 Feb 2016
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 145

23 May 2016, 2:48 pm

AspE wrote:
Socialism is not Communism. It's compatible with Democracy as well as capitalism. European style socialism means that government in principle exists to serve society, not business. We can socialize (centralize) certain functions that we deem too important for profit, like warfare, health care, childcare, education, infrastructure, and more. We can leave relatively unimportant things to the blind evil of capitalism.

Don't be a sucker to capitalism, it wasn't designed with you in mind.


I can't help but notice that most arguments against it employ guilt by association. They plaster Hitler and Stalin's faces onto socialism and try to pass it off as a valid argument. What most don't know is that they have Pinochet to their name and he was a capitalist.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

23 May 2016, 3:21 pm

They do the same thing with atheism. European countries have been socialist for some time. Socialized medicine in particular should be a model for all industrialized nations. Not that it's perfect, but it beats going bankrupt.



Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 555

23 May 2016, 3:53 pm

I would daresay that more people have read Ayn Rand than have read Marx, his philosophy is far more likely to be absorbed secondhand.



BuyerBeware
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,476
Location: PA, USA

23 May 2016, 4:27 pm

Three pages in...

Making this a binary discussion is silly, pointless, and while very Aspish, just what "TPTB" want us to do. Divide and conquer. Socialism, or an unfettered free market.

If you think socialism in so hot, book yourself a cruise to Venezuela. It sucks in Venezuela right now. And yes, I think it would come to that in America very quickly. Socialism wouldn't be a change, it would just be assigning more responsibility and therefore more power to our already catastrophically corrupt government.

And that's before we start talking about The Gimmes. I realize not everyone on welfare is gaming the system. I grew up on commodities (the predecessor of Food Stamps), Food Stamps, SSDI, and Social Security Death Benefit. I didn't know what it was to eat a meal that didn't involve some form of assistance from the time I was 2 until I was 12 (and then we were still getting the death benefit, even though we didn't need it, because I was "entitled" and Saint Alan wasn't so saintly that he was going to hire a lawyer to sue the Fed to NOT give him money). I remember taking money out of the allowance my Dad paid me to buy milk and bread, because all my Mom had was Food Stamps and the cashier at the Dairy Mart would mock me unless it was Miss Janie working. I'm not OK with calling everyone on welfare bums and cheats, because I remember how much it hurt, or terminating all support, because we needed it and my mother's only fault to place us in that situation was divorcing a perfectly good Aspie husband to run off with some guy with stellar social skills and no job.

But I have known an uncomfortably significant number of people in my short 38 years who are perfectly able, and simply content to sit on their asses playing GTA3 and/or popping out babies for as long as Uncle Sam will keep kicking them enough money to eat ramen noodles and live indoorsish. And that's not OK.

I'm sure, on the other hand, there are plenty of corporate scum-suckers who would LOVE the government to take more out in taxes, ostensibly for the maintainence of the populace. Because that's an even bigger pie they can stick both thumbs in, more regulation they can use to crush competition, and more opportunities for a government-protected monopoly.

I believe in the socialism I grew up with-- We're all in this together, my excess will make up your shortfall and you'll remember me when the shoe is on the other foot, my skills will get your garden canned and your skills will get my roof fixed.

The socialism that would/will grow up under government administration in America would look a lot more like 1984. Or worse. There's a reason why being born into poverty means you almost never get out, and it's not entirely about disparate access to resources. You can get an education ANYWHERE if you set your mind to it-- I got one in one of the shittiest rural high schools in WV. We didn't get the Internet until about 2000. Our chemistry lab was a couple of Bunsen burners, two beakers, a handful of test tubes, and a big bottle of HCl. We watched the teacher do some really basic stuff, because there wasn't enough equipment for us to participate. Our current events textbooks were updated with Xeroxes from newspapers, stapled together and handed out and back, because they were printed when about half of us were still sucking our thumbs and wetting our Pampers.

The difference between my high school and PS-Ghetto was that all the drive-by shooters had a big spotlight on their pickup trucks and they were shooting at deer. That was the ONLY really significant difference.

I could still hold my own academically at university. A lot of the reason being born poor means you'll stay poor is attitude. Apathy, defeatism, and the fact that the social services system fosters despair and dependence. We used to have to scrape my cousin's wife up off the floor when she came out of the WIC office, because they would basically tell her she was now a statistic and ought to give up (they had their first baby when he was barely 19 and she was barely 17). My aunt had to arrange for home bound educating for six weeks-- too many "people who were there to help" encouraged her to drop out-- and force-March her through her senior year and vocational training (and back again to turn her CNA license into an LPN license two years later).

What my family did there-- aggressive encouragement, years of free childcare, years of free housing while they got together a down payment on a double wide-- is the kind of socialism I believe in. Not the s**t the social services system tried to do to her, that she was predisposed to accept because that's what she grew up with.

OTOH, if you think unfettered capitalism is such a wonderful think, Google "mine wars" or "textile wars" or " labor wars" or "labor history." Read the American stories. And then if you've got the stomach, read the European stories, because they make the American ones look like a church picnic.

Ask yourself if you're willing to man a barricade or commit armed robbery or make IEDs or point a gun at another living human being in an attempt to secure a place to get out of the weather and enough nutrition to not starve outright or end up with pellagra or beri-Beri or a host of other nice diseases of deficiency. And if the answer is no, stop singing the praises of completely unfettered capitalism.

I'm sick of being urged to vote for THIS dystopia, or THAT one. I want real change. Oligarchy has its claws too deep in our government to trust anything the government administers. I don't want millions of people to die in an attempt at Revolution, just to have them hook us again (like they did after the American Revolution). I want change, real change, and that's going to mean a permanent and radical change of values built by us from the ground up out of f*****g hard work.

I provide free childcare, use excess money to pay people's bills, take stuff to the food pantry frequently, on and on and on. My medically disabled friend does all the labor his body will allow for folks that need help for free. My friend the SAHM with a special-needs kid and a baby (and little enough money that often as not its her bills I'm helping out with) provides free child care, rides to places, mental-health advice, and tough love.

I don't care what your diagnosis is, or how "low-functioning" they told you you are. Everyone can do something. Social justice is going to come by the work of our hands, not by Occupying Jack s**t and electing Pat Promises. Get busy.


_________________
"Alas, our dried voices when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, as wind in dry grass, or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar." --TS Eliot, "The Hollow Men"


RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

23 May 2016, 4:43 pm

Jacoby wrote:
I would say the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and Cuba were/are high centralized so yes I would say at large scale it is not a collection small scale autonomous communities. Without the strict control by the central government, the Soviets pretty much completely collapsed into ethnic nationalism.

*facepalm*

Because I'm not here to debate as to whether Marxist-Leninist states had Communist economies (they didn't).

I'm going to arrange the question differently.

Would a large collection of small scale autonomous communities, that distribute goods and services according to ability and need, not be an example of large scale Communism?
Dr_Manhattan wrote:
I can't help but notice that most arguments against it employ guilt by association. They plaster Hitler and Stalin's faces onto socialism and try to pass it off as a valid argument. What most don't know is that they have Pinochet to their name and he was a capitalist.

I know right? :roll:



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

23 May 2016, 5:04 pm

RushKing wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I would say the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and Cuba were/are high centralized so yes I would say at large scale it is not a collection small scale autonomous communities. Without the strict control by the central government, the Soviets pretty much completely collapsed into ethnic nationalism.

*facepalm*

Because I'm not here to debate as to whether Marxist-Leninist states had Communist economies (they didn't).

I'm going to the question differently. Would a large collection of small scale autonomous communities, that distribute goods and services according to ability and need, not be an example of large scale Communism?


I'm kind of confused by your question, I answer it literally with examples of large self-declared communist countries. Are you asking whether or not I would consider this hypothetical collection of autonomous communities as communist as opposed to the hyper-centralized Marxist-Leninist states? Maybe, I dunno? I think the chances of that community failing approaches 1 the bigger and less homogeneous it gets which I consider just human nature.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

23 May 2016, 5:19 pm

Galymcd wrote:
Wow, no offense, but you sound like an American college student.

I'm not.

Quote:
tl;dr alert ahead

As for the rest, the fact is, Ludwig von Mises disproved Socialism (which, by text book definition is the same thing as Communism, not the socialistic states in Europe, which won't work either) before Russia implemented it fully. He proposed a concept called the Economic Calculation Problem. It states that in a centrally planned socialist economy, it is impossible to accurately allocate resources.

In Capitalism, we have the price mechanism, where the issue of scarcity and who gets what is determined by the price of the good, which can tell us:
1. How abundant the good is
2. How high the demand for a good is
3. How difficult the good is to manufacture/harvest/transport

In a centrally-planned, socialist economy, all the factors of production are owned by the government. What that means is, all resources, which get made into goods and later given to the people, all have no price, and therefore, there is no indicator for what goods the people need, seeing as all goods and services are technically moving through one big system, not changing hands between different parties. What happens then is there are either a surplus of goods (which rarely happened since there were so many things people needed), and more commonly a shortage, like Russia's breadlines can testify to.

That is the fatal flaw in Socialism, on top of tons of other things wrong with it. Even if you could get perfect little worker ants and a pure, strong leader, Socialism would never work.

OP is right guys, Socialism: Not even once.

I have studied economics. I have heard of Mises and Austrian economics. It claims to be based on reason, yet it is just as flawed and ideological as Marxist economics. Both Austrian and Marxist economic theorists have come up with a few good points, but both employ a lot of strange mental gymnastics and logical fallacies and are more ideological than scientific.

Anyways, you are attacking a strawman. I've already stated I'm not a Marxist. I believe in a mixture of free markets and socialism. Attacking democratic socialism by equating it with Marxist socialism is tiresome.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

23 May 2016, 5:25 pm

I hope you folks don't ignore BuyerBeware's experiences. I feel they are very instructive.

It's not about ideology. it's about real life.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

23 May 2016, 5:37 pm

marshall wrote:
I have studied economics. I have heard of Mises and Austrian economics. It claims to be based on reason, yet it is just as flawed and ideological as Marxist economics. Both Austrian and Marxist economic theorists have come up with a few good points, but both employ a lot of strange mental gymnastics and logical fallacies and are more ideological than scientific.



Austrians do not believe in econometrics, they do not believe that economics is a hard science but rather a social science and that you can't make future models on human behavior and thus the futility of central economic planning. I imagine someone that has studied economics does not take kindly to one strain basically saying they're full of **** therefor the lack of respect in mainstream.



underwater
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Sep 2015
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,904
Location: Hibernating

23 May 2016, 5:52 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I hope you folks don't ignore BuyerBeware's experiences. I feel they are very instructive.

It's not about ideology. it's about real life.


This.

Also, I live in a Scandinavian social democracy. I see a lot of Americans using my country as an example of what they would/would not like their country to be like, although both sides seem to have little actual knowledge of how this actually works.

Have you guys ever asked yourselves why the Scandinavian countries, although they are social democracies, are not republics, but constitutional monarchies?

The answer is: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Scandinavian politicians are incredibly pragmatic. Although they make a lot of noise about their ideological differences, they tend to vote for a lot of the same stuff. They tend to discuss possible policies, do a test run, see what happens and either ditch or expand the policy. They are not so married to a particular ideology as a lot of politicians in other countries.

I'm not certain why this is so, perhaps growing up with small differences and the same public school system, the political tradition of small countries that don't have the luxury of ignoring reality. Maybe because we're Protestant in the Lutheran tradition that frowns on luxury.



luan78zao
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

23 May 2016, 6:02 pm

Coincidentally, an interesting essay just popped up on my feed. Excerpts follow:

Deirdre N. McCloskey wrote:
Two centuries ago, the average world income per human (in present-day prices) was about $3 a day. It had been so since we lived in caves. Now it is $33 a day—which is Brazil’s current level and the level of the U.S. in 1940. Over the past 200 years, the average real income per person—including even such present-day tragedies as Chad and North Korea—has grown by a factor of 10. It is stunning. In countries that adopted trade and economic betterment wholeheartedly, like Japan, Sweden and the U.S., it is more like a factor of 30—even more stunning.[…]

What caused it? The usual explanations follow ideology. On the left, from Marx onward, the key is said to be exploitation. Capitalists after 1800 seized surplus value from their workers and invested it in dark, satanic mills. On the right, from the blessed Adam Smith onward, the trick was thought to be savings.[…]

[But] If capital accumulation or the rule of law had been sufficient, the Great Enrichment would have happened in Mesopotamia in 2000 B.C., or Rome in A.D. 100 or Baghdad in 800.[…]

Why did it all start at first in Holland about 1600 and then England about 1700 and then the North American colonies and England’s impoverished neighbor, Scotland, and then Belgium and northern France and the Rhineland?[…]

The answer, in a word, is “liberty.” Liberated people, it turns out, are ingenious. Slaves, serfs, subordinated women, people frozen in a hierarchy of lords or bureaucrats are not. By certain accidents of European politics, having nothing to do with deep European virtue, more and more Europeans were liberated. From Luther’s reformation through the Dutch revolt against Spain after 1568 and England’s turmoil in the Civil War of the 1640s, down to the American and French revolutions, Europeans came to believe that common people should be liberated to have a go. You might call it: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Worth reading in full. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-wes ... 1463754427


_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

23 May 2016, 6:11 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
I hope you folks don't ignore BuyerBeware's experiences. I feel they are very instructive.

It's not about ideology. it's about real life.

It's about both. Personal responsibility is a great and necessary value, but to focus on that and not the present political circumstances is myopic. We don't need a military revolution, but a new focus on what really matters, the people. This doesn't mean a 1984 totalitarian government, it means getting rid of legalized corruption in the form of special interests and campaign donations that help keep the rich entrenched in power. There will always be those who take advantage of help to be lazy, but so what? Get over it. Most people don't want that. We shouldn't use the proverbial welfare queen to sabotage a system that really eliminates the worst forms of poverty.

Yes, Scandinavians are a pragmatic people, but that doesn't mean what works there can't work here.