Socialism

Post Reply New Topic

The history of communism, as explained by me to my brother while staying in St. Petersburg...

From Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell, p. 145,

This is itself is a fairly basic principle reflects a fairly basic principle in economics, in that those workers with more skills and experience will attract higher pay in a free, and open market. As Dr. Sowell rightly points out in his introduction,

(source)

Jimservo, I just got through saying that Sweden wasn't particularly socialist. Now, look, I know you've encountered plenty of illiterate imbeciles who tout Sweden as a "successful socialist democracy," but I'm not one of them. You should really learn to distinguish between leftism and socialism. Note: they are two different words, not to be taken as interchangeable. Write that down. What I am saying is that, though it may be proper to state that Sweden's economy is generally more leftist than most other countries, they certainly are not socialist.

In essence, I am saying nearly the polar opposite of what you are convinced I'm saying. You are arguing with a mutated duplicate of the same person I'm arguing with, and you've mistaken him for me. You wouldn't have made this mistake if you had contemplated the possibility of there being a difference in meanings between the terms "leftist" and "socialist."

I didn't say it was an economic system. Sweden is capitalist. I was just pointing out the difference between socialism and a successful labor movement. What I said discredits socialism and does not support it. Because Sweden's labor unions are run by cool and intelligent people, Sweden has never had to set a minimum wage! WOW! I am quite supportive of capitalism, and I think that it is groovy. Capitalism will make you sexy, and it tastes good with a little salt. The United States of America is more socialist than Sweden (you wouldn't believe how much), which is probably part of the reason our country is practically third world for this day and age.

Please forgive me if you took my post re: Sweden as some overly-critical, although I suppose technically it is . You posited that Sweden is labour, rather then socialist. I have traditionally heard the word "labour" associated with the Labour Party of Great Britain, rather then a particular system. Of course, I am not European so perhaps I am missing something. As you almost certainly know the British Labour Party has gone from advocating all-out socialism under Clement Atlee to continuing the reforms of Thatcher under Tony Blair (although this has been criticized both within the party and from the Liberal Democrats).

The term "socialist" has been applied to programs like social security, and Medicare in the United States (a "socialist scheme"). There is no doubt that large welfare programs in Sweden, and Europe generally interact in areas that would be otherwise be the realm of the private sector. As stated some of these programs exist, in a lesser but in some areas growing degree in the US. Of course, doubtlessly, having government in even what are usually considered basic areas (police, K-8 education) could theoretically be considered a distant form of socially in that the private sector could, would again in theory, take up more of a roll should those sectors of government vanish.

In the end, it all comes down to one's personal preference on words, and part of this understandably becomes the games of political pundits. The word "socialism" is not a popular one, not is the word "welfare." However the same can be said of the words "capitalism," and "corporation."

Words matter. This particular post, perhaps not so much.

Large trade unions can be a serious drag as they can blackmail employers. We have seen seen such results in the United States.

I don't follow Swedish politics day-to-day but the Social-Democrats were defeated in 2006, for the first time since 1991-94. Previous to that the last time the conservatives got into power in Sweden was 1928-30.

Oh, don't worry. I'm just a temperamental prat. Sorry, my apologies, yada yada yada.

Anyway, just to drive home the point that SWEDEN IS NOT socialist, their big, scary, "socialist" welfare system didn't come from anything attached to Marxism. It's something that the LUTHERAN CHURCH insisted upon. They said that a good welfare system is essential to Christian values, and, even though most Swedes these days don't believe in any sort of god, much less an afterlife, it's still because of their state church that they have such an extensive welfare system. If you have a problem with Sweden's hulking welfare state, blame the Christians! It was their idea! According to what I've read, anyway, and just tell me if you find any evidence that this is inaccurate. This is old information harvested from my very own synapses.

Hey, just because a church suggested it doesn't mean it isn't socialist. Marx himself wrote in his Communist Manifesto that "nothing is easier than to give Christian ascetism a socialist tinge." There are no pure socialist economies that actually function as the Utopian Society Comrade Marx envisioned, so what the argument really comes down to is how much power people want to hand over to The State. While welfare economics seems to "work," it is hard to call it efficient, and I think there are better ways of reducing poverty than just taxing the rich and giving it to the poor, or creating labor unions, or nationalizing the hell out of everything.

Also, there is an article out about Bono. You can read it here.

Whilst I view my logical machinocracy system as much better than Capitalist Socialism if it were to work, Capitalist Socialism works if you know how to do it.

Give everyone a basic standard of living, including-

100% free national health care (excluding non-essential cosmetic surgery)

Police and courts(lawyers are free too)

100% free national education system- From Infant school to University

100% free nuclear power

100% free water

Welfare system to cater for the disabled, ill, and elderly

Usury is illegal and all debt is annuled(people are given business/housing/car grants according to their needs)

Regulations on corporations and introduction of profit duty

Price limits set to ensure that companies cannot charge more than a set amount for a certain product or service

High minimum wage

Inflation totally frozen (values fixed until changed)

Many corporations bought into government ownership

Quality standards

Culture regulation ensures that parasitic and anti-progress elements of culture are silenced

People who can work are first given time to get a job, even given help to get one. If turned down for a job unfairly, people are placed in vacant positions. If they do not want to work but can, people are forced to get a job. People with disabilities/illnesses which will harm their capacity to do the job and/or their own wellbeing, or are beyond a certain age do not have to get a job. Many regulations in this area which ensure that people are given fair chances to get a job according to their capabilities. People are not allowed to leech off the system.

People's lawful homes and posessions may not be reposessed, except in circumstances where their homes are being used for ill doings, or they are illegal immigrants- in which case they will either be rehoused or deported.

Homeless people will be given accommodation, minimal though it may be. No-one should be homeless.

Tax system is greatly reformed and cleaned up.

People are taxed according to income, and what they do and don't need. For instance, if you have a monthly income of £2000, you could do without £250 of it if prices are fair and properly set, and still have plenty of money for both buying what you need and want, and what you deserve.

______________________________

It all fits together. What's crucial to it is banning usury.

Here we go again...

So how do you decide what prices are fair?

How do you decide what price is perfect, that isn't too high or too low?

How do you choose which aspects of a culture are positive and how do you enforce that?

How do decide what people "do and don't need?"

How do you convince someone that "non essential cosmetic surgery" is a basic need?

How do you decided what people deserve?

In regards to people's "lawful homes and possessions," does their money not qualify as a possession even though it is something earned in exchange for their labor?

Perhaps "free healthcare, water, housing, etc." ought to be replaced with tax-subsidized, since that's how they are "free." "Free" is a euphemism.

How do you decide if someone's wants are excessive? (Wait! My nobel prize winning equation has the answer to that question.)

Welfare isn't socialist, though. Socialism is an economic model in which the means of production are controlled by the state. Welfare is a social service (like fire and rescue, etc.), but it's not social-ism.

However much I'm willing to pay. If it's too steep, I'll just make it myself out of bubble-gum and duct tape. If the government or some corporate entity trying to play government comes into my home and says, "NO, MY LAD! YOU CAN'T DO THAT! YOU HAVE TO PAY THIS EXTRA-HIGH PRICE!" I shoot them in their ret*d heads with a glock.

However much I need to demand to make ends meet. I ain't asking to be wealthy or anything, sheesh.

Get MTV off the air.

Educate them on the basic principles of common sense. It shouldn't take more than ten minutes of their time.

Laugh at them.

You can eat well on $40 per month, but it would be cheaper to put a gigantic mess hall in the middle of the inner city, staff it with prison inmates from the same area, and find out ways of turning livestock feed into food. Man, I'm really mean.

Yup!

They can't afford to pay for them?

On the other hand, I'm a strong believer in the concept of "murder by neglect." If a guy just ruptured his spleen or had a heart attack, something's gotta be done, okay? Other than acknowledging that, however, my support for the welfare state is actually pretty limited.

How will you maintain quality, something socialist countries with free health care have again and again been unable to do? Will such a program provide for free prescription drugs? If so, how will you prevent the collapse of the prescription drug industry and hence a severe lowing of the quality of health?



While I am in agreement that there is an inherent unfairness in some people "getting what they pay for" in attorneys, how will having the government pay for attorneys fix the system? Won't a monopoly on funding simply create a drain on talent in the legal profession as well as increase the likelihood of conspiracy between prosecutors and defense attorneys?



A partial system is already in place. Considering the fact that the public school system lags behind private and religious schools would this be such a good idea? Perhaps giving a monopoly to government schools and powerful teacher's unions is unwise and should not be expanded even further. Is it really the case that every person should attend university? To be fair this may not be what you are suggesting. Interestingly, and not coincidently when government it is often the case that college loans the administrations raise their rates.



I support the building of nuclear power plants. However will not the providing of free electricity encourage people to use it recklessly? It this not one a basic concept of supply and demand.



The same that applies with electricity applies with water.



I support, and have always supported having the government provide what support private foundations cannot for the disabled. The establish of an agency "to cater" for the needs of the ill and the elderly would encourage those people to more dependent on government. When large numbers of people become dependent on the government it is necessary to raise funds to support those people, and tax increases do not result in government growth. Furthermore, the aging population of the United States is increasing, and the population expansion in the US is limited and hence incoming taxes to support, for example, Social Security, are not exactly certain.



Annulling all debts is a prescription for disaster in an economy like our own. Debts exist, and people owe money to other people, companies, ect... If those debts are not paid, then that will have an effect down the like that will cause more people, companies, stockholders to go into debt. Eventually, it world spread worldwide and cause the world to split into a depression. Fortunately such a policy will not be enacted.

The idea of simply "granting" people houses, cars, is ludicrous. Cars cost money due to the fact that the companies that build them must put resources into their construction. If the government gives someone a "grant" (presumably the equivilant of money) and they gave it to a car company, then quickly the company would go out of business. Even assuming it worked the same as money, this money would have to be paid for somehow, and hence taxes would have to be hiked, and if the government is paying for every bodies cars then they are going to be hiked pretty high. You cannot run an economy this way.



There are already regulations on corporations. A profit duty? The point of business is to make money, and there is nothing wrong with it. However, it is often misunderstood. As Thomas Sowell writes,









Thus you will only ensure massive inefficiencies. Who is most able to adjust to the marketplace, the government civil servants or the man closest to the scene. Not surprisingly, this has been tried, both in the United States, and elsewhere and it has resulted in utter failure and it some cases complete disaster.



How high? The higher you set minimum wage, the more low skill workers, and young workers will be without jobs.



I am afraid that the currency in this society, if mass produced will be worthless.



Oh, that will make them more efficient! Bring them under a government monopoly!



What does this mean?



I wonder if I am going to jail.



What job? Will a government job be created for them? What's wrong with letting them apply for a job?



Will these people be paid the "high minimum wage" that is now the norm? How will you deal with paying for all of these jobs? Will you fire these people if they don't work hard enough?



By what methods? Currently there is an economic incentive to get a job. There was a time you could be carted off to jail for being a vagrant, but that's not as likely any more.



What if you don't feel like getting the job and you have the funds to avoid it. You know, what if you're Paris Hilton? Also, what if you've saved and want to retire early, do you have to keep working anyway? That doesn't seem very fair.



Maybe I want to get the job I want rather then the job some government stooge says I am capable of.



That's awful specific. This reads like a manifesto. Don't we elect people to pass laws rather then have people who just order us around.



...



We agree, although no doubt differ on the particulars.



I think the flat tax is the way to go, but would also support a national sales tax (as a replacement for the income tax). The current tax system is more strangling the more successful financial one is, and the effect on the national economy is not good. Countries that have replaced the income tax with a flatter system have have positive results.

Curiously, Marx and Engels weren't too hot on price controls.

Right, I still think that if you told a major economist your ideas that they would have major doubts. I will mostly focus on the measures I consider most important that are wrong on your system though and ignore the few right things.

Problem is the taxation measures needed to deal with this. I do not speak of taxing for the creation of the service but rather in accounting for the thousands of externalities created by this new system. Eating unhealthily is an externality if your fellow citizen must now pay for it, not getting off the sofa is an externality, reckless driving is an externality, smoking or alcohol are externalities, and when we finally come down to it, we have lots of externalities that must be accounted for in order to note the societal cost and because of that I cannot think that free national health care would really necessarily be free in order to deal with cost measures.

Except what about legal issues that are not measures of straight up law breaking? Contracts and other measures. A market for law is desirable in those elements because they are less elements of justice and more tools of settling dispute and intermediating between individuals and such should not be subsidized by the state given the fact that both sides are acting on their benefit and not necessarily that of society.
No, the reason is that the benefits of capital accumulation mostly accrue to those who choose this investment, not only that but some evidence indicates that the current university system might even have some inefficient qualities to it and subsidizing it will not allow this to be fully recognized. Not only that but such control will tend to prevent the innovation that might exist in a freer system to occur.
What about those who dislike nuclear power? What about different alternatives based upon availability? What about the fact that power consumption is a matter of individual preference and desire and that subsidization would unquestionably lead to overconsumption of said power and thus be harmful to society.
I might see more of a system of some minor subsidies, however, I cannot see why *I* should pay for some bastard's pool or 2 hour long shower. Your ideas will simply either lead to subsidized overconsumption or to totalitarian rationing, both of which are evils.
Bad idea, the reason being that investment is a matter of savings, and usury allows people to put their savings into an area where it can benefit the economy. Not only that but this is also an issue of efficient calculation, the calculation for debt allows people to recognize the resources they take away from other sectors and find out if it is rational for them to pursue such an end. Privatization also gives more power to independent people to decide what is best, you have essentially created a planning board with power over our lives. A bad idea for any free society.
What kind of regulations, many of those are simply bad ideas introduced by politicians. Profit duty, I assume you mean a tax, duties are usually referenced on imports. I do not necessarily support that because of the differences in corporate structures in certain industries and the fact that small loopholes can lead to large scale wasteful efforts to find them which are only detrimental. I think that corporate taxation currently exists though, it isn't problem free of course.

I tend to disagree because often these price limits are set without regard for economic situations and lead only to long lines and rationing of products. We pay the price in terms of our waiting and in the number of people who should be provided but aren't because the optimal production level isn't met because it is no longer efficient under the current price.
I do not view this as good. It would more likely lead to worse things for the poor and disenfranchised as those are often the first to lose their jobs when minimum wages are imposed. Not only that but too many teenagers and other groups are likely to receive this wage even though they are not poor and have no need for this high wage.
Not possible, the velocity of money isn't always constant and despite our best efforts we have not fully controlled inflation. I do support keeping inflation low, I do not view it as something to be stopped by a simple act of legislation.
This leads to politicization of industries and bureaucracy and for no apparent reason either.
The best quality enforcer is often the consumer. It really depends on what you mean but I think I would disagree with your level of support.
All hail the fuhrer!! I disagree with this, this is a totalitarian crackdown on all freedom and free decision making, it only serves the cause of despotism and will, along with the other plans, bring us down into darkness.
Well, I can see a desire to having people get a job as being important. I think that more of our education system should move towards this task. Fairly and unfairly is a matter of opinion though too often, having a relatively free labor market and good education systems should help most though.
You will end up with a complex system if you have that latter "what you do and don't need" section, there is a reason the current tax code is the way it is.


Horrible idea. Banning usury is one of the dumber ideas I have heard of as well given the need to deal with savings issues and economic calculation involvement allocation of capital. Have you read very much on economics or taken many classes on it? I think that you need more work on understanding the intricacies of an entire economy.

I like those Thomas Sowell comments. The profit system is a working model and effective. Capitalism works relatively well compared to its competitors, and the fact that nations such as India, China, and Russia and much of eastern Europe have come over to this system is only proof of this matter. Our historical ideological foes cannot argue with our success, even our newest challenger, Venezuela is only a puppet economy kept up by oil prices but suffering from runaway inflation and other problems now that they have decided their path. Heck, even the harshest criticizers of capitalism still act as their enemies, see the article on Bono posted by dexkaden, or even this one on Noam Chomsky!

I should have explained further...

My idea is a compromise between machinocracy and capitalism.

The value of currency is determined by the government, and enforced in law. It is worth what the government says it is.

Grants are given so that people can buy homes, according to their family status and needs.

People may only be fired for good reasons, and not cost cutting. If your business is facing economic trouble, then perhaps you should review the managment, who often have very high wages. I'm sure they could do with a major salary cut.

With a boost in business, the aim would be to ensure that everyone can get a job easily. No competition for positions, just a huge boom in production.

I also forgot to say that the government corporations would hand all their profits to the treasury.

I am not a staunch believer in the free market, no, but I support many individual freedoms, including freedom of religion, opinions, speech(so long as it does not cause societal harm), and individual freedoms. This excludes legalising cannabis and other drugs, and includes the illegalisation of tobacco.

I said that non-essential cosmetic surgery should not be a part of a free* health system.



The government is best for adjusting prices to suit its plans, providing that it has informers who report what is going on.


As for stopping people from wasting resources, I think some laws to stop people from running taps too long, or leaving all the lights in their house on all night would sort that out. 2 lights would be ok, as would having a 30 minute shower.




No I haven't, and don't need to.

There would be projects funded into securing resources from both deep underground, elemental converters, and space, to ensure the availability of resources. These resources would be priced, as always, by the government.

Anything more, my capitalist comrades?

Heck, all the more reasons why machinocracy is much better. All I've really done with it is changed it into a tax model, which capitalist-minded people have a chance of understanding.