|
Post by Liberator on Nov 2, 2009 1:31:16 GMT
What is the most frightening is the comments, anything that bothers about people or anything else except the Corporate State is 'socialism'. I guess that's the best argument for socialism that I've heard.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Nov 2, 2009 6:52:25 GMT
If corporations don't like the government of a nation they simply expand into countries where they like the government and bring employment, economical growth and technological advances with them. That's the bitter truth that the Robin Hood socialists don't get.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Nov 2, 2009 13:31:19 GMT
It's also worth pointing out that the only alternative to socialism is NOT capitalism (particularly the crazy gung-ho gangster model favoured by the so-called conservatives in America).
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Nov 2, 2009 14:48:17 GMT
I think both ignore "man shall not live by bread alone". I'm not sure about the "word of God" but if we take that generously to include 'civilised relations', social respect, hopes of family life and all the non-material issues it can be made to fit. As far as I can see, the only difference between extremes of capitalism or communism is a matter of ownership; in everything else people are regarded equally on each side as nothing more than economic units with no real thought to answer just what this economy is for.
I wanted to check details about Ludwig Erhard, the father of the West German 'economic miracle'. What I found was largely praise for his free market enterprise but one article that put a spanner in the works by adding sniffily that he wasn't as free market as he looked and socially responsible and responsive measures that had come home to roost were present from the start, there can only be one extreme or the other blah blah.
Now, Germany today is a very far cry from Germany in 1948. There was a country wrecked in many ways to rebuild although a lot of the infrastructure was sound and between them, Nazi enthusiasm and war had removed a lot of antiquated plant and started it with the most modern. Today it has been rebuilt and incorporated the heavily penalised East that went through more of an asset-stripping reparations exercise than any rebuilding. Only being under as much control as it was stopped it from repeating the Weimar Republic's history.
The fact is that Erhardism worked better than anything else anywhere else and if it included the 'fatal' social responsibility from the start then evidently that worked too. It is not altogether surprising that if union representatives sit in the boardroom they know what is going on and they see that it is better to get the same slice of a bigger cake than a bigger slice of the same cake.
I think it a near certainty that capitalism is a good tool for building from scratch but becomes less effective as markets saturate and development becomes ever more expensive and risky. The only way to sell more starts to be through inbuilt obsolescence and making everything disposable but largely that only sells more of the same without improving what may have reached near perfection already. There comes a time when selling more steam engines has to move to developing some other sort of engine. Pure competition cannot necessarily do it because people like their steam engines and the prototype replacements may still be unfamiliar and more 'temperamental'.
Germany also had the history that Nazi totalitarianism had less to do with thought control than that ideology permeated everything so that there was a powerful sense of mutual involvement that must have continued into the rebuilding effort. They were used to working together for the national good and until it all ended in war the results had looked a success even if the reality was propped up by slave labour and confiscation.
It's true that corporations can move their base of operations but less true that actual producers do. Financial institutions are notorious for it but they are essentially parasitic on producers and more post-capitalist than as would have been understood when the great capitalist theorists were writing. They would probably have rightly seen them more like the licensed monopolies they opposed. There are good reasons why manufacturers might not move in a hurry. There are issues of skills, of national stability, of transport and of local demand. Foreign owners might move from one country to another but they are less likely to leave their home base.
Japanese corporations have not gone world-wide because they have abandoned Japan. What they will do is move European production from one country to another in the same area of roughly the same skills. They are not going to move a factory from France to Mali because they trust French governments and skills and transport to get parts in and products out a lot more than Malian ones.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Nov 15, 2009 1:52:15 GMT
To me Capitalism is hands-down the very best thing that has ever been invented by man. It's better than the wheel, the telephone, the computer, the internet, automobiles, airplanes, whatever.
Capitalism has taken us out of the feudal stone-age and given us all a better standard of living. Correction: a much much much much better standard of living.
The best examples I can think of would be these:
West Germany vs East Germany over the last fifty years. West Germany had it. East Germany did not. The people in the west enjoyed a fabulously better lifestyle than those in the east. Now the two are reunited and Capitalism is gradually bringing the folks in the east up to par.
China is led by avowed Communists. If Chairman Mao were alive Capitalism would still be suppressed. But someone let the Genie out of the bottle and China has rapidly evolved into the world's manufacturing factory. It has been a truly amazing transformation. They owe it all to Capitalism.
Active trade mades countries interdependent. This helps to reduce tensions and bridge philosophical differences. We can thank Capitalism for relative world peace in addition to our high standard of living.
Don't like Capitalism? Then you should move to Cuba. Your standard of living will plummet but you'll be amongst people with like mind in a failure of a country. Cuba could be a great country with a high standard of living but they're missing the one indispensable thing that they can't do without: Capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Nov 16, 2009 3:02:40 GMT
In Cuba I would feel that any work I did mattered, that I was making a contribution to the world I live in, not just being somebody's servant because I must. I would be in a society that assessed my talents through growing up and directed me to where they would be of most use instead of having to prostitute myself for some more powerful 'Lord' to use as servant. Believe me, were I younger, Cuba is the last place left on the planet closest to the society I wish I could be part of.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Nov 21, 2009 0:33:44 GMT
Glad you feel that way. We'll be glad to see you off on your relocation to Cuba. Please don't change your mind after you get there. One less liberal Communist sympathizer in our society is a win win for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Nov 22, 2009 17:35:54 GMT
It's a great shame that people consistently assume the following totally mistaken ideas:
1 The only choices are between capitalism and socialism 2 Depending on your political prejudices, the opposite choice is evil
If you study history you find there have been around half a dozen different types of economic system, most of which have worked BETTER than EITHER capitalism or socialism.
It's also crazy to assume that anyone who regards (for example, the provision of a national healthcare system) as being a legitimate role for government is therefore a socialist.
When I get things back to normal in a week or two I'm going to post a whole thread on things that will put everything in more context, perspective and (hopefully) lead to people actually examining the world and using their brains rather than just following their own prejudices.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Nov 23, 2009 0:02:55 GMT
To me the biggest evil of Socialism (including national health care systems) is the redistribution of income by the government. I just can't stomach the idea of government confiscating funds from the productive members of society and then redistributing those funds to the unproductive members of society. I don't care what they call it (eg: health care, welfare, whatever), it's just plain wrong.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 23, 2009 0:23:06 GMT
To me the biggest evil of Socialism (including national health care systems) is the redistribution of income by the government. I just can't stomach the idea of government confiscating funds from the productive members of society and then redistributing those funds to the unproductive members of society. I don't care what they call it (eg: health care, welfare, whatever), it's just plain wrong. Absolutely! Round up all those unproductive sick and disabled people (slackers!!!), toss in the impoverished scum and their children. Herd them into the ocean. The sharks will rejoice. Plus, that way, the productive, pompous me-mes won't have to help foot the burial expenses. Let freedom ring!
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Nov 23, 2009 1:13:41 GMT
Hail the Victory! Sieg Heil!
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Nov 23, 2009 11:07:24 GMT
To me the biggest evil of Socialism (including national health care systems) is the redistribution of income by the government. I just can't stomach the idea of government confiscating funds from the productive members of society and then redistributing those funds to the unproductive members of society. I don't care what they call it (eg: health care, welfare, whatever), it's just plain wrong. Well, Bush Admirer, to begin with, how do you define the unproductive members of society? What about babies, the elderly, people who are sick? Do you seriously believe that they are capable of being 'productive?' Secondly, the government redistributes your income when it levies taxes - direct or indirect ones - to pay for the military, the police force, the prison service and so on. Are you seriously suggesting that those services should be funded entirely by private citizens or corporations? Thirdly, you use the emotive word 'confiscation' to describe what is actually simply taxation. If you believe that the government has the right to tax citizens to pay for external defence and for the internal protection of its citizens, it's no more and no less 'confiscatory' to fund that out of public money than to fund a hospital. Either you believe that the government has NO right to levy taxes for ANY purpose (in which case you are an anarchist) or else you are simply stating that you would prefer them to spend your taxes on killing or imprisoning other people rather than providing services that improve their health and allow them to live a better quality of life. Finally, capitalism represents the redistribution of income. The basic difference between socialism and capitalism is that under socialism the redistribution is from the rich and in favour of the poor; under capitalism, it is from the poor and in favour of the rich. If you support capitalism you're supporting redistribution!
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Nov 23, 2009 23:41:21 GMT
I would definitely include all financial speculators and traders as 'unproductive'. All they do is to sell pieces of paper to each other and occasionally outside their circle on the assumption that desire to possess these certificates will push their price up so they can be sold on until somebody loses faith and the whole scheme collapses only to start again. The same is true of Pokemon cards.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Nov 29, 2009 18:54:14 GMT
"It's a great shame that people consistently assume the following totally mistaken ideas:
"1 The only choices are between capitalism and socialism 2 Depending on your political prejudices, the opposite choice is evil"
That is well said. Pure unadulterated capitalism never worked because greed destroys it. That’s where democracy and the rule of law comes in.
The conflict that right wing conservatives have is with democracy itself, which replaced capital with a ballot box, is designed to move power from the market to the populace.
What has been the most successful is when the pendulum never swings too much in one direction. If it sticks too far to the left, incentive is destroyed; if it sticks to the right, wealth, goods, and services are restricted to a small corner (this was the case during the 1920s and again in the US, 1985 or so to the present). The last decade has been a boom for the top 1% of the US population, and any threat to this unworkable status quo has resulted in right wing hysteria (i.e. the tea baggers).
For those who resent progressive taxation, I suggest reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Dec 2, 2009 1:15:01 GMT
Of course we need taxes for building infrastructure (roads), defense, police, etc. I don't oppose any of that.
What I'm against is confiscation of funds from the successful members of society and transfer of those same funds directly to non-productive members of society. Confiscation is the proper term because that's precisely what it is (if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is more than likely a duck). Transfer payments are simply wrong.
To be more specific, I'm opposed to the government getting into the housing, feeding, and medicating business. Our citizens need to be responsible for taking care of themselves. Charities exist to help out with the poor, elderly, etc. Our government should not become a charity.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 2, 2009 13:22:39 GMT
Why can't 'our citizens' build their own roads and hire their own police too?
They used to, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Dec 2, 2009 15:22:09 GMT
In some parts of Britain and America they still do, Jean.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Dec 2, 2009 16:29:09 GMT
That's it, isn't it?
None of us really think that everything we need can sensibly be provided without State intervention.
And we all think it's absolutely obvious where the line between public and private provision should be drawn.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Dec 2, 2009 16:36:35 GMT
That's it, isn't it? None of us really think that everything we need can sensibly be provided without State intervention. And we all think it's absolutely obvious where the line between public and private provision should be drawn. Well, actually, anarchists DO think we can sort ourselves out without the nanny state! On the second point, if you ask ten million people where the line should be drawn you'll get ten million answers.
|
|
|
Post by beez0811 on Dec 3, 2009 0:40:41 GMT
In Cuba I would feel that any work I did mattered, that I was making a contribution to the world I live in, not just being somebody's servant because I must. I would be in a society that assessed my talents through growing up and directed me to where they would be of most use instead of having to prostitute myself for some more powerful 'Lord' to use as servant. Believe me, were I younger, Cuba is the last place left on the planet closest to the society I wish I could be part of. If I lived in a place like Cuba, I don't think I would matter to anyone. You get paid the same as the next person. That person might work hard or that person might be a gigantic slacker, but we still get the same pay. I want to be appreciated and awarded if I do well. I don't believe in the idea of giving everyone a trophy just for participation's sake.
|
|