|
On October 06 2011 22:30 trainRiderJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 17:06 Dulak wrote:On October 06 2011 05:42 trainRiderJ wrote:
I work hard and live within my means. I've done the poor college student eating ramen. I've done the 550 square foot apartment. This really stuck out to me, is a 550 square foot apartment considered small in the US? In Finland most students and single people live in apartments that range from 15 to 25 square meters, which would be around 165 to 270 square feet. I live in a 500 square feet apartment with my wife and we consider it quite comfortable. If 550 square feet is smal do all working people live in palaces over there or what? :D There's a lot of room in Texas :p I doubt you could find anything under 450 square feet in the entire state. Maaaaybe an efficiency apartment downtown in one of the major cities.
I've been on my own all over this state for 6 years now and have lived in 350-400 sq. ft apartments almost exclusively. From DFW and Austin to "po-dunk lil' ville number 22"
Just want to correct this statement.
|
On October 06 2011 19:25 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 17:57 BlackFlag wrote:On October 06 2011 16:37 sleepingdog wrote:
I know it's a bit of topic, but in Europe, the probably most socialist country, Greece, is about to destroy the Euro with its relentless spending, corruption and public debt
Leave Wall Street alone, those guys at least have a basic understanding of the fact that you shouldn't really spend more than you earn...
Also in the economic society it's a commonly known fact by now that not bankers but interventionistic politics has caused the economic crisis.
The funny thing is: if people who work 40 hours a week or are unemployed demand stuff from the state/society/whatever, it is called "fair", "human", "socialistic"
if people who work 80 hours a week only demand that the state doesn't take away even more from them than he already does, it is called "greed"
fucked up world, if you ask me The most socialistic country (and i find this "the most socialistic" absurd, either you are socialist or not, there's no inbetween in my opinion, the most social would in my opinion be a better term) is probably Sweden in the Eu and Norway in Europe. Your view of Greece is pretty absurd, you should be able to see the bigger picture if you have an economics bachelor. (vwl or bwl?) And Greece is probably not more corrupt than Austria, and also doesn't that much more government workers. What is "your economic society"? mises.org? or Die Presse? I bet they see it that way, and that's why no one takes them seriously. And if people who work nothing, but live off their interest demand to pay less taxes, and pay the lowest taxes since 50 years, then that's totally cool and really a good thing. fucked up world, if you ask me And 500 square foot is fucking huge for a student. I don't know many students who have an appartment like this when it's not government sponsored (Gemeindebau) and not sponsored by their parents. Economics means "vwl" - "bwl" is usually translated as "business administration". I encourage you to read some (more or less) scientific papers on this stuff, the media reports are especially bad on this subject. And that you cite "Die Presse" as right-wing-neoliberalistic shows pretty much everything that's wrong with approaches to economics in europe. We have drifted so far into leftish spheres that even moderate liberalistic approaches are condemned. Of course you can be "more socialistist" and "less socialistic"....there are probably a million different ways to differentiate, depending on the exact structure of governmental involement. By your definition, we would live in a continent that consists only of socialistic countries. Btw, I've lived 6 years in 12,5m² and only recently moved to a new, "big" place with 50m²
Your idea of "socialism" is absurd.
Socialism is not a nation with a capitalist mode of production and a solid state (like most 'developed' nations). That is simply a capitalist country, where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite. This is the modus operandi of the capitalist class and 'capitalist nations'. Capitalism and the state goes hand in hand; there is one ruling class, and that is the wealthy business executives and the heads of the state apparatus.
A socialist nation is one where workers ("middle/lower class" in the US, "working class" everywhere else) have taken control of the state apparatus. For this to occur, a dramatic switch of power most likely has taken place in the economical sector, that is, in the working place, capital owners no longer having control over the means of production and the workers having collectively taken control over their working place, and through doing so, freed their conditions of life.
The only other way for that to happen would have to be through straight up violence, given how police forces must protect the 'right' to private property and the military usually protects the established ruling class. That said, history has shown that the military can change sides to the uprising class.
|
Dystisis, I've heard that Norway is the most social state in Europe.
But it is still capitalism there. Can we say that the example of Norway is a good example of capitalism? Is it a kind of social capitalism or idk how you call it. Anyway it is quite different from US capitalism.
|
On October 06 2011 23:03 Dystisis wrote:
Your idea of "socialism" is absurd.
Socialism is not a nation with a capitalist mode of production and a solid state (like most 'developed' nations). That is simply a capitalist country, where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite. This is the modus operandi of the capitalist class and 'capitalist nations'. Capitalism and the state goes hand in hand; there is one ruling class, and that is the wealthy business executives and the heads of the state apparatus.
A socialist nation is one where workers ("middle/lower class" in the US, "working class" everywhere else) have taken control of the state apparatus. For this to occur, a dramatic switch of power most likely has taken place in the economical sector, that is, in the working place, capital owners no longer having control over the means of production and the workers having collectively taken control over their working place, and through doing so, freed their conditions of life.
The only other way for that to happen would have to be through straight up violence, given how police forces must protect the 'right' to private property and the military usually protects the established ruling class. That said, history has shown that the military can change sides to the uprising class.
Your idea of socialism is very fantastical and flowery, it sounds like it comes from a fairy tale where a bunch of munchkins live in a utopia and fly around on dragons. The idea of workers "taking control" of the means of production is about the farthest thing from socialism one can imagine. Socialist economies are centrally planned, typically by government bureaucrats: your "ruling class".
Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. And when you describe a country where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite, you are actually describing a shift to Socialism! So you screwed up with your copy-paste diatribe.
Capitalism and the state do not go hand-in-hand, as a matter of fact they diametrically opposed. Capitalism protects individual property rights, the right to trade and have currency/accounts. The "State" wants to expropriate. There is no ruling class in a Capitalist system because Capitalism is a not a political theory. If you want to attack our Constitutional Republic, then recognize the difference and we can have a discussion on that.
|
On October 07 2011 00:14 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 23:03 Dystisis wrote:
Your idea of "socialism" is absurd.
Socialism is not a nation with a capitalist mode of production and a solid state (like most 'developed' nations). That is simply a capitalist country, where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite. This is the modus operandi of the capitalist class and 'capitalist nations'. Capitalism and the state goes hand in hand; there is one ruling class, and that is the wealthy business executives and the heads of the state apparatus.
A socialist nation is one where workers ("middle/lower class" in the US, "working class" everywhere else) have taken control of the state apparatus. For this to occur, a dramatic switch of power most likely has taken place in the economical sector, that is, in the working place, capital owners no longer having control over the means of production and the workers having collectively taken control over their working place, and through doing so, freed their conditions of life.
The only other way for that to happen would have to be through straight up violence, given how police forces must protect the 'right' to private property and the military usually protects the established ruling class. That said, history has shown that the military can change sides to the uprising class. Your idea of socialism is very fantastical and flowery, it sounds like it comes from a fairy tale where a bunch of munchkins live in a utopia and fly around on dragons. The idea of workers "taking control" of the means of production is about the farthest thing from socialism one can imagine. Socialist economies are centrally planned, typically by government bureaucrats: your "ruling class". Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. And when you describe a country where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite, you are actually describing a shift to Socialism! So you screwed up with your copy-paste diatribe. Capitalism and the state do not go hand-in-hand, as a matter of fact they diametrically opposed. Capitalism protects individual property rights, the right to trade and have currency/accounts. The "State" wants to expropriate. There is no ruling class in a Capitalist system because Capitalism is a not a political theory. If you want to attack our Constitutional Republic, then recognize the difference and we can have a discussion on that.
You can't separate economics from politics... its entwined these 2 go hand in hand.
Furthermore in your own explantion you show lack somewhat the understanding of what socialism means.
Here is the definition: Socialism
Socialism: /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.
Sources
+ Show Spoiler +1^ Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 4 Apr. 2000 2^ The Alternative to Capitalism, on wspus.org. Retrieved 10 January 2011, from wspus.org: http://wspus.org/in-depth/the-alternative-to-capitalism/3^ Deceleration of Principles, on SocialistInternational.org. Retrieved 10 January 2011: http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31;from Political and Economic Democracy: "...democratic, participative and decentralised production policies...worker participation and joint decision-making at company and workplace level as well as union involvement in the determination of national economic policy, self-managed cooperatives of workers and farmers.."
In the definitions were does it state that it is centrally planned? I think you mean Russian Communist defined by Stalin and Lenin. Furthermore State planned or Centrally planned economies are economies which do not operate under market economy. And we all know that almost the entire world works with market economies.
Planned economy
Planned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, i.e. the market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factors of production based upon their individual interests rather than upon a macroeconomic plan. Less extensive forms of planned economies include those that use indicative planning, in which the state employs "influence, subsidies, grants, and taxes, but does not compel."[7] This latter is sometimes referred to as a "planned market economy"
Sources
+ Show Spoiler +7^a b c d "Adam Smith". Fsmitha.com. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
8^ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific at Marxists.org
Definition Market Economy (which we currently operate)
A market economy is an economy in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system.[1] This is often contrasted with a state-directed or planned economy. Market economies can range from hypothetically pure laissez-faire variants to an assortment of real-world mixed economies, where the price system is under some state control or at least heavily regulated. In mixed economies, state-directed economic planning is not as extensive as in a planned economy.
Source
+ Show Spoiler +1^ Altvater, E. (1993). The Future of the Market: An Essay on the Regulation of Money and Nature After the Collapse of "Actually Existing Socialism. Verso. pp. 57.
So either you do not clearly understand the definitions (which then you should look up) or your kinda trolling.
|
On October 07 2011 00:14 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 23:03 Dystisis wrote:
Your idea of "socialism" is absurd.
Socialism is not a nation with a capitalist mode of production and a solid state (like most 'developed' nations). That is simply a capitalist country, where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite. This is the modus operandi of the capitalist class and 'capitalist nations'. Capitalism and the state goes hand in hand; there is one ruling class, and that is the wealthy business executives and the heads of the state apparatus.
A socialist nation is one where workers ("middle/lower class" in the US, "working class" everywhere else) have taken control of the state apparatus. For this to occur, a dramatic switch of power most likely has taken place in the economical sector, that is, in the working place, capital owners no longer having control over the means of production and the workers having collectively taken control over their working place, and through doing so, freed their conditions of life.
The only other way for that to happen would have to be through straight up violence, given how police forces must protect the 'right' to private property and the military usually protects the established ruling class. That said, history has shown that the military can change sides to the uprising class. Your idea of socialism is very fantastical and flowery, it sounds like it comes from a fairy tale where a bunch of munchkins live in a utopia and fly around on dragons. The idea of workers "taking control" of the means of production is about the farthest thing from socialism one can imagine. Socialist economies are centrally planned, typically by government bureaucrats: your "ruling class".
You may think it sounds as loony as you want, but "Socialism" does in fact mean workers' power. Socialism is originally conceived as the transitory phase between a capitalist society where capital-owners control the state apparatus and holds power, and a society without any state apparatus or institutional hierarchy (communism). So, the transitory phase would be one in which the state still exists, but with power turned on its head. The state would exist for its own demise.
There are revolutionaries who disagree with this thesis, claiming that a state can not exist in any form without corrupting the labor movement. These are called "anarchists".
Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. And when you describe a country where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite, you are actually describing a shift to Socialism! So you screwed up with your copy-paste diatribe.
While capitalism is an economic system, an economic system can not be in place without radically affecting the organization of society. To gain a full understanding, you have to look at institutional, economical and social hierarchies and conventions.
If you study any capitalist society in existence, by which I mean any nation where rented 'wage labor' is the order of day, you'll also see that the government has strong ties directly and indirectly to executives of that nation's (as well as other nation's) leading businesses. This is, in fact, a necessity for most states sovereignty, as corporations hold significant power and influence in terms of what is possible and allowed in policy.
|
|
|
On October 07 2011 00:29 Saji wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 00:14 scaban84 wrote:On October 06 2011 23:03 Dystisis wrote:
Your idea of "socialism" is absurd.
Socialism is not a nation with a capitalist mode of production and a solid state (like most 'developed' nations). That is simply a capitalist country, where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite. This is the modus operandi of the capitalist class and 'capitalist nations'. Capitalism and the state goes hand in hand; there is one ruling class, and that is the wealthy business executives and the heads of the state apparatus.
A socialist nation is one where workers ("middle/lower class" in the US, "working class" everywhere else) have taken control of the state apparatus. For this to occur, a dramatic switch of power most likely has taken place in the economical sector, that is, in the working place, capital owners no longer having control over the means of production and the workers having collectively taken control over their working place, and through doing so, freed their conditions of life.
The only other way for that to happen would have to be through straight up violence, given how police forces must protect the 'right' to private property and the military usually protects the established ruling class. That said, history has shown that the military can change sides to the uprising class. Your idea of socialism is very fantastical and flowery, it sounds like it comes from a fairy tale where a bunch of munchkins live in a utopia and fly around on dragons. The idea of workers "taking control" of the means of production is about the farthest thing from socialism one can imagine. Socialist economies are centrally planned, typically by government bureaucrats: your "ruling class". Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. And when you describe a country where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite, you are actually describing a shift to Socialism! So you screwed up with your copy-paste diatribe. Capitalism and the state do not go hand-in-hand, as a matter of fact they diametrically opposed. Capitalism protects individual property rights, the right to trade and have currency/accounts. The "State" wants to expropriate. There is no ruling class in a Capitalist system because Capitalism is a not a political theory. If you want to attack our Constitutional Republic, then recognize the difference and we can have a discussion on that. You can't separate economics from politics... its entwined these 2 go hand in hand. Furthermore in your own explantion you show lack somewhat the understanding of what socialism means. Here is the definition: Socialism Show nested quote +Socialism: /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs. Sources + Show Spoiler +1^ Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 4 Apr. 2000 2^ The Alternative to Capitalism, on wspus.org. Retrieved 10 January 2011, from wspus.org: http://wspus.org/in-depth/the-alternative-to-capitalism/3^ Deceleration of Principles, on SocialistInternational.org. Retrieved 10 January 2011: http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31;from Political and Economic Democracy: "...democratic, participative and decentralised production policies...worker participation and joint decision-making at company and workplace level as well as union involvement in the determination of national economic policy, self-managed cooperatives of workers and farmers.." In the definitions were does it state that it is centrally planned? I think you mean Russian Communist defined by Stalin and Lenin. Furthermore State planned or Centrally planned economies are economies which do not operate under market economy. And we all know that almost the entire world works with market economies. Planned economyShow nested quote +Planned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, i.e. the market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factors of production based upon their individual interests rather than upon a macroeconomic plan. Less extensive forms of planned economies include those that use indicative planning, in which the state employs "influence, subsidies, grants, and taxes, but does not compel."[7] This latter is sometimes referred to as a "planned market economy" Sources + Show Spoiler +7^a b c d "Adam Smith". Fsmitha.com. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
8^ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific at Marxists.org (which we currently operate) Show nested quote +A market economy is an economy in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system.[1] This is often contrasted with a state-directed or planned economy. Market economies can range from hypothetically pure laissez-faire variants to an assortment of real-world mixed economies, where the price system is under some state control or at least heavily regulated. In mixed economies, state-directed economic planning is not as extensive as in a planned economy. Source + Show Spoiler +1^ Altvater, E. (1993). The Future of the Market: An Essay on the Regulation of Money and Nature After the Collapse of "Actually Existing Socialism. Verso. pp. 57. So either you do not clearly understand the definitions (which then you should look up) or your kinda trolling.
Copy and pasting from a dictionary website helps no one, and is a true act of trolling. You seem to not understand economic history otherwise you wouldn't be posting this.
You can go on and on about what Socialism means but that is merely a pedantic approach. I'm more concerned with Socialism in reality, not in theory. You will surprised to find that many of your academic papers discussing Socialism are created by Political Theorists and not Economists. The definitions and silly aphorisms mean nothing in Applied Economics.
The fact of the matter is someone doesn't produce just to produce, there is a driving force in the economy. The fact of the matter is Socialism does have a ruling class. If there are "rules" then there are naturally people who create those rules. In a Laissez-Faire Capitalist system, there are few rules, therefore, the individuals and and their capital carry the power, not the the Ruling Class in your Socialist utopia.
|
On October 06 2011 23:03 Dystisis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 19:25 sleepingdog wrote:On October 06 2011 17:57 BlackFlag wrote:On October 06 2011 16:37 sleepingdog wrote:
I know it's a bit of topic, but in Europe, the probably most socialist country, Greece, is about to destroy the Euro with its relentless spending, corruption and public debt
Leave Wall Street alone, those guys at least have a basic understanding of the fact that you shouldn't really spend more than you earn...
Also in the economic society it's a commonly known fact by now that not bankers but interventionistic politics has caused the economic crisis.
The funny thing is: if people who work 40 hours a week or are unemployed demand stuff from the state/society/whatever, it is called "fair", "human", "socialistic"
if people who work 80 hours a week only demand that the state doesn't take away even more from them than he already does, it is called "greed"
fucked up world, if you ask me The most socialistic country (and i find this "the most socialistic" absurd, either you are socialist or not, there's no inbetween in my opinion, the most social would in my opinion be a better term) is probably Sweden in the Eu and Norway in Europe. Your view of Greece is pretty absurd, you should be able to see the bigger picture if you have an economics bachelor. (vwl or bwl?) And Greece is probably not more corrupt than Austria, and also doesn't that much more government workers. What is "your economic society"? mises.org? or Die Presse? I bet they see it that way, and that's why no one takes them seriously. And if people who work nothing, but live off their interest demand to pay less taxes, and pay the lowest taxes since 50 years, then that's totally cool and really a good thing. fucked up world, if you ask me And 500 square foot is fucking huge for a student. I don't know many students who have an appartment like this when it's not government sponsored (Gemeindebau) and not sponsored by their parents. Economics means "vwl" - "bwl" is usually translated as "business administration". I encourage you to read some (more or less) scientific papers on this stuff, the media reports are especially bad on this subject. And that you cite "Die Presse" as right-wing-neoliberalistic shows pretty much everything that's wrong with approaches to economics in europe. We have drifted so far into leftish spheres that even moderate liberalistic approaches are condemned. Of course you can be "more socialistist" and "less socialistic"....there are probably a million different ways to differentiate, depending on the exact structure of governmental involement. By your definition, we would live in a continent that consists only of socialistic countries. Btw, I've lived 6 years in 12,5m² and only recently moved to a new, "big" place with 50m² Your idea of "socialism" is absurd. Socialism is not a nation with a capitalist mode of production and a solid state (like most 'developed' nations). That is simply a capitalist country, where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite. This is the modus operandi of the capitalist class and 'capitalist nations'. Capitalism and the state goes hand in hand; there is one ruling class, and that is the wealthy business executives and the heads of the state apparatus. A socialist nation is one where workers ("middle/lower class" in the US, "working class" everywhere else) have taken control of the state apparatus. For this to occur, a dramatic switch of power most likely has taken place in the economical sector, that is, in the working place, capital owners no longer having control over the means of production and the workers having collectively taken control over their working place, and through doing so, freed their conditions of life. The only other way for that to happen would have to be through straight up violence, given how police forces must protect the 'right' to private property and the military usually protects the established ruling class. That said, history has shown that the military can change sides to the uprising class.
Someone seems to have read some Marx here. ;=)
Mostly what you are describing is the basic idea of communism. I don't blame you.
Modern socialism as I understand it is described more in terms of economic theory as very clearly in the camp of Keynes: Basically you need a strong government to fend off some of the economic ups and downs of the free market. Socialists take the strong government and uses it to intervene in the private sectors matters. A liberalist would have sworn that off. A conservative would have turned in his grave etc.
At the same time socialists has a very soft approach to social issues: Treating everyone the same is the worst thing you can do. A man in a wheel-chair and a marathon-runner doesn't need the same things to succeed in society, so letting them fend for themself is giving the marathon-runner a massive and "unfair" advantage.
A socialist society is defined as a society with a strong safety-net for people without work, the ill, old people and generally softer groups. A true liberalist would find it unfair when he has to pay for other peoples problems. (This is where the US democrats are "socialists" to some extend) A true conservative would likely be more willing to help people in need but it should never be forced upon people and people without a job are generally looked down upon.
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are all very far to the side of a socialistic societies. Politically, however, it is a lot less true.
Since there is a lot of socialist-fobia going around on the internet it is seen as the worst thing imagineable. That is not the case, but what is best: liberal market in america or partly socialist market in Europe? It is not really that simple to answer.
|
I believe people won't understand why safety nets are necessary until they themselves lost their job, unable to find a new one and in urgent need of expensive medical treatment.
Now of course a safety net should be designed in a way such that it cannot be abused, but the fact that safety nets are being abused does not mean the very idea of a safety net is bad.
I am economy illiterate but I do strongly believe in paying for safety nets. You might be the one getting fired tomorrow and contracting a rare disease. It's not only out of selfinterest, I believe in a society caring for the weaker as well.
Can anyone explain to me why Americans are allergic to the word 'socialist'? Is it because their own limited safety nets are being abused left and right?
|
On October 07 2011 00:46 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 00:29 Saji wrote:On October 07 2011 00:14 scaban84 wrote:On October 06 2011 23:03 Dystisis wrote:
Your idea of "socialism" is absurd.
Socialism is not a nation with a capitalist mode of production and a solid state (like most 'developed' nations). That is simply a capitalist country, where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite. This is the modus operandi of the capitalist class and 'capitalist nations'. Capitalism and the state goes hand in hand; there is one ruling class, and that is the wealthy business executives and the heads of the state apparatus.
A socialist nation is one where workers ("middle/lower class" in the US, "working class" everywhere else) have taken control of the state apparatus. For this to occur, a dramatic switch of power most likely has taken place in the economical sector, that is, in the working place, capital owners no longer having control over the means of production and the workers having collectively taken control over their working place, and through doing so, freed their conditions of life.
The only other way for that to happen would have to be through straight up violence, given how police forces must protect the 'right' to private property and the military usually protects the established ruling class. That said, history has shown that the military can change sides to the uprising class. Your idea of socialism is very fantastical and flowery, it sounds like it comes from a fairy tale where a bunch of munchkins live in a utopia and fly around on dragons. The idea of workers "taking control" of the means of production is about the farthest thing from socialism one can imagine. Socialist economies are centrally planned, typically by government bureaucrats: your "ruling class". Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. And when you describe a country where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite, you are actually describing a shift to Socialism! So you screwed up with your copy-paste diatribe. Capitalism and the state do not go hand-in-hand, as a matter of fact they diametrically opposed. Capitalism protects individual property rights, the right to trade and have currency/accounts. The "State" wants to expropriate. There is no ruling class in a Capitalist system because Capitalism is a not a political theory. If you want to attack our Constitutional Republic, then recognize the difference and we can have a discussion on that. You can't separate economics from politics... its entwined these 2 go hand in hand. Furthermore in your own explantion you show lack somewhat the understanding of what socialism means. Here is the definition: Socialism Socialism: /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs. Sources + Show Spoiler +1^ Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 4 Apr. 2000 2^ The Alternative to Capitalism, on wspus.org. Retrieved 10 January 2011, from wspus.org: http://wspus.org/in-depth/the-alternative-to-capitalism/3^ Deceleration of Principles, on SocialistInternational.org. Retrieved 10 January 2011: http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31;from Political and Economic Democracy: "...democratic, participative and decentralised production policies...worker participation and joint decision-making at company and workplace level as well as union involvement in the determination of national economic policy, self-managed cooperatives of workers and farmers.." In the definitions were does it state that it is centrally planned? I think you mean Russian Communist defined by Stalin and Lenin. Furthermore State planned or Centrally planned economies are economies which do not operate under market economy. And we all know that almost the entire world works with market economies. Planned economyPlanned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, i.e. the market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factors of production based upon their individual interests rather than upon a macroeconomic plan. Less extensive forms of planned economies include those that use indicative planning, in which the state employs "influence, subsidies, grants, and taxes, but does not compel."[7] This latter is sometimes referred to as a "planned market economy" Sources + Show Spoiler +7^a b c d "Adam Smith". Fsmitha.com. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
8^ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific at Marxists.org (which we currently operate) A market economy is an economy in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system.[1] This is often contrasted with a state-directed or planned economy. Market economies can range from hypothetically pure laissez-faire variants to an assortment of real-world mixed economies, where the price system is under some state control or at least heavily regulated. In mixed economies, state-directed economic planning is not as extensive as in a planned economy. Source + Show Spoiler +1^ Altvater, E. (1993). The Future of the Market: An Essay on the Regulation of Money and Nature After the Collapse of "Actually Existing Socialism. Verso. pp. 57. So either you do not clearly understand the definitions (which then you should look up) or your kinda trolling. Copy and pasting from a dictionary website helps no one, and is a true act of trolling. You seem to not understand economic history otherwise you wouldn't be posting this. You can go on and on about what Socialism means but that is merely a pedantic approach. I'm more concerned with Socialism in reality, not in theory. You will surprised to find that many of your academic papers discussing Socialism are created by Political Theorists and not Economists. The definitions and silly aphorisms mean nothing in Applied Economics. The fact of the matter is someone doesn't produce just to produce, there is a driving force in the economy. The fact of the matter is Socialism does have a ruling class. If there are "rules" then there are naturally people who create those rules. In a Laissez-Faire Capitalist system, there are few rules, therefore, the individuals and and their capital carry the power, not the the Ruling Class in your Socialist utopia.
scaban84
Copy and pasting from a dictionary website helps no one, and is a true act of trolling. You seem to not understand economic history otherwise you wouldn't be posting this.
I`m copy pasting because these are the accepted definitions not because these are the definitions, that i feel like they should be, which is what you are doing. . Without defining the words we use specially abstract word we cannot have an informative discussion. This can be clearly seen by how you react.
see your own words
scaban84
Your Socialist utopia.
How can it be a utopia if it is/has been applied in real life? And it is not my utopia, I didn't give it these definitions, I just looked it up and copy past it like you said yourself:
scaban84
Copy and pasting from a dictionary website helps no one
You are clearly contradicting yourself, just to give yourself the sense that you are right, but factually you are not.
If you do not want to come to an agreement on what the definitions are of these words we are using then there is no use in discussing this matter.
|
On October 07 2011 00:46 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 00:29 Saji wrote:On October 07 2011 00:14 scaban84 wrote:On October 06 2011 23:03 Dystisis wrote:
Your idea of "socialism" is absurd.
Socialism is not a nation with a capitalist mode of production and a solid state (like most 'developed' nations). That is simply a capitalist country, where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite. This is the modus operandi of the capitalist class and 'capitalist nations'. Capitalism and the state goes hand in hand; there is one ruling class, and that is the wealthy business executives and the heads of the state apparatus.
A socialist nation is one where workers ("middle/lower class" in the US, "working class" everywhere else) have taken control of the state apparatus. For this to occur, a dramatic switch of power most likely has taken place in the economical sector, that is, in the working place, capital owners no longer having control over the means of production and the workers having collectively taken control over their working place, and through doing so, freed their conditions of life.
The only other way for that to happen would have to be through straight up violence, given how police forces must protect the 'right' to private property and the military usually protects the established ruling class. That said, history has shown that the military can change sides to the uprising class. Your idea of socialism is very fantastical and flowery, it sounds like it comes from a fairy tale where a bunch of munchkins live in a utopia and fly around on dragons. The idea of workers "taking control" of the means of production is about the farthest thing from socialism one can imagine. Socialist economies are centrally planned, typically by government bureaucrats: your "ruling class". Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. And when you describe a country where portions of the bourgeois are absorbed into the political elite, you are actually describing a shift to Socialism! So you screwed up with your copy-paste diatribe. Capitalism and the state do not go hand-in-hand, as a matter of fact they diametrically opposed. Capitalism protects individual property rights, the right to trade and have currency/accounts. The "State" wants to expropriate. There is no ruling class in a Capitalist system because Capitalism is a not a political theory. If you want to attack our Constitutional Republic, then recognize the difference and we can have a discussion on that. You can't separate economics from politics... its entwined these 2 go hand in hand. Furthermore in your own explantion you show lack somewhat the understanding of what socialism means. Here is the definition: Socialism Socialism: /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system.[1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs. Sources + Show Spoiler +1^ Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 4 Apr. 2000 2^ The Alternative to Capitalism, on wspus.org. Retrieved 10 January 2011, from wspus.org: http://wspus.org/in-depth/the-alternative-to-capitalism/3^ Deceleration of Principles, on SocialistInternational.org. Retrieved 10 January 2011: http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31;from Political and Economic Democracy: "...democratic, participative and decentralised production policies...worker participation and joint decision-making at company and workplace level as well as union involvement in the determination of national economic policy, self-managed cooperatives of workers and farmers.." In the definitions were does it state that it is centrally planned? I think you mean Russian Communist defined by Stalin and Lenin. Furthermore State planned or Centrally planned economies are economies which do not operate under market economy. And we all know that almost the entire world works with market economies. Planned economyPlanned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, i.e. the market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factors of production based upon their individual interests rather than upon a macroeconomic plan. Less extensive forms of planned economies include those that use indicative planning, in which the state employs "influence, subsidies, grants, and taxes, but does not compel."[7] This latter is sometimes referred to as a "planned market economy" Sources + Show Spoiler +7^a b c d "Adam Smith". Fsmitha.com. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
8^ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific at Marxists.org (which we currently operate) A market economy is an economy in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system.[1] This is often contrasted with a state-directed or planned economy. Market economies can range from hypothetically pure laissez-faire variants to an assortment of real-world mixed economies, where the price system is under some state control or at least heavily regulated. In mixed economies, state-directed economic planning is not as extensive as in a planned economy. Source + Show Spoiler +1^ Altvater, E. (1993). The Future of the Market: An Essay on the Regulation of Money and Nature After the Collapse of "Actually Existing Socialism. Verso. pp. 57. So either you do not clearly understand the definitions (which then you should look up) or your kinda trolling. Copy and pasting from a dictionary website helps no one, and is a true act of trolling. You seem to not understand economic history otherwise you wouldn't be posting this. You can go on and on about what Socialism means but that is merely a pedantic approach. I'm more concerned with Socialism in reality, not in theory. You will surprised to find that many of your academic papers discussing Socialism are created by Political Theorists and not Economists. The definitions and silly aphorisms mean nothing in Applied Economics. The fact of the matter is someone doesn't produce just to produce, there is a driving force in the economy. The fact of the matter is Socialism does have a ruling class. If there are "rules" then there are naturally people who create those rules. In a Laissez-Faire Capitalist system, there are few rules, therefore, the individuals and and their capital carry the power, not the the Ruling Class in your Socialist utopia.
So you are basically saying that capitalism results in a plutocracy. In that case your strict differentiation between a type of market economy on one hand and a type of government on the other is of purely academic interest. Given that one determines the other and that you are more concernred with reality, I think you should be be generally OK with thinking of capitalism as a political system.
|
On October 07 2011 01:08 Electric.Jesus wrote:
So you are basically saying that capitalism results in a plutocracy. In that case your strict differentiation between a type of market economy on one hand and a type of government on the other is of purely academic interest. Given that one determines the other and that you are more concernred with reality, I think you should be be generally OK with thinking of capitalism as a political system.
This is why political discourse in Europe is truly dumbfounding. Yes economics and politics are both subfields of sociology, but they should still be distinguished. You fail to see how economic and political systems are separate. I didn't say anything about a plutocracy. Your assumption that Capitalism always results in more social stratification is where you fail. You also assume that elected officials in your imagined "Capitalist political system" (an oxymoron) are always the rich. If you understand American history you would understand that the more free this country was from regulation the more 'equal' people were.
|
On October 07 2011 01:03 Thorakh wrote:
I believe people won't understand why safety nets are necessary until they themselves lost their job, unable to find a new one and in urgent need of expensive medical treatment.
Now of course a safety net should be designed in a way such that it cannot be abused, but the fact that safety nets are being abused does not mean the very idea of a safety net is bad.
I am economy illiterate but I do strongly believe in paying for safety nets. You might be the one getting fired tomorrow and contracting a rare disease. It's not only out of selfinterest, I believe in a society caring for the weaker as well.
Can anyone explain to me why Americans are allergic to the word 'socialist'? Is it because their own limited safety nets are being abused left and right?
Hey its because of the of the major industries/corporation realized what kind of threat it was for them so they started a major anti socialist propaganda back in the old days. This has been ongoing for almost 70 years orso. (look up noam chomsky for this)
Audio files:
Class War The Attack On Working People
Propaganda And Control Of The Public Mind
An American Addiction
or read his books (audio files are nice to get into the material
You can see how most people clearly have no notion of their basic Economic History (Western People in general)
For example in the 1800
America used to be a state planned economy (that is why it grew till it could "open it markets").
Most people think America was always an open and free economy (which it wasnt, and it can't actually be)
Markets are always restricted per definition see the fact that if they weren't then child labour would be allowed, who is going to accept this in the western countries?
Buchanan on the history of U.S. protectionism: "Behind a tariff wall built by Washington, Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, and the Republican presidents who followed, the United States had gone from an agrarian coastal republic to become the greatest industrial power the world had ever seen — in a single century. Such was the success of the policy called protectionism that is so disparaged today
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10983
For almost 100 years after the Civil War, the Republican Party (led by men like Lincoln and McKinley) was overtly protectionist. Theodore Roosevelt, a hero of John McCain's, wrote that "pernicious indulgence in the doctrine of free trade seems inevitably to produce fatty degeneration of the moral fiber."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06iht-edlighthizer.1.10774536.html
If people want to know more about this get this book
http://www.anthempress.com/index.php/subject-areas/books-0/history/history-us/american-protectionism-1898.html
Or use google 
American Commercial Policy By Ugo Rabbeno 1875
http://www.archive.org/stream/americancommerci00rabbuoft
Hope you can use this info
|
On October 07 2011 01:22 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 01:08 Electric.Jesus wrote:
So you are basically saying that capitalism results in a plutocracy. In that case your strict differentiation between a type of market economy on one hand and a type of government on the other is of purely academic interest. Given that one determines the other and that you are more concernred with reality, I think you should be be generally OK with thinking of capitalism as a political system.
This is why political discourse in Europe is truly dumbfounding. Yes economics and politics are both subfields of sociology, but they should still be distinguished. You fail to see how economic and political systems are separate. I didn't say anything about a plutocracy. Your assumption that Capitalism always results in more social stratification is where you fail. You also assume that elected officials in your imagined "Capitalist political system" (an oxymoron) are always the rich. If you understand American history you would understand that the more free this country was from regulation the more 'equal' people were.
History disagrees with you entirely, the periods of progress and overall prosperity line up rather nicely with dramatic increases in government programs and taxation (i.e. 1938-1963). That being said, I can already tell that you are the sort of parrot that has learned his speech and simply cannot change his tune, truly a sad phenomena, but the American public is learning to ignore your type.
|
On October 07 2011 01:03 Thorakh wrote:
I believe people won't understand why safety nets are necessary until they themselves lost their job, unable to find a new one and in urgent need of expensive medical treatment.
Now of course a safety net should be designed in a way such that it cannot be abused, but the fact that safety nets are being abused does not mean the very idea of a safety net is bad.
I am economy illiterate but I do strongly believe in paying for safety nets. You might be the one getting fired tomorrow and contracting a rare disease. It's not only out of selfinterest, I believe in a society caring for the weaker as well.
Can anyone explain to me why Americans are allergic to the word 'socialist'? Is it because their own limited safety nets are being abused left and right?
That's it pretty much. I think most anyone can agree that laid off workers collecting unemployment is not inherently bad.
The problem is that we have people who would rather be on unemployment than go find a job because unemployment pays better. We have people who would rather live off welfare then find a job. We have people who want a $100k lifestyle on a $40k salary. We have people who don't value education and drop out of school, then have two or three kids before they're 25.
My point of view is that the government cannot "fix" those people by throwing money at them. In fact, for many of them, giving them money will only keep them in the terrible position they're in by removing all incentive to do better.
|
I feel like a lot of people in this thread agree on most of the topics discussed here, but the amount of smug condescension is overwhelming.
If you're going to correct someone (this is the internet after all) don't insult them, their intelligence, or their use of English - your argument/point would be much stronger and the conversation could maybe move on past this argument on the definitions of economic and political systems.
Solidarity is what this movement needs. Solidarity and understanding.
|
lololol
Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics, and possibly actually read some Tocqueville, Madison, Sandbourne, and others before he applies an anachronistic ideological prism to the 19th century.
|
Someone correct me if Im wrong but from the information I collected this is just about people who have lots of money right? I think its more prudent to go after politicians getting paid by special interest groups and companies to support bad economic policies. Please feel free to set me straight if I am wrong I don't know very much about this movement.
|
On October 07 2011 02:13 thane wrote:
Someone correct me if Im wrong but from the information I collected this is just about people who have lots of money right? I think its more prudent to go after politicians getting paid by special interest groups and companies to support bad economic policies. Please feel free to set me straight if I am wrong I don't know very much about this movement.
Nobody really knows much about the protest. I wouldn't call it a movement, because there is no message or demand. It is just a confluence of students, and union workers, etc. looking for an excuse to protest and seemingly to demand more entitlements. Students want jobs, and union workers demand more entitlements... two demands entirely in conflict btw.
The irony is that many of these people voted for Obama who is in the pocket of Goldman Sachs. You wouldn't see them protesting Obama however, otherwise they would be accused of being tea-partiers and subsequently lynched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
