NationStates Jolt Archive

Let us start by defining ´socialism´.

Socialism is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Now, from a historical point of view, do you, NSGers think that the US is ready for socialism or for a Congress that sympathizes with socialist ideals?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Ah yes, this was a brilliant idea, lol...

I would say you need a Hybrid system, Small business needs a more laissez-faire oriented system free from regulations and extra costs, to get them started, but when a business reaches the size of say, Wal-Mart its time to break it up, for it begins hindering and stagnating the economy by destroying the smaller retail and grocery outlets, and preventing new ones with competing...similar to what Two and One party systems do to Politics actually, lol...

Pure Capitalism and Pure Socialism have their negatives and Positives, but if used together, they can solve their negatives, with their respective positives...

Ive always called myself a "Libertarian Socialist" an oxymoron, i know, but its real, you can find it on Wikipedia, lol...

The closest the U.S was/is ever going to get to socialism is the FDR level. We might get close to it, but that is pretty much the line in the sand.

You speak as though Socialism is something to aspire to.

Since we have never had a leftist government in power...ever. I'd think not.

The best thing we could hope for anytime soon is a genuine social democracy, about at the economic center point, but I don't even see that happening.

Right now we're stuck with 2 authoritarian right-wing parties switching power back and forth.

You speak as though Socialism is something to aspire to.

Oh, not in the least. Some political ideals are just plain wrong for a country. Example: Fascist Spain. Did it work? Nope. Meaning? For Spain, Fascism wasn´t an alternative.

Ah yes, this was a brilliant idea, lol...


Ive always called myself a "Libertarian Socialist" an oxymoron, i know, but its real, you can find it on Wikipedia, lol...

It is not an oxymoron. Libertarian just means anti-authoritarian. The American Libertarian Party did not invent the word.

Oh, not in the least. Some political ideals are just plain wrong for a country. Example: Fascist Spain. Did it work? Nope. Meaning? For Spain, Fascism wasn´t an alternative.

Fascism is not good for any country.

You can never really be ready for suicide

It is not an oxymoron. Libertarian just means anti-authoritarian. The American Libertarian Party did not invent the word.

Joke friend, in the 'left-right' bullshit spectrum we Americans are so fond of, it would be...

However that scales pointless and stagnant, lol...

Fascism is not good for any country.

Exactly. Do you think that Socialism is good for a country that hasn´t known anything else but ¨democracy¨? What´s more, are the citizens even ready for a change from ´democartic´ to ´socialist´? That´s all I´m asking. If it were to happen, are Americans ready?

Click Stand;13616197']The closest the U.S was/is ever going to get to socialism is the FDR level. We might get close to it, but that is pretty much the line in the sand.

Considering how many people are all to eager to leap upon him as "worst president evar!", I believe you may be right.

Oh, not in the least. Some political ideals are just plain wrong for a country. Example: Fascist Spain. Did it work? Nope. Meaning? For Spain, Fascism wasn´t an alternative.

Nationalist!
(I kid, I kid)

Fascism is not good for any country.

I'm not sure if we can objectively say that. It did good for Italy in the prewar years. I'm not saying that fascism is good, there just hasn't been a long term "study" similar to the application of Communist theory in the former Soviet Union.

Nationalist!
(I kid, I kid)

;)

I'll have to answer with a maybe. The web of deception about the meaning of socialism in the United States is so thick that the majority of the people in the United States have an instant gag-reflex towards anything that is called "socialism".

So, in part, the people of the US are not ready for socialism because 1) they don't know what it means and 2) it is associated with all sorts of unsavory acts and ideas.

But, at the same time, the people of the United States are quite often receptive to socialistic ideas-- so long as you avoid calling it socialism. And a considerable portion of the population are sympathetic to the general idea of socialism, but rationalize it away with the familiar epithet "it looks wonderful in theory but it ignores human nature"

All of the material conditions are met, though. Technology and economic output are very much at a level that could support a democratic socialist society. Furthermore, democratic ideas are very much a strong part of our culture. We do often fall short of them due to a variety of factors, but I think that true economic democracy in the form of socialism is very much a possibility.

I'm not sure if we can objectively say that. It did good for Italy in the prewar years. I'm not saying that fascism is good, there just hasn't been a long term "study" similar to the application of Communist theory in the former Soviet Union.

Fascism ends up being Dictatorial in the end, therefore the problem would be that, If you have a Good Dictator then the system is good, and if you have a Bad Dictator it ends up being bad...

Problem with Authoritarian regimes is that the nation is Dependant on the Dictator's Whims...

Just my opinion on the subject...

You defile my thread. Just kidding...idea-stealer.

I'd have to say that the United States lacks maturity as a country to adopt Socialism without any hitches. It just isn't ready.

Exactly. Do you think that Socialism is good for a country that hasn´t known anything else but ¨democracy¨? What´s more, are the citizens even ready for a change from ´democratic´ to ´socialist´? That´s all I´m asking. If it were to happen, are Americans ready?

It's not an "either-or" dichotomy. Socialism will be free and democratic, or it will not be at all. To Karl Marx, socialism presupposed democracy, and would, in his opinion, enhance the democratic features of the republic by removing the distortions to democracy that concentrations of wealth cause.

;)

Besides, we all know the Republicans were much much sexier. They were the indie kids of their generation.

Besides, we all know the Republicans were much much sexier. They were the indie kids of their generation.

Yeah and like the Indies of this generation after a few years(after, say Grant) they became bloated corporate junkies, lol :p

Let us start by defining ´socialism´.

Socialism is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Now, from a historical point of view, do you, NSGers think that the US is ready for socialism or for a Congress that sympathizes with socialist ideals?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Commie...

*blacklists Nanatsu*

You defile my thread. Just kidding...idea-stealer.

I'd have to say that the United States lacks maturity as a country to adopt Socialism without any hitches. It just isn't ready.

Oh, no, that wasn´t my intention Howaitgoorudo. I really want to know. You see, I live in a socialist country. Socialism´s the norm to me. Socialism works here, and we seem to enjoy the same liberties Americans do with democracy. I was just curious to know why is it that anything involving socialism or that approaches communism scares Americans so much. Perhaps ´scare´ is too strong a word to use. Maybe makes them uncomfortable is a better phrase.

See what we NEED is Anarchy...

Then we wouldnt have Politics to argue about...

or...

Forums to Argue on...

lol:p:sniper:

Yeah and like the Indies of this generation after a few years(after, say Grant) they became bloated corporate junkies, lol :p

No they didn't. They all got shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War).

Oh, no, that wasn´t my intention Howaitgoorudo. I really want to know. You see, I live in a socialist country. Socialism´s the norm to me. Socialism works here, and we seem to enjoy the same liberties Americans do with democracy. I was just curious to know why is it that anything involving socialism or that approaches communism scares Americans so much. Perhaps ´scare´ is too strong a word to use. Maybe makes them uncomfortable is a better phrase.

Ah, well you should have asked...

Its years upon decades upon damn near a century of the Right Wingers in this country Demonizing the word...

Along with the fact that "Socialism" has unfortunately had the misfortune of being used in the USSR during the Cold War, and in Nazi Germany in WWII even though the former was Communist and the latter was Fascist...

Fascism ends up being Dictatorial in the end, therefore the problem would be that, If you have a Good Dictator then the system is good, and if you have a Bad Dictator it ends up being bad...

Problem with Authoritarian regimes is that the nation is Dependant on the Dictator's Whims...

Just my opinion on the subject...

Lets take it a step further, then. Is dictatorship objectively bad?

No they didn't. They all got shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War).

I was mistaken your comment for American Republicans, lol...my bad...

Lets take it a step further, then. Is dictatorship objectively bad?

I would say yes, but thats because I live in a Democratic Country that has bad experiences with Dictators...

Id say its too Subjective, All Governments can be good or bad, depending on the Eye of the Beholder...

I was mistaken your comment for American Republicans, lol...my bad...

Nah, no one liked them. They were all preppies.

Lets take it a step further, then. Is dictatorship objectively bad?

Hm... good point.

Historically, all the countries that have dictators tend to have a lot of strife. Absolutists governments do not fare well.

Then again, if one doesn´t live in the country under an absolutist regime, one hears anecdotes from second, third and fourth hand. Are they as bad as they´re portrayed?

I know, from what my mother and grandparents have told me, that Franquist Spain was horrible. History teachers and professors seem back-up this idea. But what about those who prospered under Franco. Was the regime so bad to them? I´ve always wondered.

Anyone, care to share?

Commie...

*blacklists Nanatsu*

Oh noes! I iz blacklisted!:eek:

LOL!

Anyone, care to share?

Well, Unfortunately...or maybe fortunately(?)...I dont know anyone nor has there been anyone in my family that has lived under a dictatorship...

Non-Existent here for quite some time...

Well, Unfortunately...or maybe fortunately(?)...I dont know anyone nor has there been anyone in my family that has lived under a dictatorship...

Non-Existent here for quite some time...

Ok.;)

Normally, nations with weak economic situations tended to sprout dictatorships. But what if a dictatorship took hold in a nation where the populence were comfortable? What if the dictator was more an enlightened monarch then a tyrant? The closest thing to that I can think of is Spain under Franco. I don't presume to lecture a Spaniard about what their country was like under Franco, but as I understand, it wasn't all that bad. It was still a dictatorship, but there wern't massive gulags, not many political prisoners, and most people were rather comfortable. Feel free to correct me, though. You know far better then I.

Now, take Franco a bit further. What if you had a dictator that cared about it's citizens? A dictator that acts more as a guardian then a tyrant? Would that be objectively bad because of the citizens' exclusion from the political process?

I imagine the police would have liberty… liberty to be corrupt! Zing
However,
Well, Unfortunately...or maybe fortunately(?)...I dont know anyone nor has there been anyone in my family that has lived under a dictatorship...

Unrelated: I did not know the ETA assassinated Carrero Blanco.

I think i can cite a country that prospered under a Dictator, come to think of it...

France under Napoleon I...He was incredibly popular and probably did more for France than...anyone i think , lol...

Normally, nations with weak economic situations tended to sprout dictatorships. But what if a dictatorship took hold in a nation where the populence were comfortable? What if the dictator was more an enlightened monarch then a tyrant? The closest thing to that I can think of is Spain under Franco. I don't presume to lecture a spaniard about what their country was like under Franco, but as I understand, it wasn't all that bad. It was still a dictatorship, but there wern't massive gulags, not many political prisoners, and most people were rather comfortable. Feel free to correct me, though. You know far better then I.

Now, take Franco a bit further. What if you had a dictator that cared about it's citizens? A dictator that acts more as a guardian then a tyrant? Would that be objectively bad because of the citizens' exclusion from the political process?

No, you´re right there. My grandparents whine about it because they lost family members and were forced to not speak Catalá and Euskera since Franco wanted an homogenous nation and regional dialects promoted regional identities. But a lot of people were comfortable, the economy wasn´t half bad and there wasn´t an overly repressive regime.

Of course, it was still a dictatorship, but more lax than Mussolini´s Italy and Hitler´s Germany. Perhaps that´s the reason why it lasted until 1975 whereas both Mussolini´s and Hitler´s governments vanished violently from the face of the Earth in the 1940s. Benito Mussolini was lynched and Hitler, I guess we´ll never know what really happened with Adolf Hitler.

The only problem with a dictatorship is that, unfortunately, eventually personal gain presceeds the good of the people. And what started as an altruistic move, may become a disaster.

Unfortunately, no. Decades of lies about socialism would need to be undone first.

France under Napoleon I... He was incredibly popular…

Insanely so.

and probably did more for France than...anyone i think , lol...

Intranationally, yes. But all the wars weren't really a great idea.

Unrelated: I did not know the ETA assassinated Carrero Blanco.

Yup, they did. And for that, 2 notorious Etarras are being tried. But with ETA I see a cause that should be heard and heeded.

The Basque Country has no similarities with the rest of Spain. I think President Zapatero should listen to the demands of this organization and more so, to what Lehendakari Ibarretxe proposes and let the Basques become independent.

Closing argument of the night for me.
Queda el tema, éste, como vuestra casa. Cuidadle.;)

Queda el tema, éste, como vuestra casa. Cuidadle.;)

Oh no, she's… she's writing in Mexican! :p
My best shot: "Thread's over now, go home. Take care."?

Sure and it certainly could use some of it.

No, you´re right there. My grandparents whine about it because they lost family members and were forced to not speak Catalá and Euskera since Franco wanted an homogenous nation and regional dialects promoted regional identities. But a lot of people were comfortable, the economy wasn´t half bad and there wasn´t an overly repressive regime.

Of course, it was still a dictatorship, but more lax than Mussolini´s Italy and Hitler´s Germany. Perhaps that´s the reason why it lasted until 1975 whereas both Mussolini´s and Hitler´s governments vanished violently from the face of the Earth in the 1940s. Benito Mussolini was lynched and Hitler, I guess we´ll never know what really happened with Adolf Hitler.

The only problem with a dictatorship is that, unfortunately, eventually personal gain presceeds the good of the people. And what started as an altruistic move, may become a disaster.


I don't think that personal corruption is necessarily a trait of Dictatorships. Naturally, the dictator will live quite comfortably, but personal gain beyond the standard Head of State is not inherent in totalitarianisms. I just can't see why we can make a blanket statement and say "Dictatorships are Wrong" without interjecting our own morals and values into the discussion.

Why the hell would we want socialism?

Lets take it a step further, then. Is dictatorship objectively bad?

This is a really interesting question, and I'd say a complex one. I'm currently taking a class on Korean history, and a book I was reading had a quote that stuck out for me. It is by a 1970s researcher, so the language is a bit old, and South Korea is now democratic but I think it’s an interesting take on Confucianism and eastern forms of "despotism."

"We think of the oriental (East Asian) as under the iron heel of despotism, whereas the truth is he was usually very content and in most cases left happily alone. Our ideal of government is a noisy democracy; his, a wise and good ruler. If one but take the trouble to read and compare history carefully, the conclusion will undoubtedly be that on the whole his is the much better choice. Tyrants sometimes he has had, but single ones; we have had tyrants, swarms of them. Aristotle knew well what he was talking about when he said, 'democracy is the acme of tyranny.'''

I don't really think I agree with his claim, but I do find it interesting. Maybe certain cultures are better suited to certain forms of government.

I don't really think I agree with his claim, but I do find it interesting. Maybe certain cultures are better suited to certain forms of government.

Skim through this: Emotions and Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotions_and_Culture#Bases_of_cultural_differences). It's anthrospotastic!

I think America would greet Socialism with open arms.

I think America would greet Socialism with open arms.

I wish it would, but I'm not so optimistic. How did you come to this conclusion?

This is a really interesting question, and I'd say a complex one. I'm currently taking a class on Korean history, and a book I was reading had a quote that stuck out for me. It is by a 1970s researcher, so the language is a bit old, and South Korea is now democratic but I think it’s an interesting take on Confucianism and eastern forms of "despotism."

"We think of the oriental (East Asian) as under the iron heel of despotism, whereas the truth is he was usually very content and in most cases left happily alone. Our ideal of government is a noisy democracy; his, a wise and good ruler. If one but take the trouble to read and compare history carefully, the conclusion will undoubtedly be that on the whole his is the much better choice. Tyrants sometimes he has had, but single ones; we have had tyrants, swarms of them. Aristotle knew well what he was talking about when he said, 'democracy is the acme of tyranny.'''

I don't really think I agree with his claim, but I do find it interesting. Maybe certain cultures are better suited to certain forms of government.

I agree with what you say. We in the west are so conditioned to "Democracy Good, Dictatorship Bad" that we fail to even think about the question.

Historically, the vast bulk of the American population has had very little interest in overly radical ideologies, and while we have, at times, flirted with the far right, the conditions that a strong far left would require have never materialized.

I think America would greet Socialism with open arms.

Why?

I wish it would, but I'm not so optimistic. How did you come to this conclusion?

Why do you want socialism in the US?

Why should we have socialism in the US?

Why do you want socialism in the US?

Why should we have socialism in the US?

I want socialism in the US because socialism is in its pure form a humanistic philosophy, and supports genuinely humanistic institutions. Socialism represents the extension of democracy into the realm of the economy, and an end to rule and control based on ownership of capital by a small minority.

In short, I believe that we should have socialism in the United States because I believe that it is the only humane choice. I believe that the people can be trusted to manage their own destiny democratically.

I wish it would, but I'm not so optimistic. How did you come to this conclusion?

Why?


There is more than one meaning/interpretation of the word 'arms'. ;)

There is more than one meaning/interpretation of the word 'arms'. ;)

I lul'd at this. And agree with this. Two fer one.

I want socialism in the US because socialism is in its pure form a humanistic philosophy, and supports genuinely humanistic institutions. Socialism represents the extension of democracy into the realm of the economy, and an end to rule and control based on ownership of capital by a small minority.

In short, I believe that we should have socialism in the United States because I believe that it is the only humane choice. I believe that the people can be trusted to manage their own destiny democratically.

Rule by the mob, by any other name.

I lul'd at this. And agree with this. Two fer one.

Thank you, thank you.

Deliberate ambiguity for the win.

Rule by the mob, by any other name.

Who else should rule the mob, other than themselves?

Who else should rule the mob, other than themselves?

The ability of a simple majority to invoke democracy as a justification for their actions, even in regards to a minority group, sucks.

The ability of a simple majority to invoke democracy as a justification for their actions, even in regards to a minority group, sucks.

So?

Democracy is about the rule of the people. All the people.

There is more than one meaning/interpretation of the word 'arms'. ;)

Ah. I didn't catch that one. Good pun.

Who cares what the fickle whim of the people brainwashed by the bourgeois media think, it's the role of every professional revolutionary to seize control of the state apparatus by force.

Who cares what the fickle whim of the people brainwashed by the bourgeois media think, it's the role of every professional revolutionary to seize control of the state apparatus by force.

Who cares what brainwashed angst filled teenagers err, wait, so called 'professional revolutionaries' think?

Who cares what the fickle whim of the people brainwashed by the bourgeois media think

Who else is going to run your dictatorship of the working class?

Oh, right... you.

:rolleyes:

Now, from a historical point of view, do you, NSGers think that the US is ready for socialism or for a Congress that sympathizes with socialist ideals?


Since socialism in any meaningful, desirable, or effective sense actively opposes the existence of government above the roughly municipal level, I'd say the State and its Congress is of little concern. Thus, this question seems pointless.

But if we mean "socialism" in the "crony capitalist welfare state" sense, then I'd say that the United States and its Congress have embraced "socialism" wholeheartedly since at least the New Deal. Again, the question seems pointless.


Who else is going to run your dictatorship of the working class?

Oh, right... you.


Seeing as how we've both been corrupted by bourgeois Trotskyist Nazi propaganda, we don't really know what our own interests are. I should be shot just for saying so, even though I don't actually understand what I meant. Know what I mean?

I know EXACTLY what you mean...:cool:

As long as you do not call it socialism but "Jesusism" - sure.

As long as you do not call it socialism but "Jesusism" - sure.

I like that idea...

It's so crazy, it just might work

Ah yes, this was a brilliant idea, lol...

I would say you need a Hybrid system, Small business needs a more laissez-faire oriented system free from regulations and extra costs, to get them started, but when a business reaches the size of say, Wal-Mart its time to break it up, for it begins hindering and stagnating the economy by destroying the smaller retail and grocery outlets, and preventing new ones with competing...similar to what Two and One party systems do to Politics actually, lol...
Exactly how is Wal-Mart bad? Okay, I'll admit that a few stores once asked employees to work off the clock or didn't give them their 30 minutes lunch breaks or something like that and it must have pissed off a few thousand workers. But what has Wal-Mart done for you? I'll tell you what. $4 drugs and a fully stocked pharmacy. Jobs for everyone, even special people. Full-time benefits for full-time employees. Everything under the sun at a discount except for some specialty items. Air conditioned sweat-shops in the 3rd world that have easier work than and pay better than subsistance agriculture. Wal-Mart saves the average family something like 2 grand a year. Wal-Mart was delivering relief aid to New Orleans after Katrina before FEMA. And Wal-Mart has never passed any laws that have infringed on my rights, something I can't say about my federal, state, or local governments.

Besides, Target does pretty much everything that Wal-Mart does, just not as well. Know why they don't get the same flak? 'Cause Target's owned by the Dayton family, DFLers. That's why the labor unions and the anti-big business crowd leaves Target be while going after Wal-Mart. Labor unions have a friendly relationship with the Democrats in America so they'll turn a blind eye when a family with a "-D" next to their name stomps on workers rights but if anyone even a little sympathetic to the Republicans so much as cracks and an insensitive joke they'll get nailed to the donkey's ass. It's a conspiracy I tell's ya!

All of the material conditions are met, though. Technology and economic output are very much at a level that could support a democratic socialist society.
I note that you never actually explained what you would mean by socialism in the "Explain your Socialism" thread, which leaves people with little chance to answer this point.

I could say that the US economy is at that level only because right now it's not a democratic socialist society. Since collective decisionmaking tends to slow things down and demand compromises, the trend of economic output in a socialist society is negative over time. In effect then, by "material conditions being met" you could only mean enough of a buffer to last as long as you live. The following generations would then have to invent whatever utopia-machine is needed to reverse the process.

But of course, this statement would be attacked vigourously. I could say that you may value your idea of equality and fairness higher than efficiency, and that's why you propose something other than a pareto optimal (= market) allocation system. That would imply that economic output will fall, but you simply don't mind. Or you could answer that you do care about efficiency, but that general equilibrium theory is plain wrong.

That's the sort of difficulty one has when talking about "socialism". The wiki link is of absolutely no help whatsoever because socialism seems to mean something different to every poster around. That's why I don't think the question of the OP can be answered as such.

I note that you never actually explained what you would mean by socialism in the "Explain your Socialism" thread, which leaves people with little chance to answer this point.

I could say that the US economy is at that level only because right now it's not a democratic socialist society. Since collective decisionmaking tends to slow things down and demand compromises, the trend of economic output in a socialist society is negative over time. In effect then, by "material conditions being met" you could only mean enough of a buffer to last as long as you live. The following generations would then have to invent whatever utopia-machine is needed to reverse the process.

But of course, this statement would be attacked vigourously. I could say that you may value your idea of equality and fairness higher than efficiency, and that's why you propose something other than a pareto optimal (= market) allocation system. That would imply that economic output will fall, but you simply don't mind. Or you could answer that you do care about efficiency, but that general equilibrium theory is plain wrong.

That's the sort of difficulty one has when talking about "socialism". The wiki link is of absolutely no help whatsoever because socialism seems to mean something different to every poster around. That's why I don't think the question of the OP can be answered as such.

You talk as if todays ways of 'market' were anywhere near to efficient o.O

You talk as if todays ways of 'market' were anywhere near to efficient o.O

And socialism is more efficient? :rolleyes:

I think that the best kind of governance is that which is the most balanced; that positions away from the centre tend to have terrible fundamental flaws, and extremes are downright dangerous.

In the example of socialism, I think that one of the major factors is that instead of exploiting human greed, it seeks to expel it. Unfortunately, whilst greed is frequently frowned upon, it is the very basis of enterprise, and enterprise is the basis of progress. Compare a neurosurgeon to the average blue-collar worker; the neurosurgeon deals with the extra complications, technical expertise, and social implications that his profession entails. What then motivates men to become such people? Payment. The material rewards associated with hard and complicated work makes its intricacies easier to deal with, and even encourages people to work in such industries. Additionally, the vast majority of technological, social, and political breakthroughs of the last 400 years have come from innovations developed by enterprises motivated by greed of some form or another. These innovations lead to better living standards, greater quality of health and education; they impact on every level of our lifestyle. Greed isn't necessarily good, but greed is essential.

America shouldn't adopt socialism. What America needs is a government that is prepared to defend its freedoms, both economical and social. America needs to achieve the best balance possible between Health, Education, Defence, Crime, the Environment, Business, and the Public Sector. This considered, in 2008, I would personally advise Americans to vote Democrat, but that's their choice.

The United States is a democratic Republic, whereby majority rule cannot always be the rule. Give one group enough power, even for good, and watch it be used as a club sooner or later. As for socialism, I'd rather see anarchy. Anybody that can tell me how to do every little thing in my life is bad. the needs of the many does not outweigh the needs of the few all the time.

You talk as if todays ways of 'market' were anywhere near to efficient o.O
Granted. Still, they are more efficient than a socialist system would be. The inefficiencies in today's economy are caused by interventions, creating artificial incentives and costs and imposing them on a system that by itself would approach pareto optimality.

Socialism would seek a completely different system in which decisions are made differently and pareto optimality is neither a criterion nor a likely outcome.

The inefficiencies in today's economy are caused by interventions, creating artificial incentives and costs and imposing them on a system that by itself would approach pareto optimality.


This is true, although these interventions hardly have anything to do with socialism per se.

What stops manipulation of the market in the absence of regulation ("interventions")? Nothing. It is extremely easy for those with the greatest shares of wealth or market power to manipulate the economic process, alone or in concert. This is accomplished through government all the time, but government is nothing more than a specialized cartel. Reducing or abolishing one specific kind of cartel does not abolish cartels entirely. If one is going to achieve a "system...by itself" one is going to have to do much more to address the cartel problem. "Private" government is still government.

Some of the earliest, if less famous, socialists proposed a societal arrangement that addresses the problem of cartels by seeking to decentralize and distribute political power and wealth as widely as possible. A cartel is an oligopoly of a relative few producers who seek to curb competition for their own profit. But by decentralizing and distributing political power and wealth as widely as possible, one defeats the cartel by maximizing the number of self-sufficient individual market participants, thus maximizing competition. In this state of society, the market works.

The "socialism" that market advocates prefer to cite failed. But of course it failed. The absurdity of centralized planning is the cartel at its best (that is, at its worst). Those who know their labor history know that the International Workingman's Association included among its ranks some of the strongest opponents of command economics ("socialism") for precisely this reason. These may not be well know factions among "socialists" today, but then the free market doesn't seem to be well known among today's capitalists either.


Socialism would seek a completely different system in which decisions are made differently and pareto optimality is neither a criterion nor a likely outcome.

Short of a state of society where free individuals can approach each other from positions of political and economic equality, capitalism will continue to fail in similar fashion. So long as some command political power and economic wealth while others do not, some will always be in a position to manipulate their position to their own advantage. The cartel, in its multiplicity of public and private forms, will continue to flourish and the market will continue to flounder.

"Libertarians" will continue to speak of the virtues of unregulated industry, and the captains of that unregulated industry will continue to pour their disproportionate share of political power and wealth into the cause of defeating the free market at all costs.

Since collective decisionmaking tends to slow things down and demand compromises, the trend of economic output in a socialist society is negative over time.


This statement cannot be consistent with what I assume are your beliefs concerning the efficiency of the free market, as the free market is itself a from of collective decision making.

I presume what you mean to say is that oligopoly tends to slow things down and demand (or, rather, force) compromises. And, of course, the negative effect of cartels and other artificial manipulations is well established.

At any rate, there are at least several surviving socialist currents which wouldn't extent non-market collective decision making beyond the level of individual workplaces or voluntary associations thereof. Which is actually entirely consistent and compatible with even today's bastardized "capitalism."


I could say that you may value your idea of equality and fairness higher than efficiency, and that's why you propose something other than a pareto optimal (= market) allocation system.


Equality and fairness are necessary conditions for efficiency. Unless the economic turmoil caused by the artificial manipulations of cartels (the oligopoly possessing and exploiting a disproportionate share of political and economic power) is some how "efficient."


The wiki link is of absolutely no help whatsoever because socialism seems to mean something different to every poster around.


I quit following mainstream American Libertarianism because I too tired of their constant flip-floping over which Republican hero-du-jour was the best choice because "at least he's pro-market." The problem is that all these "Libertarians" and Republicans seem to have their own little pet cause where markets and choice don't apply. As if freedom means something different to every one of them.

Now, from a historical point of view, do you, NSGers think that the US is ready for socialism or for a Congress that sympathizes with socialist ideals?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

No, I don't think so.

The leftmost thing the US can accept right now is social democracy (Sweden), and liberal social democracy (Germany, Spain). That is, something that, within a capitalistic model, eases the suffering of the middle and lower classes, and reduces the effects of the income divide - this means better public education, compulsory national retirement system, national health system paid both by service fees and by general taxation, progressive taxation on incomes, and business regulation to prevent financial scams and market crisis.

Why the hell would we want socialism?Because it would be a massive improvement over what we have now?

But what has Wal-Mart done for you?Nothing, I don't shop there.
What have they done for others?
Well, of the top of my head, they've decimated small businesses in thousands of communities, eroded labor standards, and knowingly done business with human rights abusers.

Granted. Still, they are more efficient than a socialist system would be. The inefficiencies in today's economy are caused by interventions, creating artificial incentives and costs and imposing them on a system that by itself would approach pareto optimality.Stickiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_%28economics%29) doesn't need to be imposed in order to occur.

Granted. Still, they are more efficient than a socialist system would be. The inefficiencies in today's economy are caused by interventions, creating artificial incentives and costs and imposing them on a system that by itself would approach pareto optimality.

Socialism would seek a completely different system in which decisions are made differently and pareto optimality is neither a criterion nor a likely outcome.

You are confusing 'profitable' with 'efficient'.
People are catching shrimps in the north sea, shipping them of to Asian to get them flaked off, then ship them back over here.
That's not efficient.

The Free Market is blind to responsibility, that is it's problem. The mechanics the free marketeers adhere to do not guarantee anything!
It is this way or another, the governments' responsibility to limit the markets freedom in the same way they limit everybody's freedoms for the reason of preventing harm to each other.
There is no benevolvement in free market, there is no principle which is making everyone happy. Free Market is survival of the fittest... and that DOES mean death of the unfit, literally. Free Market is a system where those who can live of those who can't.
That's not a civilized concept.

And that is were socialism comes in with its Ideas of community, common responsibility and solidarity. Words, Virtues we seem to have abandoned despite that these virtues were it which ALWAYS brought mankind forward.

Oh no, she's… she's writing in Mexican! :p
My best shot: "Thread's over now, go home. Take care."?

LOL! All I said was that the thread was yours because I was off to bed and that you should take care of it.:D

Who cares what the fickle whim of the people brainwashed by the bourgeois media think, it's the role of every professional revolutionary to seize control of the state apparatus by force.

Well, this is definitely the answer expected from Stalin's incarnation.;) Would you mind enlightening us with what you think of Socialism and the US?

definitely
As long as nobody actually says the WORD "socialism," we're ready.
Not that I, personally, am in favor of it. Actually I think we're too far in that direction already. But it would be accepted pretty quickly as long as no-one used the word socialism and any of the major changes were given reasons other than changing government type.

Basically, "Yes, we're ready for socialism, as long as we can still crow about Democracy"

LOL! All I said was that the thread was yours because I was off to bed and that you should take care of it.:D

Well, I tried. :D

Here was Google's translation: "It is the subject, this is like your home."

So?

Democracy is about the rule of the people. All the people.

And if some people don't want the rest of the people to rule over them?

Well, this is definitely the answer expected from Stalin's incarnation.;)

Andaras can correct me on this, but I'd say it's more of a Leninist sentiment.
Maoists have better slogans.

Andaras can correct me on this, but I'd say it's more of a Leninist sentiment.
Maoists have better slogans.

:D
Stalin-Lenin-Communism. It's all one in the same package.

Well, I tried. :D

Here was Google's translation: "It is the subject, this is like your home."

At least you tried. No worries.;)

Socialism is a spectrum, part of the larger political spectrum. It's not a thing off on it's own.

You can't just say 'socialism would require a completely different set up' (as a random example not referring to any posts that may have been made) since it isn't necessarily true, it depends how much socialism is implemented.

All shades of grey.

You are confusing 'profitable' with 'efficient'.
People are catching shrimps in the north sea, shipping them of to Asian to get them flaked off, then ship them back over here.
That's not efficient.

The Free Market is blind to responsibility, that is it's problem. The mechanics the free marketeers adhere to do not guarantee anything!
It is this way or another, the governments' responsibility to limit the markets freedom in the same way they limit everybody's freedoms for the reason of preventing harm to each other.
There is no benevolvement in free market, there is no principle which is making everyone happy. Free Market is survival of the fittest... and that DOES mean death of the unfit, literally. Free Market is a system where those who can live of those who can't.
That's not a civilized concept.

And that is were socialism comes in with its Ideas of community, common responsibility and solidarity. Words, Virtues we seem to have abandoned despite that these virtues were it which ALWAYS brought mankind forward.

Profitability is just a subset of efficiency. The shrimp process is not time-efficient or distance-efficient, but it is money-efficient.

You're being unreasonable to think that theoretically ideal situations will actually work in a human-run world.
Granted, Free Market is survival of the fittest and doesn't even try make everyone happy. But, run by humans, no system will make everyone happy, and you have the option of survival of the fittest or survival of whoever has taken/inherited power/money.
Also, in this world, "civilized" tends to mean "using the newest equipment, methods, and phrases to achieve the same result." Throughout the years, the ways of accomplishing standard human goals has changed, but the goals themselves have not. Whether something is "civilized" or not really has no effect on this.
I like Socialism as a concept. I don't like it implemented because it doesn't work. If you had a perfect person to run it forever, sure. But the ideas of socialism are not going to all be enacted by a human.

Yup, they did. And for that, 2 notorious Etarras are being tried. But with ETA I see a cause that should be heard and heeded.

The Basque Country has no similarities with the rest of Spain. I think President Zapatero should listen to the demands of this organization and more so, to what Lehendakari Ibarretxe proposes and let the Basques become independent.

Closing argument of the night for me.
Queda el tema, éste, como vuestra casa. Cuidadle.;)

I think exactly the same thing. What is good for Catalunya is good for Euskadi, as long as it is presented in a civil and democratic way. Good ol Ibarretxe sent me a letter asking for my support in a referendum.

Oh no, she's… she's writing in Mexican! :p
My best shot: "Thread's over now, go home. Take care."?

"I leave you this thread, as your home. Please take care of him"

It is an idiom, however.

america is ready to self destruct without it.

if it does that won't be the end of the world.

if it doesn't that won't be the end of the world either.

=^^=
.../\...

It would be interesting to see socialism introduced into America in the same ham-fisted manner that captialism was introduced into Russia.

"I leave you this thread, as your home. Please take care of him"

It is an idiom, however.

It's amazing, really. 12 years of French Immersion and I'm completely lost in Latin languages.
Germanic FTW! :p

I like that idea...

It's so crazy, it just might work

Hey - it does get rid of the negative connotation of the word "socialism". And the Jesusbrand sells:)

I think exactly the same thing. What is good for Catalunya is good for Euskadi, as long as it is presented in a civil and democratic way. Good ol Ibarretxe sent me a letter asking for my support in a referendum.

Venga maja, cómo nativa de Euskal Herriá claro que el Lehendakari te pedirá apoyo para el referendum. Es que es natural que los vascos quieran independencia, Euskadi no guarda ninguna similitud con el resto de España, o con Francia.

Como nacionalista que soy, vamos, de que me siento española, sí. No voy a construir moros con eso. Pero es mayor mi sientimiento como asturiana que como española. Asturies ye Asturies e lo demais ye tierra conquistá.;)

A Euskadi y a Calunya, que les dejen ser.


"I leave you this thread, as your home. Please take care of him"

It is an idiom, however.

What Aelosia states is true. It's an idiom. And this Spanish is doubly hard to understand because it's from Spain. If a person studied Spanish with a Mexican teacher, not a native speaker, as an example, Spanish from Mexico will be easier to follow. Aelosia doesn't have that problem because Spanish is her first language. Add to that the fact that I sometimes slip into my dialect and "juas", I make it doubly harder to follow. Ask Dyakovo. He has one hell of a time translating me.:p

Venga maja, cómo nativa de Euskal Herriá claro que el Lehendakari te pedirá apoyo para el referendum. Es que es natural que los vascos quieran independencia, Euskadi no guarda ninguna similitud con el resto de España, o con Francia.

Como nacionalista que soy, vamos, de que me siento española, sí. No voy a construir moros con eso. Pero es mayor mi sientimiento como asturiana que como española. Asturies ye Asturies e lo demais ye tierra conquistá.;)

A Euskadi y a Calunya, que les dejen ser.

Y yo que pensaba que los nacionalistas eran todos del Partido Popular :P

Yo la verdad no estoy tan de acuerdo con la cosa de la independencia, el estatuto de Ibarretxe pide es más autonomía, no completa independencia, pero bueno, la política de mi otro país me está pidiendo más atención por cosas más graves.

¿La frase de Asturias se aplica también a la gente de Aragón? Estoy seguro que revientan con esa.

Por cierto, ya basta con lo ETA. Esa gente no aprende, hoy hicieron una gracia de las suyas otra vez. Ya estoy harta de eso, que aprendan de los irlandeses.

Yeah, fucking ETA, learn to lose. It's a bad thing when you mix communism with nation/regionalism.

As a socialist myself I would hope that the USA is ready for socialism.

However, I know that it is not the case.

In a nation of capitalists and murderers and hypocrites socialism is impossible.

The only way socialism will be greeted with open arms is when the excesses of the rich becomes too much. It is starting to happen.

The complete lack of oversight by government regulatory bodies, that let things like Enron, World Com, etc, happen is one factor. This becomes so much worse, as the people who weakened these government regulatories bodies, were often ivnvoled in the relevent industry before they got in to government and weakened all the rules.

The more people who die or get seriously debilitated, due to not being able to afford health care.

I think that it will take a bit more time, but socialism can succeed in the US.

Y yo que pensaba que los nacionalistas eran todos del Partido Popular :P

Yo la verdad no estoy tan de acuerdo con la cosa de la independencia, el estatuto de Ibarretxe pide es más autonomía, no completa independencia, pero bueno, la política de mi otro país me está pidiendo más atención por cosas más graves.

¿La frase de Asturias se aplica también a la gente de Aragón? Estoy seguro que revientan con esa.

Por cierto, ya basta con lo ETA. Esa gente no aprende, hoy hicieron una gracia de las suyas otra vez. Ya estoy harta de eso, que aprendan de los irlandeses.

Yeah, fucking ETA, learn to lose. It's a bad thing when you mix communism with nation/regionalism.


No tía no, que los nacionalistas están por todos lados. Yo simpatizo con Asturies Dixebrá, no con el PP. Y AD es un partido nacionalista separatista.;)

Con los vascos, ya está bueno. Yo creo que Zapatero debe considerar dejar la región ir. Claro, que eso será así únicamente si los vascos quieren eso. En cuanto a tu otro país, sólo le deseo lo mejor a los venezolanos y que ésto se resuelva sin más conflicto.

La frase se puede aplicar a cualquier provincia española. Los aragoneses y los extremeños la usan mucho.

En cuanto a ETA, a tomar por culo! Jejeje! Los españoles estamos seriamente hartos de ellos y de sus demandas. Vamos, si van a matar políticos, que se sercioren de que, en el mehoyo, no se llevan al cuerno a ciudadanos inocentes. Eso es lo más que jode. Pero los vascos, con respeto a tu herencia, pueden ser muy tercos. Joder, los asturianos también. A pedrás pero hasta que el cuerpo aguante.

:gundge:

If we ever adopt socialism, what's left of America as we know it will die.

If a person studied Spanish with a Mexican teacher, not a native speaker, as an example, Spanish from Mexico will be easier to follow.

I've never studied any Spanish whatsoever (although I presume it's structure is similar to French?). As I said before, I find Germanic languages way more intuitive (for me).

I've never studied any Spanish whatsoever (although I presume it's structure is similar to French?). As I said before, I find Germanic languages way more intuitive (for me).

The only similarity French and Spanish have is that they're both Romace languages descended from Latin. Grammatically and syntaxis-wise they couldn't be any more different.

If English is your mother tongue, of course Germanic languages will be more intuitive for you. It's the same with me and Romance languages like Italian and Portuguese. I can follow them quite well.

I've never studied any Spanish whatsoever (although I presume it's structure is similar to French?). As I said before, I find Germanic languages way more intuitive (for me).

Not really, italian, spanish, portuguese and french seems to be similar on the surfaces, but given the fact that the conjugation of the verbs is irregular in all of them, and each one use different ways in grammar to express verb tenses, it is easy to get lost.

Happened to me with each language. I tried french, failed, tried portuguese, failed, tried italian, failed.

However, I managed to have a decent, if flawed, english.

The only similarity French and Spanish have is that they're both Romace languages descended from Latin. Grammatically and syntaxis-wise they couldn't be any more different.

I guess that would be why my translation was so horrible.

However, I managed to have a decent, if flawed, english.

Flawed English? No way. You write and express yourself in English way better than some native speakers I know.

*Well this is off-topic XD, but I'll join in anyway.*

I have found that it is far easier to learn Germanic languages if your native tongue is indeed, Germanic, and the same goes for Romance languages.

I guess that would be why my translation was so horrible.

Don't worry. In essence, you kind of understood what I meant with the phrase.;)

Click Stand;13616197']The closest the U.S was/is ever going to get to socialism is the FDR level. We might get close to it, but that is pretty much the line in the sand.

Socialism doesn't work. Period. It breeds inefficiency, lack of motivation, and stifles innovation. Heavy taxation forces industry to crumble, creating shoddy products and few of them, and the rich bourgeois corporate CEO doesn't hurt, the average middle class worker does. Believe me, I used to be a hard core Communist, I've read every work by Lenin, Trotsky, Guevara, Mao, Marx and Engels. I understand the concept, but over time I've truly come to realise that its simply not a good ideology. And even if it were, the population of the United States isn't ready yet to say, "Yes! Absolutely! Take my money and redistribute it to help my fellow Americans! They're in need, let us support them!" No. The average American says, "Let the bastards get off their asses and get a job like the rest of us. Why should I pay taxes so that some lazy bum who was too busy chasing girls, doin drugs, and screwin around during highschool and didn't get an education or a skill, can have his monthly check and perpetuate it!"

No. America is not, has not, and never will be ready for Socialism.

Socialism doesn't work. Period. It breeds inefficiency, lack of motivation, and stifles innovation. Heavy taxation forces industry to crumble, creating shoddy products and few of them, and the rich bourgeois corporate CEO doesn't hurt, the average middle class worker does. Believe me, I used to be a hard core Communist, I've read every work by Lenin, Trotsky, Guevara, Mao, Marx and Engels. I understand the concept, but over time I've truly come to realise that its simply not a good ideology. And even if it were, the population of the United States isn't ready yet to say, "Yes! Absolutely! Take my money and redistribute it to help my fellow Americans! They're in need, let us support them!" No. The average American says, "Let the bastards get off their asses and get a job like the rest of us. Why should I pay taxes so that some lazy bum who was too busy chasing girls, doin drugs, and screwin around during highschool and didn't get an education or a skill, can have his monthly check and perpetuate it!"

No. America is not, has not, and never will be ready for Socialism.

Another guy that mixes communism with socialism.

Sweden and Norway contradict, at least in part, the bolded part.

Socialism doesn't work. Period. It breeds inefficiency, lack of motivation, and stifles innovation.

I beg to differ. Spain's a socialist country and it works just fine.

Heavy taxation forces industry to crumble, creating shoddy products and few of them…
http://www.igourmet.com/images/products/150wasa.jpg

This is a box of socialist crispbreads. They will stop a bullet. You can't tell me that's a shoddy product.

http://www.igourmet.com/images/products/150wasa.jpg

This is a box of socialist crispbreads. They will stop a bullet. You can't tell me that's a shoddy product.

I want some socialist crispbread! Who knows, it may someday save my life...

I want some socialist crispbread! Who knows, it may someday save my life...

You can probably purchase some at your local Safeway.

http://www.igourmet.com/images/products/150wasa.jpg

This is a box of socialist crispbreads. They will stop a bullet. You can't tell me that's a shoddy product.

Ummmmm, Wasa crispbreads. They're awesome with marmalade.

There's no way. Half of the U.S. still thinks Democrats are socialists.

There's no way. Half of the U.S. still thinks Democrats are socialists.

I don't think they are, but I think there's a definite trend in that direction.
Really, as long as no-one CALLS it a change in government or government type, it'd be ok. Just let us keep crowing about our ever-sacred Democracy. And put more money into the schools

I always get a laugh at socialists and communists who think the US is a free market system. It is so far from being free market it can barely be called capitalism - government regulation and control effects every minute part of life and controls everything from large corporations down to the farmwife who wants to sell some extra jars of preserves to neighbors.

While people are bashing Walmart, let me ask, just how exactly has Walmart destroyed small businesses and ruined local economies? Please, I would love to know how that mechanism works. What I see, is consumers finding that Walmart is much better at providing for their needs than the small shops that subsequently go out of business. Of course, who are those people who want the freedom to buy goods from whoever they want - obviously, for the good of the people, the people should only buy certain items from the provider designated by the committee, regardless of whether or not the people think they would be better off shopping elsewhere.

Free markets allow people to exercise free choice - they do what they feel is best for them. Any restraint of the free market is nothing more than one group using force to limit the actions of another.

The US is not, and hopefully never will, be 'ready' for socialism. I believe in the basic rights and freedoms of the individual - socialism requires people give up their freedom in the name of whatever political entity that seizes power to further the ends of those with political power. The complaints about the excessive influence of 'rich people' should be seen as calls for greater freedom in the marketplace, not less. More government control means those with greater political power can impose their will on everyone else - if you think Big Evil Corporation is bad now, just wait until it gets to tell you exactly what you are and are not allowed to buy, who you can buy it from, what job you can have, who you are allowed to do business with, etc etc, all in the name of 'the good of the people' of course. I would much rather nobody have the power to compel me to act against my own interest (and I am a much better judge of what is best for me than some public policy wonk).

What Aelosia states is true. It's an idiom. And this Spanish is doubly hard to understand because it's from Spain. If a person studied Spanish with a Mexican teacher, not a native speaker, as an example, Spanish from Mexico will be easier to follow. Aelosia doesn't have that problem because Spanish is her first language. Add to that the fact that I sometimes slip into my dialect and "juas", I make it doubly harder to follow. Ask Dyakovo. He has one hell of a time translating me.:p

Not always, when you slip into slang my translator certainly has a hard time of it, but I've gotten better at puzzling out the general meaning.

I always get a laugh at socialists and communists who think the US is a free market system.


Of course the US isn't a free market system. What's laughable is this idea that Capital desires or would tolerate a free market system.

An economic system characterized by strong competition and self-sufficient individuals is not condusive to profit. Thus the captains of industry run to their government and cartels to provide a little "economic stimulus."

The Free Market is blind to responsibility, that is it's problem.


Oligopoly is blind to responsibility. The actual market, which oligopoly destroys, is the highest level of individual and collective responsibility.


The mechanics the free marketeers adhere to do not guarantee anything!


Because these "free marketeers" are actually oligopolistic liars.

And if some people don't want the rest of the people to rule over them?

Until basic physics no longer applies and spacial and material scarcity (not enough stuff in not enough space) are abolished, some kind of orderly rationing or distribution is necessary. Thus rule of people over people is a situation we are stuck with. Like it or not.

If you want to build a rocket and shoot yourself off into deep space so you can do whatever you want without anyone "ruling" over you, by all means proceed. But as long as you stay here on earth, your desire to be free is going to be balanced with my desire to be free, since you have no greater claim to your freedom than I do to mine.

Thus, our goal is to balance everyone's legitimate desire for self-rule among the greatest number of people possible. Or, "democracy." I might not always get my way, but at least I have a say. That's life. Like it or not.

It is extremely easy for those with the greatest shares of wealth or market power to manipulate the economic process, alone or in concert.
Market power is not the same as political power though. Market power is just that someone makes a product that is so good (or others so bad) that many people want it, whether it is the product itself or just some attributes associated with it (for example how easy it is to get one).

The economic process is in reality billions of individual decisions. The only way someone could actually stop the market doing what it does to create a pareto optimal situation is to force these billions of decisions to be made in a different way. Any incidence of market power strong enough to change optimal pricing (not that the higher price couldn't tell you something too...) is necessarily short-lived because most industries exhibit no barriers to entry strong enough to stop creative destruction.

This is accomplished through government all the time, but government is nothing more than a specialized cartel. Reducing or abolishing one specific kind of cartel does not abolish cartels entirely. If one is going to achieve a "system...by itself" one is going to have to do much more to address the cartel problem. "Private" government is still government.
There has been research in recent times on mechanism design theory and the economics of the rule of law. Tentative suggestions are that law, ie the rules that apply to everyone, can be designed in such a way as to improve the performance of the market.

I don't disagree with that, as you know I'm not an anarchist. Some libertarians argue that the pareto optimality and utilitarian superiority of the market system is simply incidental, and that the real reason to support the market is moral. In that case the failure of the market to perform is still not a reason to start pointing guns at people.

Note though that I'm talking about cartel regulation, information distribution and a way to deal with externalities. None of this requires any more than a nightwatchman state, and it certainly wouldn't have the power to confer any advantages to any single business, while the modern state certainly does. If you put a loaded gun on the table and a bunch of kids around it, you can't be surprised if someone ends up getting hurt. It wouldn't even make sense to blame the kids.

A cartel is an oligopoly of a relative few producers who seek to curb competition for their own profit. But by decentralizing and distributing political power and wealth as widely as possible, one defeats the cartel by maximizing the number of self-sufficient individual market participants, thus maximizing competition. In this state of society, the market works.
A cartel is a few individual agents coming together to form a group. That can be a company, a union, a co-op and so on. In principle there is nothing wrong with that - it's when they start being formed out of companies that together hold enough market share to push up prices that there's a problem. There exists legislation at the moment to prevent this. It's not necessarily perfect, and the way it is applied reflects the poor quality of governance at times, but generally it works.

Short of a state of society where free individuals can approach each other from positions of political and economic equality, capitalism will continue to fail in similar fashion.
The thing is that if you need mechanisms to continuously make sure that no one gains or loses enough from a successful venture to no longer be equal, no market exists. You limit the ability of people to get out the economic benefit of what they create, and therefore the ability to actually maximise what would theoretically have been possible to achieve in terms of welfare. It's individual welfare maximisation that makes the market pareto optimal, take it out and whatever you have is not a market any more than Zimbabwe is a democracy.

You are confusing 'profitable' with 'efficient'.
People are catching shrimps in the north sea, shipping them of to Asian to get them flaked off, then ship them back over here.
That's not efficient.
Certainly is. Labour is a resource, just as fuel is. In the US, workers could be doing many things with their time: they could do lots of other well-paid jobs, they could be watching TV and collecting welfare money, they could be going back to school or university and so on. In Asia a worker has much fewer useful alternatives.

Since it makes sense, we can say that a worker will want at least as much money for doing the job as he would have gained in happiness from the next-best alternative. Let's say in the US that means $10 an hour and in Asia it's $1. These figures will also be impacted by the prices of stuff in the US and Asia, which in themselves are representations of supply and demand in those countries, and therefore convey information about the relative abundance of these goods - ie acting on them would be efficient.

Similar reasoning applies to land, buildings and machinery in the US. They all could have more productive alternative uses than the same stuff in Asia, and they might also have other positive attributes that I don't even need to flake shrimp and which paying for would be inefficient.

So if getting the things flaked in the US would cost me $10 million and only $2 million in Asia, and the fuel and shipping costs me and the world $5 million, then I save $3 million by doing it. That money is not just money, it's a collection of time, goods, services and so on that I would have put to a suboptimal use (ie wasted) if I had the shrimp flaked in the States.

Free Market is a system where those who can live of those who can't.
Now that's just silly. Didn't you just say that those who are unfit would die? How can the fit live off them? Indeed, if the unfit have something valuable enough to require the fit to have it, how exactly are they unfit in the first place? Wouldn't you now see in a market that the "fit" go to the "unfit" and exchanges goods and services for whatever it is the "unfit" have?

A trade is exactly that: I give you value and you give me value and we're both happy. That's the principle behind the free market. If you can find someone useless enough to provide absolutely no value to anyone (not even existence value to their friends and family), then yes, they wouldn't be part of the market. But as you said, they'd disappear either by dying or somehow discovering the ability to provide value afterall (for example by surviving in the wild). They're not necessary for the market to work, at best they're a hindrance. And that's true for any system in which such a useless person was to exist. Giving anything to someone who can't give anything back is a net loss to society. It's taking from everyone (or just some people) to give to this useless person.

That's not a civilised system, but it's precisely what some people advocate when they talk about positive and unconditional human rights to things that have to be produced.

Stickiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_%28economics%29) doesn't need to be imposed in order to occur.
The nice thing about that is that it's removing itself through greater dissemination of information thanks to technology. Markets with the greatest amount of technology and globalisation in them (such as financial markets) exhibit pretty much no stickiness. As soon as they do, people swarm on it to arbitrage the hell out of it.

As technology progresses and makes other goods and services similarly easy to move around the world, we can expect the same in those markets as well.

This statement cannot be consistent with what I assume are your beliefs concerning the efficiency of the free market, as the free market is itself a from of collective decision making.
If you want to become abstract, you could look at it that way. In reality there is no collective coming together to actually make a decision and no need to consider anything but your own welfare when making the lots and lots of individual decisions you make.

That being said, the market still produces compromises of course. Few of us can buy exactly what we want unless we have it made to our specifications. We generally pick something as close to what we'd ideally want as possible.

But that's in output. As far as production is concerned producers can go ahead single-mindedly and do what is objectively the best option. The criterion is clear: profit = optimal use of available scarce resources. If everyone does that, we get a pareto optimal outcome.

A means of production that is controlled democratically doesn't go for profit, but for whatever the majority wants. That majority needs to have no connection to reality, since socialist systems protect the members from having to face the harsh reality of having made an economically bad decision. Even if we have a "The Take" scenario and the workers themselves are the only voters while "society" in general isn't represented (which makes you wonder to what extend that's democratic at all), the only way the production process will lead to a pareto optimal outcome is if the voting is done with profit in mind and nothing else, and the same is true for all the other factories as well. The only way for this to be the case if we call it socialism, but all the economic entities still act like it's capitalism.

So yeah, that's compatible with capitalism. The question is whether it's any different, or (given that worker-controlled co-ops already exist and starting them up especially is an easy process) whether the system really already exists.

Equality and fairness are necessary conditions for efficiency. Unless the economic turmoil caused by the artificial manipulations of cartels (the oligopoly possessing and exploiting a disproportionate share of political and economic power) is some how "efficient."
Even if what you said where true, then equality and fairness aren't conditions of efficiency, but secondary effects of it. If the thing that causes things to be unfair is inefficient, then the problem isn't its unfairness, but its inefficiency. It's also perfectly possible that something that is efficient be considered unfair or something that is considered fair is inefficient.

The link just isn't there. They are seperate criteria, and if they somehow overlap occasionally that doesn't mean one equals the other.

Another guy that mixes communism with socialism.

Sweden and Norway contradict, at least in part, the bolded part.
Except that Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries. Quite commitedly so, in fact.

Except that Sweden and Norway are capitalist countries. Quite commitedly so, in fact.

How do you figure? Sweden and Norway are both some of the most social Social Democracies on the planet.

How do you figure? Sweden and Norway are both some of the most social Social Democracies on the planet.
This might give you a hint: http://www.omxnordicexchange.com/

Private property is alive and well in Scandinavia. Tax rates are high, but that means jack all. Before Reagan some of the top incremental tax rates in the US were in the 80+% range, but even so you wouldn't have called the place anything other than capitalist.

Capitalism is a system in which means of production are privately owned. That is the case in social democracies. They have capitalism with a welfare state, but capitalism nonetheless.

EDIT: And as far as economic freedom is concerned: http://www.heritage.org/Index/countries.cfm
Sweden on 27 and Norway on 34. Look at some of the countries below them...Czech Republic, South Korea, France etc etc.

I beg to differ. Spain's a socialist country and it works just fine.

It may be good enough for the Spaniards...

Long live capitalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No Socialism for the US.

Capitalism is a system in which means of production are privately owned. That is the case in social democracies. They have capitalism with a welfare state, but capitalism nonetheless.

I say social democracy is socialism, you say it isn't. ;)

Ready for? That Marxist assumption is based on ignorance of both the populace of and economic systems of capitalist countries. No, I don't think that the US is ready for socialism, we are doing well enough in our present state (don't even try to mention the current "recession", there have been multiple recessions in the history of the capitalist world, and in the US in specific, and we're still here as capitalist) and there really wouldn't be too much advantage to moving to a socialist system. Plus there is such a stigma against socialism and communism in this country that it is unlikely that we would move there any time in the foreseeable future.

Market power is not the same as political power though. Market power is just that someone makes a product that is so good (or others so bad) that many people want it, whether it is the product itself or just some attributes associated with it (for example how easy it is to get one).


Market and political power are not exactly the same, but they are highly intertwined. What you're really describing is the power of the consumer. What I'm after is the power of the producer, his or her ability to spend wealth in such a way as to influence what is produced, how it is produced, or even what the consumer wants (or what the consumer thinks he wants). And, of course, we are familiar with how wealth is spent in order to influence the political process.

Maybe "market power" isn't an accurate name.


The economic process is in reality billions of individual decisions. The only way someone could actually stop the market doing what it does to create a pareto optimal situation is to force these billions of decisions to be made in a different way. Any incidence of market power strong enough to change optimal pricing (not that the higher price couldn't tell you something too...) is necessarily short-lived because most industries exhibit no barriers to entry strong enough to stop creative destruction.


I'm not trying to stop the market from doing what it does. I want the market to do what it does. I simply recognize how concentrated wealth stops the market from doing what it does, especially when that wealth helps fund manipulation.


I don't disagree with that, as you know I'm not an anarchist.


Anarchism is not opposed to law. Indeed, if you really look at it, the ills that anarchists deplore occur when law is violated or dodged rather than enforced.


Note though that I'm talking about cartel regulation, information distribution and a way to deal with externalities. None of this requires any more than a nightwatchman state, and it certainly wouldn't have the power to confer any advantages to any single business, while the modern state certainly does.


The problem with the "night-watchman state" is its (inevitable?) tendency to become the "modern state." At least, this will occur if the night-watchman state persists in implementing a hierarchical social order of those who rule and those who are ruled, which is the basic structure of the cartel and any other sort of oligarchy. It may begin small, but the political and economic gains to be had will make it large very quickly.

This is why I prefer the "community watch" sort of model. Minimize the size of the jurisdiction, as in the night-watchman state, but then distribute the power and responsibility to as many individuals as possible in order to eliminate the distinction between rulers and ruled. Anti-cartel efforts are sure to be more successful if everyone has a reason to share that interest.


A cartel is a few individual agents coming together to form a group. That can be a company, a union, a co-op and so on.


I've always heard the word used within the context of extra-market manipulations.


The thing is that if you need mechanisms to continuously make sure that no one gains or loses enough from a successful venture to no longer be equal, no market exists.


Only if we assume that people need to be absolutely and perfectly equal all the way down to the last cent. I would actually agree that this is probably impossible and even undesirable. The far more important "equality," however, is political in nature. Ownership and control. For that all one needs is a particular kind of partnership or corporate structure, most of which are perfectly compatable with market enterprise. A far more equitable distribution of wealth will follow, and although by no means a perfect equality, it will (hopefully) be enough to start putting nails in the cartel's coffin.


It's individual welfare maximisation that makes the market pareto optimal...


Absolutely. But the individual needs to be able to operate in an environment where he or she can pursue that maximization. This requires collective defense against those who would exercise their power to destroy the market. Defense via the state (even if night-watchman) is a poor approach as this state still thrives on conflict between those with and without power. The community watch is the socialist/anarchist solution.


If you want to become abstract, you could look at it that way. In reality there is no collective coming together to actually make a decision and no need to consider anything but your own welfare when making the lots and lots of individual decisions you make.


One does not literally have to march everyone into the same room and take a vote in order to have collective decision making. So long as supply and demand are aggregate measures, their interplay constitutes collective decision making.

99.9% of the time, the market simply doesn't care about my wants and desires as an individual. I only get what I want if other people share my wants in numbers high enough to convince a producer to take the risk. The market listens only to the collective.


That being said, the market still produces compromises of course. Few of us can buy exactly what we want unless we have it made to our specifications. We generally pick something as close to what we'd ideally want as possible.


Democracy works in exactly the same way, but for some reason it is a horrible bad thing among many market advocates. Why this is continues to baffle me.


A means of production that is controlled democratically doesn't go for profit, but for whatever the majority wants.


Unless the majority decide they want to make a profit. This doesn't appear to be the case now because the majority are the employees who do not own and control the means of production (in any really meaningful sense; yes, an employee can technically afford two whole shares of stock, but...). As an employee, my interests, my wages and benefits, are a cost to my employer. Built right into the relationship is a struggle between interests. It is only inevitable that, within this context, the majority of employees are going to seek their own interests and not that of the business which employs them.

If, however, this distinction does not exist, there is a reason for members of a workplace to pursue profit in the course of their collective decision making. I'd assume that most workers would want to take in as much profit as possible, in order to increase the size of their own share.


Even if we have a "The Take" scenario and the workers themselves are the only voters while "society" in general isn't represented (which makes you wonder to what extend that's democratic at all)...


Society is indeed represented, through the marketplace. But even then, why should those with no internal relationship to the workplace need any direct control over the internal operations of said workplace? Community watch means I watch my community and you watch yours.


So yeah, that's compatible with capitalism. The question is whether it's any different, or (given that worker-controlled co-ops already exist and starting them up especially is an easy process) whether the system really already exists.


It is hugely different in that free and productive individuals will be in a far better position to implement collective defense against those who seek to disrupt the market. One can hardly blame these free and productive individuals from seeking a solution other than the state, seeing as how the state is historically in the pockets of those that disrupt.

And it isn't enough to point to a relative handful of social enterprises and conclude that all is A-OK. A single tuna in a sea of sharks isn't going to last long.


Even if what you said where true, then equality and fairness aren't conditions of efficiency, but secondary effects of it.
...
The link just isn't there. They are seperate criteria, and if they somehow overlap occasionally that doesn't mean one equals the other.


Efficiency is the product of equality and fairness. Free association and voluntary trade produce efficiency, yes? Are not free association and voluntary trade meaningless outside of basic political and economic equality and the rules and regulations needed to ensure that agreements are honored ("fairness")? The issue then is how best to defend equality and fairness in order to make free association and voluntary trade possible.

Again, all I suggest is the community watch, rather than the night-watchman.

While people are bashing Walmart, let me ask, just how exactly has Walmart destroyed small businesses and ruined local economies? Please, I would love to know how that mechanism works. What I see, is consumers finding that Walmart is much better at providing for their needs than the small shops that subsequently go out of business. Of course, who are those people who want the freedom to buy goods from whoever they want - obviously, for the good of the people, the people should only buy certain items from the provider designated by the committee, regardless of whether or not the people think they would be better off shopping elsewhere.Yes, because when people have historically bought from Wal-Mart, they knew beforehand the devastating effect that it would have on the town around them and decided that blight was worth it. Or not, which is why Wal-Mart is frequently opposed when a new location is proposed.

Free markets allow people to exercise free choice Free markets allow people with money to exercise free choice, to a degree.

- they do what they feel is best for them.Under the present circumstances.

Any restraint of the free market is nothing more than one group using force to limit the actions of another.The creation of private property was nothing more than one group using force to limit the actions of another.

The US is not, and hopefully never will, be 'ready' for socialism. I believe in the basic rights and freedoms of the individual - socialism requires people give up their freedom in the name of whatever political entity that seizes power to further the ends of those with political power. The complaints about the excessive influence of 'rich people' should be seen as calls for greater freedom in the marketplace, not less. More government control means those with greater political power can impose their will on everyone else - if you think Big Evil Corporation is bad now, just wait until it gets to tell you exactly what you are and are not allowed to buy, who you can buy it from, what job you can have, who you are allowed to do business with, etc etc, all in the name of 'the good of the people' of course. I would much rather nobody have the power to compel me to act against my own interest (and I am a much better judge of what is best for me than some public policy wonk).All the more reason equalize both economic power and political power.

Note though that I'm talking about cartel regulation, information distribution and a way to deal with externalities. None of this requires any more than a nightwatchman state, and it certainly wouldn't have the power to confer any advantages to any single business, while the modern state certainly does.So a nightwatchman state wouldn't have the capacity to declare that a particular business wasn't a cartel, while its competitor was? Or to distribute information more efficiently to one business instead of another?

The nice thing about that is that it's removing itself through greater dissemination of information thanks to technology. Markets with the greatest amount of technology and globalisation in them (such as financial markets) exhibit pretty much no stickiness. As soon as they do, people swarm on it to arbitrage the hell out of it.

As technology progresses and makes other goods and services similarly easy to move around the world, we can expect the same in those markets as well.Technology could remove problems due to lack of information, and reduce menu costs sometimes, but it wouldn't affect wage stickiness in most cases.

every time america has blindly expected market forces alone to take care of everything, it has majorly screwed itself as a resault. that is how the twenties gave us the thirties.

and it had happened before that too. in the 1870s and agian in the 1890s. and probably a couple of times before that too.

and its happening again now. only now of course it isn't just one country, because corporate economics has become a contiguous monolith, that doesn't give a dam about any country, no mater how otherwise powerful.

sure capitolism might work, as it almost did, when retailing was mom and pop and infrastructure was unionised. might even work better without corporate personhood and the treasury subcontracted to a private corporation of bankers called the federal reserve.

all of those would be good things, but it still would not insure an adiqute infrastructures of public transportation, education, or health care. just to name three obvious ones right of the top of my head.

another little detail, when the corporation owns the state, corporate media IS state media.

=^^=
.../\...

Oh, quote ripped, how I love that.
I assume you are in agreement with the rest of my statement, else you would have responded to it in any way or form... I for once did only read the parts of your post in response to mine.

Since it makes sense, we can say that a worker will want at least as much money for doing the job as he would have gained in happiness from the next-best alternative. Let's say in the US that means $10 an hour and in Asia it's $1. These figures will also be impacted by the prices of stuff in the US and Asia, which in themselves are representations of supply and demand in those countries, and therefore convey information about the relative abundance of these goods - ie acting on them would be efficient.

Similar reasoning applies to land, buildings and machinery in the US. They all could have more productive alternative uses than the same stuff in Asia, and they might also have other positive attributes that I don't even need to flake shrimp and which paying for would be inefficient.

So if getting the things flaked in the US would cost me $10 million and only $2 million in Asia, and the fuel and shipping costs me and the world $5 million, then I save $3 million by doing it. That money is not just money, it's a collection of time, goods, services and so on that I would have put to a suboptimal use (ie wasted) if I had the shrimp flaked in the States.

Now that's just silly. Didn't you just say that those who are unfit would die? How can the fit live off them? Indeed, if the unfit have something valuable enough to require the fit to have it, how exactly are they unfit in the first place? Wouldn't you now see in a market that the "fit" go to the "unfit" and exchanges goods and services for whatever it is the "unfit" have?

A trade is exactly that: I give you value and you give me value and we're both happy. That's the principle behind the free market. If you can find someone useless enough to provide absolutely no value to anyone (not even existence value to their friends and family), then yes, they wouldn't be part of the market. But as you said, they'd disappear either by dying or somehow discovering the ability to provide value afterall (for example by surviving in the wild). They're not necessary for the market to work, at best they're a hindrance. And that's true for any system in which such a useless person was to exist. Giving anything to someone who can't give anything back is a net loss to society. It's taking from everyone (or just some people) to give to this useless person.

Those both bits go together well, cause you know, because the Asian market where people work in near slave labor conditions because they have no other choice! They are unfit to choose whether to trade their goods (working power) or not. And it is 'profitable' not efficient, to exploit that.
Your theory goes that market price is at all times a precise reflection of value, of demand and request. However, this is not true. In a free market, those who control large parts of monetary flux and/or infrastructure can dictate prices far apart from any accurate reflection. And it's profitable to do so, so they do. So they MUST do, because profit is all that matters, not efficiency.

That's not a civilised system, but it's precisely what some people advocate when they talk about positive and unconditional human rights to things that have to be produced.
Yeah, that's not a civilized system. It is promoting a ruling of the strong over the weak. We abolished this for individuals, we abolished this for Politics... economics is one of the few major powers which refuses to have their rights and freedoms limited where other people's rights and freedoms begin.

Not always, when you slip into slang my translator certainly has a hard time of it, but I've gotten better at puzzling out the general meaning.

Yeah, but you have conversations with me in Spanish quite often. You practice.:D

It may be good enough for the Spaniards...

:rolleyes:
Typical answer from a person that obviously knows absolutely nothing about Spain.
Perhaps mediocry is good enough for the US since they're so afraid of other political systems.

I say social democracy is socialism, you say it isn't. ;)
Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are two different things, if you look at it closely. The former has been abandoned by centre-left parties for many decades now. And since the reforms of the 90s (brought about in part because the old system was failing at dealing with changed economic conditions in the world) Scandinavia isn't what it used to be either.

Anyways, if someone says "socialism works" and uses Scandinavia as an example, then accurately deciding whether or not Scandinavia is actually socialist becomes pretty important. It's then not a matter on which we can agree to disagree.

Market and political power are not exactly the same, but they are highly intertwined. What you're really describing is the power of the consumer. What I'm after is the power of the producer, his or her ability to spend wealth in such a way as to influence what is produced, how it is produced, or even what the consumer wants (or what the consumer thinks he wants). And, of course, we are familiar with how wealth is spent in order to influence the political process.
Lets take the political process out of it. Neither of us wants a world with politicians, or in which participating in politics can confer any individual economic advantage.

What is left is the distinction between producers and consumers, which is baseless. Everyone both consumes and produces, and if what is being produced is not popular, then it will stop being produced.

As for marketing, I think you should try to get to a few lectures of a marketing course. You'll find that no marketer ever tries to create a want or a need, because it's impossible.

I'm not trying to stop the market from doing what it does. I want the market to do what it does. I simply recognize how concentrated wealth stops the market from doing what it does, especially when that wealth helps fund manipulation.
Except that the wealth is the product, outcome and characteristic of a market. Something in which I can't accumulate extraordinary amounts of wealth if I provide great amounts of value isn't a market economy.

The problem with the "night-watchman state" is its (inevitable?) tendency to become the "modern state." At least, this will occur if the night-watchman state persists in implementing a hierarchical social order of those who rule and those who are ruled, which is the basic structure of the cartel and any other sort of oligarchy. It may begin small, but the political and economic gains to be had will make it large very quickly.
Hence why I propose rule by constitution. Politicians will be reduced to meaninglessness. What works with regards to monetary policy and central bank independence should also work for any other function of government - and funding for anything but a basic amount of services no one can opt out of can be voluntary.

A state that is being limited like this can't grow unless the constitution is changed, for which there will be no legal avenues. The only way is revolution.

This is why I prefer the "community watch" sort of model. Minimize the size of the jurisdiction, as in the night-watchman state, but then distribute the power and responsibility to as many individuals as possible in order to eliminate the distinction between rulers and ruled. Anti-cartel efforts are sure to be more successful if everyone has a reason to share that interest.
There shouldn't be any ruling at all. My state is supposed to coordinate and facilitate.

I've always heard the word used within the context of extra-market manipulations.
That's because it is most often used to refer to price-fixing and the like. But in essence there is no difference between two cardboard firms making such a secret deal or a union wanting to negotiate a common labour contract. The difference is that in one the economic inefficiency created is acknowledged to be bad, in the other it isn't.

The far more important "equality," however, is political in nature. Ownership and control.
Ownership and control aren't political. Where is the switch-over between me owning a dollar and me owning a factory? There is none, there is no argument to be made (even on the basis of externalities) that can establish a difference in principle.

For that all one needs is a particular kind of partnership or corporate structure, most of which are perfectly compatable with market enterprise. A far more equitable distribution of wealth will follow, and although by no means a perfect equality, it will (hopefully) be enough to start putting nails in the cartel's coffin.
The only thing it will start burying is entrepreneurialism. Having an idea and putting it into practice requires autonomy, which cannot be possible if control of something is shared. It's in the nature of great things that most people don't think they can be done, and then it takes the few great people who do to actually do them. Whenever you're limited by having to assign similar or greater importance to the opinion of others there end up being many things that you can't do.

Defense via the state (even if night-watchman) is a poor approach as this state still thrives on conflict between those with and without power. The community watch is the socialist/anarchist solution.
There is no one with power if the state is reduced that way. That's the whole point: eliminate power to alocate tax money and legislative force to interest groups and you eliminate the need for politicians, lobbying and any sort of active connection between business and politics, voting and economics.

Put the community watch in charge and you get people with no qualifications and aspirations telling you what to do. You can convince a banker that a new factory for baby food is a good idea. You can't convince an environmentalist.

Freedom is about being seperated from the chain that the rest of humanity represents. That's not always completely possible, but your direction is the wrong one.

99.9% of the time, the market simply doesn't care about my wants and desires as an individual. I only get what I want if other people share my wants in numbers high enough to convince a producer to take the risk. The market listens only to the collective.
That's only in the specific case in which you don't spend enough to make production worthwhile. It's quite possible to have a car built exactly to your specification. It's just not cheap.

But there is literally no possible way to get a democracy to impose exactly the policies you want. Unless you brainwash or threaten everyone, in which case it's not really a democracy anymore.

Democracy works in exactly the same way, but for some reason it is a horrible bad thing among many market advocates. Why this is continues to baffle me.
Because democracy has no option-out clause. The market does.

It is only inevitable that, within this context, the majority of employees are going to seek their own interests and not that of the business which employs them.
Have you ever considered that if someone had the skill, intelligence and drive to make good business decisions, they wouldn't be working on a conveyor belt? The sample of people who you want to give control over is biased in a certain direction, and so are the decisions they make.

Furthermore just because you distribute all the revenues to employees rather than just a part of them doesn't change that they're still making self-interested decisions. And if the business isn't mine, but that of a 500-strong workforce, why in hell's name would I identify with it? Any dollar put into the business creates some return that is then divided by 500 before I get it back. Any dollar I take out of the business is mine completely. So unless you end up investing something extremely profitably, chances are you're better off grabbing what you can while you can.

And it isn't enough to point to a relative handful of social enterprises and conclude that all is A-OK. A single tuna in a sea of sharks isn't going to last long.
Are you saying that co-ops are at a disadvantage compared to privately-run enterprises?

Are not free association and voluntary trade meaningless outside of basic political and economic equality and the rules and regulations needed to ensure that agreements are honored ("fairness")?
Free association and voluntary trade means I need to have the option to choose course X, given my resources available. There is no politics and no equality involved here. We can be very unequal and still voluntarily trade with each other.

So a nightwatchman state wouldn't have the capacity to declare that a particular business wasn't a cartel, while its competitor was? Or to distribute information more efficiently to one business instead of another?
The first case: no, because a business can't be a cartel. It takes more than one party, and unless the relevant department fails to implement the rules stated in the constitution with regards to anti-trust proceedings, it can't pick one but not another.

The latter case is also a no. Information distribution means creating the means by which market participants can make effective decisions, ie collecting prices and product attributes and making them publically available. It can't collect any data that would give a business a competitive edge over another, because such data is not required for market participants to make decisions that lead to pareto optimality.

Technology could remove problems due to lack of information, and reduce menu costs sometimes, but it wouldn't affect wage stickiness in most cases.
Wage stickiness is usually the product of contracts which lock a certain price in place for a while. That's not really a problem, it represents risk management given uncertainty about the future. The principle telling us that market outcomes are pareto optimal would still hold in such a case.

Oh, quote ripped, how I love that.
I assume you are in agreement with the rest of my statement, else you would have responded to it in any way or form... I for once did only read the parts of your post in response to mine.
The rest of your post was a non sequitur that didn't contribute anything to the discussion. Things like "the market is blind to responsibility" are not just blatantly false, but also not motivated by rational thought. There is no argument I could make that would persuade you otherwise.

Talking about efficiency on the other hand is a different matter. Whether or not something is efficient is something to be determined rationally, and I thought that if I explain to you the steps involved, you'd change your mind at least on that issue.

Those both bits go together well, cause you know, because the Asian market where people work in near slave labor conditions because they have no other choice!
Actually, they do. Right now millions of Chinese people are moving from the countryside to the industrial cities to do factory/sweatshop work. There have been plenty of interviews, news articles and so on and so forth about this phenomenon.

What's their reason? Doing farm work really, really sucks. People have realised that in Europe, in America, in Asia and will in Africa once the opportunity comes up (the process has actually started already). It's called urbanisation and it's a reflection of just how poor living in the countryside of a poor country is. Fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of cases there is no force, no lying and no outside pressure involved in sweatshops. People go there and work in frankly inhumane conditions, and that is still better than the even worse conditions and even worse rewards they got before.

That doesn't mean they don't have a choice. They have it, and they make it. And eventually these workers' kids will choose differently and go to school, becoming middle class people instead. We've seen it time and time again - that's the process.

The reason lies, just as I said, in the opportunity costs given by the environment they're living in.

They are unfit to choose whether to trade their goods (working power) or not. And it is 'profitable' not efficient, to exploit that.
Of course they choose. They choose to go there, and then they choose a company to work for out of many. Indeed, the very fact that they have a good in the first place tells us that they're not comparable to the sort of person who literally cannot provide value that you described as being destroyed by capitalism - or more accurately: you described them as being "those who can't live". Which is scarily accurate, you just didn't connect the dots and drew the necessary conclusions.

Your theory goes that market price is at all times a precise reflection of value, of demand and request. However, this is not true. In a free market, those who control large parts of monetary flux and/or infrastructure can dictate prices far apart from any accurate reflection. And it's profitable to do so, so they do. So they MUST do, because profit is all that matters, not efficiency.
And I'm putting it to you that these people are created or supported by government, and that if you can find any who aren't this profit is a return on the entrepreneurial risk-taking and ideas that brought them to this position and that this is only temporary.

Yeah, that's not a civilized system. It is promoting a ruling of the strong over the weak. We abolished this for individuals, we abolished this for Politics... economics is one of the few major powers which refuses to have their rights and freedoms limited where other people's rights and freedoms begin.
You misunderstood what I said. You said that letting those who can't live die is not civilised, and contrasted that with socialism's "ideas of community, common responsibility and solidarity".

Which implies that those who would actually be left for dead in capitalism, ie the completely and utterly value-less, would not be left for dead in socialism. Which means that they need to get things which are produced in return for precisely nothing, not as a trade but because it's their right and our responsibility to provide it.

In effect it's them ruling over our produce and therefore our time, effort, skills, indeed our entire lives. The moment I have to give the bum on the road something the relationship is reversed. He has me in his complete power and I am the one who has to beg to keep any of the wealth I created (up to the point where we're both equally poor). I must provide him with value, precisely because he has none and cannot or will not produce any.

That's what I called uncivilised. It's barbaric, grotesque and, frankly, plain evil.

I don't ask to rule over anyone or anything other than myself. I only ask for the option not to have to talk to someone, trade with someone or otherwise associate with them. I want to be a sovereign human being. That necessarily implies being strong rather than weak, but really anyone who would want anything different is not worth my attention.

You misunderstood what I said. You said that letting those who can't live die is not civilised, and contrasted that with socialism's "ideas of community, common responsibility and solidarity".

Which implies that those who would actually be left for dead in capitalism, ie the completely and utterly value-less, would not be left for dead in socialism. Which means that they need to get things which are produced in return for precisely nothing, not as a trade but because it's their right and our responsibility to provide it.

In effect it's them ruling over our produce and therefore our time, effort, skills, indeed our entire lives. The moment I have to give the bum on the road something the relationship is reversed. He has me in his complete power and I am the one who has to beg to keep any of the wealth I created (up to the point where we're both equally poor). I must provide him with value, precisely because he has none and cannot or will not produce any.

That's what I called uncivilised. It's barbaric, grotesque and, frankly, plain evil.
You yourself overdraw the concept into the grotesque, as if I would say that Capitalism is effectively enslaving people with the threat not to be able to buy food to live.

The principle is not to give 'value-less' people the control over wealth

I don't ask to rule over anyone or anything other than myself. I only ask for the option not to have to talk to someone, trade with someone or otherwise associate with them. I want to be a sovereign human being. That necessarily implies being strong rather than weak, but really anyone who would want anything different is not worth my attention.
What you want is an utopia. And I will try to explain you why.

The problem is, in our capitalistic society, it is usus not to accept the gradual and slow natural grow of prosperity and wealth of the society as a whole... which in itself IS sufficient to let everyone live comfortable! ... it is however the point of capititalism to compete over wealth. To gain wealth by taking it from others.
You say a trade is giving something of value and receiving something else of equal value. But that's not true and you know it. There are many forms of wealth, many forms of valueless goods, and many forms of empty trades, which all are in no way efficient, but merely profitable for one side of the business.
It is goal of a capitalistic trade to give as little as possible and receive as much as possible in return.
An uncontrolled, free market, will ultimately lead to a plutocracy, a tyranny of the wealthy.
And since 4000 years, the idea of free trade and capitalism... even if not called as this, but practiced non the less... over and over again shook the world with wars, starvations, colonialism and crimes against all humanity.

The Ideas of socialism do not involve merely taking everybody's wealth and distributing it evenly among everybody.
That would be foolish.
The Socialistic Ideas promote responsibility for more than just yourself, but also for those who you affect with your trades. You can't say 'It's my business alone what I do' when the things you do actually affect a lot other people... for a better or a worse.
Everyone in society carries a responsibility. it's the very concept of social behavior that in a group of individuals, every individual takes up some responsibility and some work in order to further the whole of the society.

When you say you want the freedom not to associate with someone, not to trade with someone etc, then you have to realize that the only thing which can grant and ensure you such rights... any rights... is society. And the only way society CAN do that is when everyone carries their part of responsibility... and you too.

And to say it again, socialism isn't about taking from all to give everyone and equal part. BUT, socialism... civilization in itself is about a group of individuals bunching up for protection, safety and help. We cannot deny those in need the help they need to actually survive. And in a capitalistic society, this help just won't come voluntarily, because wealth does require constant, maximal profit... and helping those in need is not profitable... because they have nothing to give back.

The Socialistic Idea is a community of Individuals, where those individuals of great strength use part of their strength to help the weakest. For what? Not for efficiency. Not for profit. Because of the fact that we all are human beings, and because in order to maintain a society in which even a strong individual enjoys rights and freedoms, we need to address everyones needs. The realization of this fact. The fact that you ARE part of the society, with all its benefits, but also with all its responsibilities... that is civilization.

And as for being a sovereign human being... there are two ways to archive that. One is in the frame society does set for you and everyone else. This can never be a total sovereignty, because society DOES limit. DOES redirect resources from every individual to address the need of the whole system.
The only way to be a completely sovereign human being... is to actually defy all society. To shard off all responsibilities and to forfeit all rights and freedoms.
From there on, you are on your own. Thats sovereignty.

"Ready" for socialism?

The better question is: Is the US stupid enough to let itself be lured into the political and economic roach motel that is socialism?

The answer to that question is: That's why we have the Second Amendment. :mp5:

As the old saying goes, there are only two places where socialism can possibly work (let alone work better than free-enterprise capitalism): heaven, where they don't need it, and hell, where they already have it :p

I'm normally not a violent man, but the day the United States adopts socialism as its economic system is the day I grab my gun and organize an armed libertarian revolution (something I think is long overdue in America anyway). I consider the United States to have way too many socialist tendancies as it is, it does not need more. As someone who works in the academic setting and deals with self-proclaimed socialists all the time, I personally think socialists need to get over their high-horse guilty consciences and get in tune with reality. What is reality?

1. Full ownership of property is among the most basic and fundamental rights in a free state. If you do not own your own property (weather it is the means of production or otherwise), you are property at the mercy of your government.

2. The GDP per capita of the United States crushes the largely socialist European Union's GDP per capita $46,000 to $32,900. (Source, CIA Factbook)

3. The United States has an unemployment rate of 4.6% as opposed to the EU's 8.5%. (Source, CIA Factbook).. Ironic that a movement that "supports the working man" puts the working man out of work.

In short, the only way that Europe trumps the United States economically is the value of the Euro compared to the value of the dollar. Greed is good, ladies and gentleman, I suggest you all learn that fact. All Socialism does is it forces business to move to more capitalist friendly countries OR requires them to raise prices to extremely high levels and lay off workers and/or not hire new ones.

I think that Europe is Socialist.

Europe isn't Socialist.

Europe isn't Socialist.

Though many European governments disagree.

Though many European governments disagree.

In name and in some of their rhetoric perhaps, but few major modern European parties offer a real attempt at encouraging public ownership of the means of production.

Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy are two different things, if you look at it closely. The former has been abandoned by centre-left parties for many decades now.

Well, yes, and for good reason. It isn't popular. ;)
I'd say that actually democratic socialism and social democracy are completely different things. I was going to explain myself in my own words, but why do that when Wikipedia can explain for me instead:
One way to delineate between social democratic parties (or movements) and democratic socialist ones, would be to think of social democracy as moving left from capitalism and democratic socialism as moving right from Marxism.
Democratic socialism and social democracy are both socialist positions (with similar goals), but the latter is far more reformist, advocating a moderate and very gradual shift towards collective ownership.

The Ideas of socialism do not involve merely taking everybody's wealth and distributing it evenly among everybody.

And to say it again, socialism isn't about taking from all to give everyone and equal part. BUT, socialism... civilization in itself is about a group of individuals bunching up for protection, safety and help. We cannot deny those in need the help they need to actually survive. And in a capitalistic society, this help just won't come voluntarily, because wealth does require constant, maximal profit... and helping those in need is not profitable... because they have nothing to give back.


So since a man has a job, he should be assessed an extra mortgage in order to help pay the mortgage or rent of those in the local area who can't or won't work. Because he has a job, shop owners need to charge him double since he needs to help pay for food that those that can not or do not work can eat.

Because a man can work, he becomes a slave to those who can't or do not wish to. Socialism (along with human nature...you only have to look as far as welfare to see this) encourages people to find an excuse to let others take care of them...and the man that works takes the brunt of it.

You are basically saying that Self-Sacrifice is the moral duty of all people. I say that Self-Sacrifice is the obscene and senseless suicide of slaves. Is it wrong that I would not happily sacrifice myself or my well-being for some street thugs or gang-bangers? Is it cruel not to willingly sacrifice what is mine to any greedy wretch who lusts to possess plundered goods, the un-earned, even if it would mean the difference between being able to feed my own family or watching them go without?

Self-Sacrifice for a value held dear, for a life held dear, for freedom and the freedom of those you respect - such as mine for my wife or children - is the only rationally valid sacrifice. To be selfless means you are a slave who must surrender your most priceless possession - your life and health - to any smirking theif who demands it.

The suicide of self-sacrifice is but a requirement imposed by masters on slaves. Socialism puts a knife to a man's throat and strips him of what he has earned via his hand and mind. It is only to the good of the one with the knife, and those who by weight of numbers but not reason dictate what is the good of all. Life is precious. That's why sacrifice for freedom and loved ones is rational: it is for life itself and your ability to live it that you act, since life without freedom is the slow, sure death of self-sacrifice to the 'good; of mankind - who is always someone else.

MAnkind is just a collection of individuals. Why should everyone's life be more important, more precious, more valuable than yours? Mindless mandatory self-sacrifice is insane.

Karshkovia, I really advice you to read, consider and respond to my whole post instead of picking just the passages you have an easy rebuttal handy for.

All you do is ranting nonsense about something which isn't socialism, and things which I never advocated... actually things my very post you butchered refuted already.

You are not debating, you are being populistic here, and I frankly wont waste my time nor nerves to repeat what I stated before in absolute clearance merely to give you the satisfaction of being able to ignore my words again to spout your phobic, over-emotionalized and baseless rhetorics.

The question isn't is the USA ready for socialism, the question is "is the rest of the world ready for capitalism?"

Socialism is a failed ideology that defeats its own purpose. :headbang:

Is it cruel not to willingly sacrifice what is mine to any greedy wretch who lusts to possess plundered goods?
Aww, why you dis the pirates? :(

MAnkind is just a collection of individuals.
You’ve never joined a club, never been part of a group? Never enjoyed any benefits whatsoever of society? Never partaken in an experience only possible due to multiple participants, such as... say... the internet?

Marxist Socialism is hands-down a bad idea, in the States or otherwise. How folks comprehend it as being an even comprehensibly good idea in any situation is beyond me. I have studied Marx, talked and debated with Socialists/Social Democrats and the like in the past, and it mostly boiled down to them either arguing ad hominem or completely contradicting themselves.

If you want your hand held your entire life, go ahead and be a socialist.

Marxist Socialism is hands-down a bad idea, in the States or otherwise. How folks comprehend it as being an even comprehensibly good idea in any situation is beyond me. I have studied Marx, talked and debated with Socialists/Social Democrats and the like in the past, and it mostly boiled down to them either arguing ad hominem or completely contradicting themselves.

If you want your hand held your entire life, go ahead and be a socialist.

Some how I doubt this. Before you make sweeping statements, qualify them with reasoning.

Some how I doubt this. Before you make sweeping statements, qualify them with reasoning.

Don't worry, it's just the old: "opinion/claim of great experience to support opinion/trivialize future debaters" style of argumentation.

God I hate soundbite culture!

My point has been proved.

My point has been proved.

You're not getting away that easily. Proof or GTFO.

My point has been proved.

And this is the old "if you disagree, I am correct" style of argumentation.

Lets take the political process out of it.


Can't. Politics is part of the process, and will always be a part of the process so long as some continue to seek manipulative advantage over others. We agree that this is bad, but we also need to recognized that it is a cherished practice among homo sapiens sapiens since the first caveman learned that stone is harder than skull.

To "take the political process out of it" is too often treated as "don't let the right hand see what the left hand is doing." This is how to become a victim. Especially where manipulators continue to enjoy the benefit of politics, while decrying the efforts of their victims to defend themselves as "evil" or "unfree."


Neither of us wants a world with politicians, or in which participating in politics can confer any individual economic advantage.


Per the above, we should perhaps aim for a more realistic goal. Something like "neither of us wants a world where some are made rulers and some are made the ruled." The difference is perhaps subtle, but, I think, very important.


What is left is the distinction between producers and consumers, which is baseless. Everyone both consumes and produces, and if what is being produced is not popular, then it will stop being produced.


Popular? I though we were aiming for efficiency here? But if fleeting, whimsical popularity is good enough, then surely democratic socialism is the best way to go... ;)


As for marketing, I think you should try to get to a few lectures of a marketing course. You'll find that no marketer ever tries to create a want or a need, because it's impossible.


I would submit that my practical, real-world experience as a consumer constantly bombarded by advertisements telling me how miserable and incomplete I am if I don't buy $PRODUCT is sufficient for me to know that it is indeed extremely possible to manufacture wants.


Something in which I can't accumulate extraordinary amounts of wealth if I provide great amounts of value isn't a market economy.


I'm not concerned with the accumulation of wealth. My concern is with the ends toward which that wealth is spent. If the nature of the system encourages the use of wealth toward anti-market (to the detriment of voluntary association and honest trade) ends, that system is broken. Especially when inequalities in wealth become so vast that the majority without such wealth are left entirely powerless to combat the anti-market manipulators.


Hence why I propose rule by constitution.


Nobody has ever violated a constitution before. Needless to say, I'm not impressed.


A state that is being limited like this can't grow unless the constitution is changed, for which there will be no legal avenues.


There are constitutional changes which are both positive and necessary. At any rate, completely cutting off any amending capability sounds like overconfident and short-term thinking. Capitalist thinking. :)


The only way is revolution.


We should actually be going out of our way to not encourage violence, if anything.


There shouldn't be any ruling at all. My state is supposed to coordinate and facilitate.


Mao? Is that you?

But seriously, you don't take your euphemisms far enough. Clearly, the proper role of the good state is actually to warm-fuzzify and rainbow-butterfly.


The difference is that in one the economic inefficiency created is acknowledged to be bad, in the other it isn't.


The hypocrisy of market manipulators is well established.


Ownership and control aren't political.


Politics is merely the process of deciding who has what, where, when, why, and how. It is essentially economics, except that it deals in the currency of power.

Ownership and control are all about deciding who has what, where, when, why, and how. Thus they are both political at their very core.


The only thing it will start burying is entrepreneurialism. Having an idea and putting it into practice requires autonomy, which cannot be possible if control of something is shared.


This cannot be true or the market would not work. Control of the success of your entrepreneurial efforts is most certainly shared. If there is insufficient aggregate demand for the product of your heroic effort, you're up the creek without a paddle.

All the way from the system of massive public stock corporations which provides at least some tiny insufficient modicum of public ownership and control, all the way down to the partnership of two, business itself is a collective enterprise. Economies of scale simply work that way. The only place I've seen our heroic individual are on those inventor's "reality TV" shows, and even then 99% of them meet miserable failure (mostly because of their really stupid and useless ideas; their ideas are stupid and useless mainly because, convinced of their own individual brilliance, they fail to consult the collective to ensure that their ideas are actually wanted or valued. Heroic individuals don't do "Marketing.").


There is no one with power if the state is reduced that way. That's the whole point: eliminate power to alocate tax money and legislative force to interest groups and you eliminate the need for politicians, lobbying and any sort of active connection between business and politics, voting and economics.


So who does your coordinating and facilitating?

(and, by the way, voting is economics. Or at least, economics is voting. "Vote with your wallet," is how the "Libertarians" put it.)


Put the community watch in charge and you get people with no qualifications and aspirations telling you what to do.


The sinking dollar, increasing energy costs, subprime fiasco, and other economic woes are evidence that the "good administrators" are doing so much better, I suppose.

The community watch provides an important extra ingredient. It connects the interests of the community to the actions actually being taken. The real-life community watch works because each individual has a home to protect. By watching his own home, and that of his neighbor, the community watch satisfies self-interest while accomplishing a collective goal, all at the same time. The worker's "community watch" accomplishes the same thing, as a more equitable distribution of profit and control gives each employee something of greater value to protect.

But, the way things are now, the interests of the administrator is disconnected from the interests of the administrated. The workers, the administrated, have to reason to care about the success of the enterprise, because their share of that enterprise simply isn't worth the effort.

Thus we have banks implementing poorly advised loan schemes in order to make a quick buck, putting the entire economy on the line when said scheme finally collapses under its own short-term weight.

At any rate, I find it extremely strange for a free market advocate to be arguing about how stupid the masses are. After all, the stupid masses are what make the economy work. If I'm too stupid to produce, then surely I am also too stupid to consume, considering the direct controlling effect consumption ("demand") is supposed to have on production ("supply").

Surely the correct response to the stupid masses is to remove them entirely and convert to a centralized command economy. This is what today's "Capitalists" seem to prefer, anyway.


You can convince a banker that a new factory for baby food is a good idea. You can't convince an environmentalist.


I knew John Mackey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mackey) was an idiot. Social responsibility, environmentalism, health, and profitability?

Asinine (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/). The stupid masses will never go for it either.


Freedom is about being seperated from the chain that the rest of humanity represents.


Sorry, the market simply doesn't work that way.


It's quite possible to have a car built exactly to your specification. It's just not cheap.


One should not be surprised if the majority of people refuse to support a scheme to which they have no access. If one wants to increase support for the market, the market needs to be accessible to those who matter. Collective enterprises are like that.


But there is literally no possible way to get a democracy to impose exactly the policies you want.
...
Because democracy has no option-out clause.


Of course it does. One finds, or creates, a new democracy. Just like one would find, or create, a new market.


Have you ever considered that if someone had the skill, intelligence and drive to make good business decisions, they wouldn't be working on a conveyor belt?


Or they didn't have access to the educational or economic opportunities for which they would have otherwise been perfectly suited. Or family obligations necessitated taking a job lower than one's educational level (mothers, I speak of you...). Or a better job is simply unavailable due to outsourcing, economic downturn (thanks again skilled administrators!), or any number of other contingencies.

Again, the whole "anyone not me is stupid" is not a good road for a market advocate to go down. It leaves you having to explain why the masses are too stupid to produce, but can be trusted with consumption. Not only do you end up looking like an elitist hypocrite, but you also have to explain why the stupid masses can be trusted with a function with direct consequences on production, despite being too stupid to handle production. At the very least, one has to somehow reconcile one's belief in the stupidity of the masses with one's "Libertarianism" which asserts that the masses are responsible, moral, and intelligent enough to make their own decisions free of statist/political coercion.

In short, your philosophy ends up looking like a sham, because it sounds more like something an advocate of centralized command economics would say.


The sample of people who you want to give control over is biased in a certain direction, and so are the decisions they make.


Whereas your good administrators are entirely without bias, self-interest, mistake, or other undesirable characteristic. Gods among mere men.


Furthermore just because you distribute all the revenues to employees rather than just a part of them doesn't change that they're still making self-interested decisions.


First one cannot distribute all of the revenues into employee wages, because otherwise there isn't anything left to grow the enterprise with. One can, however, distribute shares of control over how profits not spent on wages are used.

Second, the employees are still making self-interested decisions. But, more equal distribution to employees, collectively and individually, gives each employee greater incentive to pursue the interests of the business. The more profit the business makes, the more profit each employee makes.

Again, with the way things are done right now, an employee sees his minimum wage paycheck, the CEOs billion dollar paycheck, and concludes "why bother?"


Are you saying that co-ops are at a disadvantage compared to privately-run enterprises?


If business A chooses to operate ethically by forgoing market manipulations and government favors while accepting the costs of social responsibility, and if business B chooses to operate unethically by manipulating the market and taking government favors while producing externalities (environmental, social, etc), then yes, business A is at a clear disadvantage, at least in the short term.

Business A increases its costs, and reducing its income by refusing the extra profit oligopoly provides. Business B decreases its costs by foisting them off on the rest of society, while extorting increased income from society through oligopoly.

Business A's approach is the ethical, hardworking, "by one's bootstraps" approach that carries far greater risk. This is why so many businesses choose business B's approach instead.

(I used the "business A" and "business B" labels, because "co-op" vs. "privately-run enterprises" is a misleading distinction. "co-op"'s may be social in nature, but this doesn't make them "public," especially where the "public" vs. "private" dichotomy is used to distinguish between "government" and "not-government.")


We can be very unequal and still voluntarily trade with each other.


Not if the nature of the inequality means I have to trade with you, but you don't have to trade with me. Especially where natural circumstances or, more likely, the centralization of wealth results in the creation of monopolies.

If your wealth affords you the ability to access multiple choices, while my poverty provides me with access to fewer or even one (or even none), our trade is hardly voluntary. No, it's not your fault I have to eat and drink or labor. But such fault need not exist in order to make association involuntary.

This is why some basic level of individual self-sufficiency, or "equality," is necessary in order to transform the market into something other than a hypocritical sham.

You can't really have pure Socialism or pure Capitalism because neither of them will work.

To have a completely Socialist society everyone would need to be exactly the same and not question anything. Not to mention that they have to be idiots to. Seriously, to have a perfect socialist society you would have to have a work force of the majority of the population who do as they are told and are extremely patriotic, not to mention easily brainwashed. Otherwise it simply wouldn't work. In fact, it wouldn't work anyway, but it couldn't hold up for anytime at all if these conditions weren't met.

For a perfect capitalist society we would also need the majority of the population to be idiotic workers, and a middle class who would be perfectly satisfied. The satisfaction part, at least, is completely impossible because humans simply are not satisfied ever.

If the cavemen were satisfied, do you think we would ever have accomplished civilization? Human activity works on being unsatisfied. Why would anyone even work if they were satisfied? They wouldn't need anything else.
This of course would cause serious problems in both a socialist and capitalist society.

Problems that simply can never be fixed.

The first case: no, because a business can't be a cartel. It takes more than one party, and unless the relevant department fails to implement the rules stated in the constitution with regards to anti-trust proceedings, it can't pick one but not another.Is there something inherent about a night watchman state that ensures it wouldn't fail to implement the rules stated in the constitution in one instance but not another?

The latter case is also a no. Information distribution means creating the means by which market participants can make effective decisions, ie collecting prices and product attributes and making them publically available. It can't collect any data that would give a business a competitive edge over another, because such data is not required for market participants to make decisions that lead to pareto optimality.The state could easily funnel some information to certain parties prior to making it publicly available, or funnel information to certain parties that isn't required to be made publicly available.

Wage stickiness is usually the product of contracts which lock a certain price in place for a while. That's not really a problem, it represents risk management given uncertainty about the future. The principle telling us that market outcomes are pareto optimal would still hold in such a case.Is a contract that locks a wage in place for a period of time a market outcome? Especially if it's a unionized group of workers?

To have a completely Socialist society everyone would need to be exactly the same and not question anything. Not to mention that they have to be idiots to. Seriously, to have a perfect socialist society you would have to have a work force of the majority of the population who do as they are told and are extremely patriotic, not to mention easily brainwashed. Otherwise it simply wouldn't work. In fact, it wouldn't work anyway, but it couldn't hold up for anytime at all if these conditions weren't met.And your basis for these assertions is...?

By "ready" do you mean have most people under the US gov gotten used to being bent over and given a good pounding?

I'd say give it another generation and see what happens. Government schools are churning out plenty of idiots for you. Trained idiots.

When you have enough people that can't figure out the math, they'll be ready for anything - especially socialism.

if america were truly a 'christian' country, or fallowed any other major religeous teaching for that matter, it would already BE 'socialist'. because there's not one major, organized, revealed belief, that isn't.

=^^=
.../\...

My point has been proved.

Unfortunately your grammar has not been proven.

As far as Socialism in America is concerned, who's to say that America is not already a good bit socialist? FDR certainly made it so, and LBJ only furthered the "welfare state." With Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and other government handout programs, higher percentage taxes on the rich than the poor, and anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, I'd say America is and has already been in the realm of socialist thought. Will it ever be complete? I doubt it. Will there always be aspects of it? Unfortunately yes.

Unfortunately your grammar has not been proven.

Truly unfortunately, both are correct (at least, one is not more correct than t'other). I acknowledge that this is a shame.

I'm normally not a violent man, but the day the United States adopts socialism as its economic system is the day I grab my gun and organize an armed libertarian revolution (something I think is long overdue in America anyway). I consider the United States to have way too many socialist tendancies as it is, it does not need more. As someone who works in the academic setting and deals with self-proclaimed socialists all the time, I personally think socialists need to get over their high-horse guilty consciences and get in tune with reality. What is reality?

1. Full ownership of property is among the most basic and fundamental rights in a free state. If you do not own your own property (weather it is the means of production or otherwise), you are property at the mercy of your government.

2. The GDP per capita of the United States crushes the largely socialist European Union's GDP per capita $46,000 to $32,900. (Source, CIA Factbook)

3. The United States has an unemployment rate of 4.6% as opposed to the EU's 8.5%. (Source, CIA Factbook).. Ironic that a movement that "supports the working man" puts the working man out of work.

In short, the only way that Europe trumps the United States economically is the value of the Euro compared to the value of the dollar. Greed is good, ladies and gentleman, I suggest you all learn that fact. All Socialism does is it forces business to move to more capitalist friendly countries OR requires them to raise prices to extremely high levels and lay off workers and/or not hire new ones.

You're looking at it from a purely economic view. A major point in socialism is that of a minimum standard of living for all. So there may be more of those who could be counted as economically poor in the EU, with nationalised healthcare etc there standard of living is still at a good level. Compared with the US where many people (even those who might not be counted economically poor) can't afford health insurance etc.

Also in general. Socialism =/= Communism. Not by a long shot. And that's why the US won't accept it, because there's a widespread view held there that the two are synonymous and the pure negative brand recognition (in a soundbite culture) of the word socialism rules it out for the foreseeable future.

The question isn't is the USA ready for socialism, the question is "is the rest of the world ready for capitalism?"

Socialism is a failed ideology that defeats its own purpose. :headbang:

Proof? Give it to me or seriously, stop posting.:rolleyes:

Proof? Give it to me or seriously, stop posting.:rolleyes:

I think he confused socialism with communism...

I think he confused socialism with communism...

Something that happens quite often but, if he´s to post on a thread, shouldn´t he first know what´s Socialism and what´s Communism first?

Granted, Socialism and Communism have both, similar ideas, but in no way are they the same.

Something that happens quite often but, if he´s to post on a thread, shouldn´t he first know what´s Socialism and what´s Communism first?

Granted, Socialism and Communism have both, similar ideas, but in no way are they the same.

Eh. As I've said many times there is no age requirement or education level on this site. When I was 12 I probably didn't know the difference all that much either, and although I'm fairly sure that I knew there was one, I've been politically interested my whole life.

Eh. As I've said many times there is no age requirement or education level on this site. When I was 12 I probably didn't know the difference all that much either, and although I'm fairly sure that I knew there was one, I've been politically interested my whole life.

Well, Steel, not everyone´s like you. Remember that.

Well, Steel, not everyone´s like you. Remember that.

heh...thank heavens. my girlfriend says I'm difficult enough to live with. she doesn't vote. imagine the fun that causes.

heh...thank heavens. my girlfriend says I'm difficult enough to live with. she doesn't vote. imagine the fun that causes.

Paula Abdul sung that Opposites Attract.:D (with a cool cat and all. I´m so full of shat today)