Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Its an argumentative tactic. Show that a certain accepted opinion entails a certain unacceptable consequence. I never thought that you would accept those consequences, rather I thought that by showing those to be the consequences of your political viewpoint, you would abandon your viewpoint.

I posit that no government has been able to act without placating the empowered, and the history of state interference into free enterprise has at all points served to stratify society and entrench the wealthy. I can support this view with historical accounts from both socialists and capitalists alike. For support see any treatment of historical materialism by Marx, see The Triumph of Conservatism by leftist historian Gabriel Kolko, or for a abbreviated reading consult "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand" by modern-day socialist and mutualist Kevin Carson.

I will relinquish my position that your political prescriptions lead to the inevitable consequence of centralizing political and economic power amongst a privileged and parasitical few if you can offer ONE INSTANCE where real socio-economic change has been caused by state action without that consequence.

Just like there has been no true capitalists country, as you claim, so there has been no true socialist economy.I gave Norway as the ideal moderate socialist country where these problems never arose but then you gave the US as socialist country,fascist germany was also placed at my door step, how can debate with that point of view.Its like debating with two schizophrenics, who cant decide what economies they are supporting and who is actually a socialist or a capitalist.

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;61571 wrote:

I gave Norway as the ideal moderate socialist country where these problems never arose

That's like saying that Paris Hilton has no financial trouble, so being a hotel heiress is a great career choice.
Well, we can't be Paris Hilton.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

That's like saying that Paris Hilton has no financial trouble, so being a hotel heiress is a great career choice.
Well, we can't be Paris Hilton.

So give me an example of capitalism that you admire?smarty pants..

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;61574 wrote:

So give me an example of capitalism that you admire?smarty pants..

The US. It's the most capitalist and it offers the most freedom and equality. Coincidence?

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

The US. It's the most capitalist and it offers the most freedom and equality. Coincidence?

Oh my oh my ..just confer with your friend..it was not that long ago he said it was not a capitalist state but socialist and you agreed...oh my oh my..bye.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;61580 wrote:

Oh my oh my ..just confer with your friend..it was not that long ago he said it was not a capitalist state but socialist and you agreed...oh my oh my..bye.

Do you live in an all-or-nothing world? It's about degree. The US is more capitalist. It's not fully capitalist, he is absolutely right.
I'm telling you, the more capitalism, the more freedom.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=66&stc=1&d=1241619920

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

Just like there has been no true capitalists country, as you claim, so there has been no true socialist economy.I gave Norway as the ideal moderate socialist country where these problems never arose but then you gave the US as socialist country,fascist germany was also placed at my door step, how can debate with that point of view.Its like debating with two schizophrenics, who cant decide what economies they are supporting and who is actually a socialist or a capitalist.

Norway is the third largest oil exporter in the world despite being the 115th most populace. It is wealthier than the US. They produced half a barrel of oil per day per person in 2007, and exported three-quarters of a barrel of oil per day per person in 2008.

It is by far the richest country in the world in terms of resources. George Bush Jr. and a team of monkeys could lead that nation to economic success.

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------

xris wrote:

Oh my oh my ..just confer with your friend..it was not that long ago he said it was not a capitalist state but socialist and you agreed...oh my oh my..bye.

Quote me please.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;61582 wrote:

Norway is the third largest oil exporter in the world despite being the 115th most populace. It is wealthier than the US. They produced half a barrel of oil per day per person in 2007, and exported three-quarters of a barrel of oil per day per person in 2008.

It is by far the richest country in the world in terms of resources.
[SIZE="3"]George Bush Jr. and a team of monkeys could lead that nation to economic success.[/SIZE]

hehehe
How did you like my Paris Hilton analogy?

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

hehehe
How did you like my Paris Hilton analogy?

Quite apt.

The key to successful socialism, (and Norway is close, even though it is a mixed economy it has a great deal of nationalization) is to produce a massive amount of oil. I don't see why every nation doesn't follow that model.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;61588 wrote:

Quite apt.

The key to successful socialism, (and Norway is close, even though it is a mixed economy it has a great deal of nationalization) is to produce a massive amount of oil.

Don't forget that the US and some larger European nations are subsidizing Norway by in essence protecting
it militarily and allowing Norway to barely spend any money on military and instead on socialism.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

So give me an example of capitalism that you admire?smarty pants..

Hong Kong since WW2 has been quite admirable.

Australia has been a good model as well.

0 Replies

@xris,

[quote=Mr. Fight The Power]Its an argumentative tactic. Show that a certain accepted opinion entails a certain unacceptable consequence. I never thought that you would accept those consequences, rather I thought that by showing those to be the consequences of your political viewpoint, you would abandon your viewpoint.[/quote]

Exactly. Xris, by stating that you support government manipulation of the economy, welfare, central planning, etc., you have to logically accept the consequences of that system, which have been explained in great detail to you, but which you have ignored. Otherwise, what you're doing is like saying 'I am in favor of shooting people in the face, but I'm opposed to bullets hitting people in the face.' The one entails the other. Please look back at any of my explanations of the flaws inherent in a centrally planned society and refute any point you disagree with, whether it's a fact that I took out of context, a complete fabrication, a bad analysis in your view, etc. I'm waiting for your argument.

[quote=Xris]You give the US economy as an example of socialism and it does not represent capitalism at all.Well what can i say? So you can point to examples of true socialism and condemn its value but not this wonderful Utopian capitalist wonderland because no examples exist.It reminds me so much of that fictional land of never never.You sound like a politician prone to making unsubstantiated claims about another's politics without questioning the details.Poetic analogies for effect and your admirers applause.[/quote]

You are correct in that the free market ideal has never been fully implemented in reality, but there are numerous examples of societies that are pretty close. The best and most familiar example is the U.S. for the first century or so of its existence. I am in favor of the ideal, but I would support any movement in that direction; for me its not absolute free market or bust. We are both in that situation aren't we? We want to move towards a certain ideal that will likely not exist perfectly in reality. In both cases, with the ideal of free-market capitalism and with the ideal of socialism/communism, there are examples of the corruption of the ideal. As I said way back in the beginning of this debate, it's not fair for you to blame capitalism for the corruption of capitalism. In the same way, it's not fair for me to blame socialism for the corruption of the socialist ideal. However, here's the difference. 1) The socialist ideal is and always was advocated by the most elite members of society and supported as a means to enhance their power (I have offered historical evidence of this which you have not refuted). Socialism is not what you think it is; it is a tool of oligarchic totalitarianism. In other words, Stalinism, Maoism, National Socialism (Nazism), etc. are not really 'corruptions of the socialist ideal;' they are examples of what the great advocates of socialism always intended. 2) Though neither the capitalist nor the socialist theory has ever been fully implemented, the socialist ideal is also theoretically unsound, in that even the ideal socialist system cannot possibly achieve its own goals; i.e. it fails by its own criteria. Why? Freedom and equality are mutually exclusive, at least until nature hiccups and produces a race of biologically, intellectually, and psychologically identical people. To make people equal and to change human nature is to coerce and brutalize, and to eliminate freedom.

There is only individualism and collectivism. Socialism is one form of the latter, free market capitalism is the only possible economic system for the former. I'm not saying to you Xris that collectivism is wrong, I'm not here to preach; I'm only saying that I choose individualism and that, if you believe in individual rights, it is logically inconsistent, hypocritical, of you to also support socialism, which precludes individual rights. In a socialist state, people might be able to say what they like without harassment from the government, they might be able to vote, they might be able to receive due process if tried for a crime, and so on, but those are not rights; in a socialist state, all such things are only privileges granted by the government, which can be withdrawn if doing so is determined, by the government, to be in the interest of 'the greater good.'

[quote=xris]I cant rid the world of murder, lust or any other base instinct but i can by example and hoped for regulation stop its excesses.I have a demand that i respect my morals and help those less fortunate than me.Im not high on the pecking order of monetary advantage because i have never strive for its advantages.I see others who by birth have never had the advantage of even a desiring for greater achievement.We are born and by chance excel or fail, by nature or nurture fail or succeed.We should realise that we are lucky or luckless by the storks impartial planting of our birth.[/quote]

I challenge you to name one example in which regulation prevented any crime or injustice. Even if you can, I'll bet I can name twenty failures for every success. We know government regulation almost exclusively by its failures. In most cases, regulation is ignored, simply because the task before regulatory authorities is impossible. When it has any effect, it is usually that some certain sector or company benefits either from a regulation that hurts its competitors, which regulation it lobbied to have written, or from a loophole to the regulation, which it lobbied to have included. Regulation, like central planning in general, in no way 'levels the playing field.' By definition, it creates groups which are privileged and groups which are not, treats citizens unequally before the law, and generally works to help the ruling powers stay in power. Of course, most of the time, it just causes unintended consequences that are unpleasant, as in the case of Fannie and Freddie where new government requirements forced those lenders to make excessively risky loans, and to buy those made and packaged by others.

PLEASE RESPOND TO ANY OF MY ARGUMENTS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH INDIVIDUALLY, ADDRESSING SPECIFIC POINTS OR FACTS AND REFUTING THEM.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;61599 wrote:

PLEASE RESPOND TO ANY OF MY ARGUMENTS THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH INDIVIDUALLY, ADDRESSING SPECIFIC POINTS OR FACTS AND REFUTING THEM.

Socialists don't need to do that. It is an elusive enough ideology to evade arguments for a while and then leave the debate.
It works just fine planting ideas in childrens heads, that don't make sense when looked at with reason.
But it sounds nice if not questioned with logic too much, which is enough to persuade a majority.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

The pack gathers, they hunt in groups.I wont debate under any ones terms but my own.I show examples of capitalist failures, its abuses,its excesses, its double standards and its exploitation.What do i hear? oh thats not capitalism, America has been spoiled by socialist ideas..What is good example of capitalism then, i ask..Oh America one replies..the other says well maybe not but it used to be..
I give a good example of Socialism but its not allowed they have resources.So we need a country with no resources and a short period of time to value its worth.Australia that has socialist governments and a socialist agenda is then given as a model of capitalism, Hong kong another ruled by the british..ah but the british have socialist governments...
How many times do i have to tell you right wing capitalists... moderate democratic socialism is not communism...
Capitalism is not the only path to a free trade economy and the ability of the individual is not hampered by socialist government.Wealth is not a dirty word for socialists.The abuse of power by corporate companies, the exploitation of labour,the double standards , the lobbying of government by those with money are the standards of capitalism that i judge it by.

3 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

The pack gathers, they hunt in groups.I wont debate under any ones terms but my own.I show examples of capitalist failures, its abuses,its excesses, its double standards and its exploitation.What do i hear? oh thats not capitalism, America has been spoiled by socialist ideas..What is good example of capitalism then, i ask..Oh America one replies..the other says well maybe not but it used to be..
I give a good example of Socialism but its not allowed they have resources.So we need a country with no resources and a short period of time to value its worth.Australia that has socialist governments and a socialist agenda is then given as a model of capitalism, Hong kong another ruled by the british..ah but the british have socialist governments...
How many times do i have to tell you right wing capitalists... moderate democratic socialism is not communism...
Capitalism is not the only path to a free trade economy and the ability of the individual is not hampered by socialist government.Wealth is not a dirty word for socialists.The abuse of power by corporate companies, the exploitation of labour,the double standards , the lobbying of government by those with money are the standards of capitalism that i judge it by.

Alright, you've proven EmperorNero's point from his last post. I'd be glad to have a debate with you, but you won't do that.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

The pack gathers, they hunt in groups.I wont debate under any ones terms but my own.I show examples of capitalist failures, its abuses,its excesses, its double standards and its exploitation.What do i hear? oh thats not capitalism, America has been spoiled by socialist ideas..What is good example of capitalism then, i ask..Oh America one replies..the other says well maybe not but it used to be..
I give a good example of Socialism but its not allowed they have resources.So we need a country with no resources and a short period of time to value its worth.Australia that has socialist governments and a socialist agenda is then given as a model of capitalism, Hong kong another ruled by the british..ah but the british have socialist governments...
How many times do i have to tell you right wing capitalists... moderate democratic socialism is not communism...
Capitalism is not the only path to a free trade economy and the ability of the individual is not hampered by socialist government.Wealth is not a dirty word for socialists.The abuse of power by corporate companies, the exploitation of labour,the double standards , the lobbying of government by those with money are the standards of capitalism that i judge it by.

Hong Kong has been largely autonomous for some time and is an Administrative region of China, not the UK.

Australia was extremely successful under the laissez-faire governments preceding Rudd. I am sure that they are now quite prepared to help perpetuate the global depression.

And BrightNoon quite plainly said the "the U.S. for the first century or so of its existence" was a good example. I am not sure if you are familiar with US history, but that is a good while ago.

2 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Alright, you've proven EmperorNero's point from his last post. I'd be glad to have a debate with you, but you won't do that.

Debate as much as you like but not in the narrow confines of your selection..you could answer my post but is that not on your agenda?

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;61613 wrote:

Hong Kong has been largely autonomous for some time and is an Administrative region of China, not the UK.

Australia was extremely successful under the laissez-faire governments preceding Rudd. I am sure that they are now quite prepared to help perpetuate the global depression.

And BrightNoon quite plainly said the "the U.S. for the first century or so of its existence" was a good example. I am not sure if you are familiar with US history, but that is a good while ago.

To be honest, Australia is quire resource rich. And Hong Kong is (or was) in a "best of both worlds" special situation.
Both of which I admit not to know much about.

How about Britain from around 1850? It created an immense benefits and social changes for all of humanity.

I also like to add, that this find a good example game doesn't really matter. The question we should explore is whether moderate government control will inevitably lead to the bad kind.

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Hong Kong has been largely autonomous for some time and is an Administrative region of China, not the UK.

Australia was extremely successful under the laissez-faire governments preceding Rudd. I am sure that they are now quite prepared to help perpetuate the global depression.

And BrightNoon quite plainly said the "the U.S. for the first century or so of its existence" was a good example. I am not sure if you are familiar with US history, but that is a good while ago.

Hong Kong sometime? do you know how long it was in British hands and how it prospered and how long it has been in COMMUNIST HANDS.oh my oh my.Australia is a socialist country, judge it by its social agenda...These countries remember where given as good examples of capitalist countries.I'm not asking for a communist regime just the choice by the ballot of socialist reforms, while maintaining a free trade economy.

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;60399 wrote:

A principle characteristic of capitalism is the separation of laborer from capital. This is explained by the concept of time preference. Briefly, the worker forgoes the risk and waiting associated with the future earnings of capital for the discounted present earnings of simply laboring with another's capital.

Actually, I don't get that. I looked up 'time preference' and I get the principle, but not what it means in this context.

1 Reply

Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know