Go Socialism!

I think Chavez is about as seriously a social democrat as were Hitler and Lenin. There is also good reason to believe his election was even less fair and representative than the one that brought Hitler to power in Germany. He is instead a tyrant in the manner of Castro Stalin, Hitler and the theocrats who are sitting on the backs of the Iranian people -- all, by the way, figures for which Chavez has expressed great admiration. Odd, isn't it, that he gets so much sympathy from the typical quarters.

Freedom is more important than the contrived social and economic theories of the self-appointed thinkers who are inclined to tell others how to live. Moreover history has repeatedly shown it consistently delivers better economic and social results. Chavez is yet another of the tiresome enemies of freedom who have strutted their way onto the world's political stage. It amazes me that thinking people can so readily blind themselves to these obvious facts, when their envy and timidity get in the way of truth.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

rayban1 wrote:
It appears that he has no intention of relinquishing power but will he be clever enough to cloak his intentions with some form of Socialism to keep "His Peasants" in line or will he merely use "Sovereign Nation" status to gain support of other Thugs in the UN General Assembly to prevent action by the UN or the US?

On August 15 2004, 58% voted in favor of Chavez fulfilling the remaining two years of his term, 42% in favor of terminating his presidency immediately - a little bit better than the majority Bush got, when I recall it correctly.

What do you imply with your scenario?

And what do you imply by your scenario, Walter???

Do you suggest that Bush will attempt a coup or will somehow alter our constitution to stay in power as Chavez has done, and as Hitler did after the free elections, which you so often remind us, brought him to power? Are you suggesting that Bush, Chavez, and Hitler are equivalent?? If so what is there to distinguish them from Chancellor Schroeder? Apart from a rather petty dig at the president of this country, just what, if anything did you mean by the comparison???

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you suggest that Bush will attempt a coup or will somehow alter our constitution to stay in power as Chavez has done, and as Hitler did after the free elections, which you so often remind us, brought him to power? Are you suggesting that Bush, Chavez, and Hitler are equivalent?? If so what is there to distinguish them from Chancellor Schroeder? Apart from a rather petty dig at the president of this country, just what, if anything did you mean by the comparison???

I just gave the figures - and I compared them with the last US election, because there had been a narrow outcome as well.

I didn't at all and with no word say/write something you are suggesting now.

Happy Easter!

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I just gave the figures - and I compared them with the last US election, because there had been a narrow outcome as well.

I didn't at all and with no word say/write something you are suggesting now.

Happy Easter!

I think that is a weak excuse that evades the obvious intent of your post. It is true you didn't "say/write" it exactly, but there was no other reasonable interpretation of your comparison in the context in which it was given.

Nevertheless, passing irritation is not the same as anger or dislike. I wish you too a Happy Easter, my friend.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

George

Your input has been equally brilliant to that of Nimh and thanks for raising the level of discussion from that of quibbling, moronic psychobabble to an actual intellectual discussion.

Thank you. Actually I thought mine were slightly more brilliant than Nimh's. Very Happy

We all descend to quibbling sometimes. (Though I like my quibbles more than Walter's. :wink: )

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I just gave the figures - and I compared them with the last US election, because there had been a narrow outcome as well.

I didn't at all and with no word say/write something you are suggesting now.

Happy Easter!

I think that is a weak excuse that evades the obvious intent of your post. It is true you didn't "say/write" it exactly, but there was no other reasonable interpretation of your comparison in the context in which it was given.

Nevertheless, passing irritation is not the same as anger or dislike. I wish you too a Happy Easter, my friend.

Happy Easter to all
Rayban

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

That is just word play - a basically meaningless observation. All governments do regulate, coerce individuals, tax and redistribute wealth. It wasn't the state welfare and employment programs that made Nazi Germany evil, and the presence of similar features in the UK or Germany (or the U.S.) of today doesn't make them equivalent to the Nazis.

The evils of totalitarianism arise (in my view) when a government (whatever may be its social and economic policies) attempts to perfect or reshape humanity in a preconceived mold - whether true christian, moslem, zionist, socialist or Aryan man, or a perfect example of political correctitude. An inevitable result is the legal presumption that the state is a fit judge of the overall worth of an individual life (as opposed to a specific, prohibited action). All the other evils follow from that.

The "evils" of Nazi Germany arise precisely because of its political system. Political systems all coerce individuals, and use violence, whether it is Nazi Germany, or your average Social Democratic State. All political systems therefore are socialistic in that they coerce individuals, use violence against individuals, and violate the property and liberty of individuals. The differences are, as Hayek observed in The Road To Serfdom, in degrees, and not in kinds. All political systems seek to reshape and remold society by using individuals in a social experiment. Contrary to Locke, institutions do not serve the individual, individuals serve the institution. Political systems require violence. To support them means you support the use of violence.

As Stephen Kinsella observed, those who support the political systems either think that "(a) aggression is justified; or (b) states do not necessarily employ aggression. Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals and socialists have yet to show how the initiation of force against innocent victims is justified. No surprise; it is not possible to show this. But criminals don't feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?"

Supporting political systems whether it is Nazi Germany or your average Social Democratic State doesn't change the fact that what you support is coercive and relies on violence. The fact that you call Nazi Germany "evil" therefore implies a value judgement, as that which is not Nazi Germany is "good". Therefore, the political systems such as Social Democratic States that do not necessarily employ the amount of totalitarianism that Nazi Germany employed are therefore "good". In the real world, no one is pure good or evil. Such manichaen "good" and "evil" concepts exist only in fantasy. Everyone and everything is imperfect. Therefore, nothing can be described as pure "good" or "evil". When humans talk about "good" they always define themselves and the institutions they associate with as "good". This means that those who disagree or represent the other side are "evil". And throughout history tribes, nations, and ideologies have defined themselves as "good" - much like the Nazis or the Commies or now America - and their opponents else as "evil".

As an insight from Nietzsche explained it best, "In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

0 Replies

There are other social economic systems besides what you are calling socialism and the national socialim of Nazi germany. They too employ government coercion and all the rest, but some of them do it less and in more democratic ways.

The statement "A is good" most assuredly does NOT mean "All that is not A is evil". I believe you are a bit too focused on the taxonomies of those whose works you read and too little on the subject at hand. A liberal use of references and quotations does not compensate for sophistry and meaningless distinctions.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

There are other social economic systems besides what you are calling socialism and the national socialim of Nazi germany. They too employ government coercion and all the rest, but some of them do it less and in more democratic ways.

The statement "A is good" most assuredly does NOT mean "All that is not A is evil". I believe you are a bit too focused on the taxonomies of those whose works you read and too little on the subject at hand. A liberal use of references and quotations does not compensate for sophistry and meaningless distinctions.

I am not talking about "social economic" systems, whatever that means (is it another way of saying political system?). I am talking about political systems. And all political systems are socialistic, as they all believe in regulating, coercing, stealing and using violence to maintain order.

As far as your quibble about citing something as evil does not necessarily make things opposite of that good, but it implies as it is a value judgement. What you believe my focus' to be have no bearing on anything and certainly your psychic powers are wasted.

Cheers.

0 Replies

When "political system" is defined as a subsystem of the social system interacting with other nonpolitical subsystems, such as the economic system - all polical systems are kind of "socialistic" qua definitione.

I suppose, however, you could call them e.g. feudalistic with a similar construction.

Perhaps you really should consider of reading some more and different authors.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

When "political system" is defined as a subsystem of the social system interacting with other nonpolitical subsystems, such as the economic system - all polical systems are kind of "socialistic" qua definitione.

I suppose, however, you could call them e.g. feudalistic with a similar construction.

Perhaps you really should consider of reading some more and different authors.

I think you display a confusion of what a political system is.

0 Replies

Well, I suppose my above given is my short version of the broadest definition and not aiming to gain any scientific merrits at all.

I'm rather sure, however, that I don't have any confusions at all about what a political system is.

0 Replies

I see we have run across yet another definition of socialism, this one wider than any I have come across before. I suggest we do away with it and debate the merits of speciffics, like universal healthcare or government funded education.

0 Replies

You hit the nail right on the head Einherjar - it's a pity that debate is reduced to swapping slogans and labels (and that goes for both Right and Left).

It seems to me that capitalism since 1776 ("The Wealth of Nations") has done much good for those nations that have been able to use it to develop their economies and their societies. I feel pretty sure that for example, medical science, in the west at least, would never have reached the heights it has if it were not for the drive that capitalism gives to an economy.

But I think it's also fair to say that capitalism has had its excesses and that it's probably getting close to its use by date. I am talking about capitalism as an economic idea of course. Socialism, to date, has in fact been a failed experiment but experiments are not stopped simply because they fail. And the reasons for failure are generally examined so that much can be learned from them.

Of course capitalism has vested interests which seek to stop any examination of the failures of socialism thus far lest the mistakes be identified and corrected and socialism as a viable economic theory replaces capitalism. If economics is about the proper use of scarce resources then capitalism surely can only thrive if those resources are not really that scarce. When those resources are very scarce then perhaps there is a need for public ownership.

Any economic system seems to control the use of resources - capitalism uses the supply and demand process while socialism uses a more planned approach. Where we have plenty then supply and demand makes sense. Where we have little then planned distribution makes sense. Well to me at least.

By the way lumping the behaviour of totalitarians like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Mao in the debate doesn't help. Democracy and totalitarianism can exist in both a capitalist and a socialist economy.

0 Replies

Some interesting ideas Goodfielder.

A couple of observations:
1.Capitalism involves vested interests that can distort the political process, just as you say. However the same is true of Socialism. I have never encountered a government regulatory or control bureaucracy that did not make the preservation and expansion of its power its top priority.
2. I find your idea of the merits of socialism for the distribution of scarce resources intriguing. Indeed one of the features of the great majority of the applications of socialism, either in its fullest expression, or even partially as in government controlled health care, is that socialism itself produces scarcity. Just as market forces induce profit-seeking investment and expanded supply, government-controlled distribution almost inevitably brings about the lack of investment and rationing of ever-scarcer resources. Perhaps a self-fulfilling mechanism is at work here.

I also believe there is merit in Einher's point about dealing with specifics, as opposed to theory, though I remain interested in a comparison of the general European social democrad approach, compared to what occurs in the U.S.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

to goodfielder
2. I find your idea of the merits of socialism for the distribution of scarce resources intriguing. Indeed one of the features of the great majority of the applications of socialism, either in its fullest expression, or even partially as in government controlled health care, is that socialism itself produces scarcity. Just as market forces induce profit-seeking investment and expanded supply, government-controlled distribution almost inevitably brings about the lack of investment and rationing of ever-scarcer resources. Perhaps a self-fulfilling mechanism is at work here.

Norway has nationalized healthcare, and I have yet to encounter any scarcity, where have you gotten that impression?

In relation to natural resources I prefer them to be government owned but privately extracted. In terms of fish for instance I think our current model of private companies buying their quotas from the government on auctions is a good one.

I tend to think market forces superior to central planning with respect to resource allocation.

goodfielder wrote:

Socialism, to date, has in fact been a failed experiment but experiments are not stopped simply because they fail. And the reasons for failure are generally examined so that much can be learned from them.

Don't use that word, people can't agree on its meaning. Substitute instead central planning, wealth redistribution, government funded 'free' services, or whichever aspect of Socialism you are thinking of.

0 Replies

I think there's nothing wrong with discussing what socialism is. People have been doing it for 200 years ;-)

Seriously, I quite liked the discussion we had on it in this very thread. I didnt experience it as a mere "swapping of slogans and labels" at all, thought it was a little more reflective and inspiring than most threads here. If we mean different things by a word, it's good to specify and discuss. At the very least, you learn something from each other.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

[
Norway has nationalized healthcare, and I have yet to encounter any scarcity, where have you gotten that impression?

In relation to natural resources I prefer them to be government owned but privately extracted. In terms of fish for instance I think our current model of private companies buying their quotas from the government on auctions is a good one.

I tend to think market forces superior to central planning with respect to resource allocation.

Norway has two significant advantages here;
1. A relatively homogenous population with a strong tradition of self-reliance and community loyalty.
2. Norway is one of the richest countries in the world now due to the North Sea oil revenues. The oil reserves are still substantial and so far Norway is using the revenues wisely.

I think that opens some possibilities for successful application of social programs that may well not work as well in other countries.

That government managed healthcare breeds rationing by the managing bureaucracy and creates its own shortages is all too evident in the operations of the health care systems in the UK and Canada. U.S. hospitals and doctors do a thriving business providing services to Canadians who have the money but not the time or patience to wait in thew public queue for months before they can see a specialist.

Health care may well be an excellent example of the long-term bad effects of government , as opposed to private sector, resource allocation and investment.

Norway's management of its oil and fishery reserves has been both efficient and effective. The U.S. does a roughly similar thing with respect to our offshore oil fields.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I think there's nothing wrong with discussing what socialism is. People have been doing it for 200 years ;-)

Well yeah, it's getting kind of old.

nimh wrote:

Seriously, I quite liked the discussion we had on it in this very thread. I didnt experience it as a mere "swapping of slogans and labels" at all, thought it was a little more reflective and inspiring than most threads here. If we mean different things by a word, it's good to specify and discuss. At the very least, you learn something from each other.

A word should always be interpreted to mean what the person who uttered it intended it to mean. When that can not be determined, or when people insist on interpretations of their own, this causes confusion.

I guess I always held something of a fascination for concepts, while regarding words merely as the means of communicating them, leading me to abandon words which do not serve that purpose. I find debating words rather pointless as there can be no greater understanding to attain, and no aspect of reality to communicate, only wholly subjective preferences for one definition/interpretation over another.

As abandoning the word as one subject to to many deviating interpretations serves my purposes, I will do so. I have no doubt that others will find the time to outline further interpretations of the word socialism, and discuss these, (they always do) though I would like also to see a debate over the merits of the various "european" policies branded socialist.

georgeob1 wrote:

Norway has two significant advantages here;
1. A relatively homogenous population with a strong tradition of self-reliance and community loyalty.
2. Norway is one of the richest countries in the world now due to the North Sea oil revenues. The oil reserves are still substantial and so far Norway is using the revenues wisely.

I think that opens some possibilities for successful application of social programs that may well not work as well in other countries.

Norway deposits all oil revenues in the oilfund, invested 60% in stocks and 40% in interest bearing assets. Each year 4% of the value of the fund is withdrawn. (sometimes a bit more, but 4% is the official number to which most parties are committed) The idea is that on average one should not withdraw more money than the fund appreciates in real terms, thus leaving each generation to inherit assets equal to those inherited by the generation before it. Oil revenues should thus theoretically last forever, or as long as the economy continues to grow at the present pace.

Thing is, while Norway is a major exporter of oil we do not spend such a significant portion of those revenues, and most of our social programmes are funded by taxes. I think the impact of oil on the norwegian welfare state thus far is limited.

As for the population part, I can se how that would effect wether the population in a country would favor implementing such projects, but I don't see how it would change the way they would operate. Why would nationalized helthcare, once implemented, be less successful in a more diverse society?

georgeob1 wrote:

That government managed healthcare breeds rationing by the managing bureaucracy and creates its own shortages is all too evident in the operations of the health care systems in the UK and Canada. U.S. hospitals and doctors do a thriving business providing services to Canadians who have the money but not the time or patience to wait in thew public queue for months before they can see a specialist.

I understand Canada spends around 12% of gdp on helthcare for all its citizens, while the US spends closer to 17% of gdp providing helthcare for only a portion of its population. One would think that Canada could eliminate those queues if spending was increased by 5% of gdp, while still providing full coverage for their citizens. Personally I'd take a three month wait over a 5% tax anytime. (exept for critical conditions, but I'm guessing there are no queues for intensive care)

It stands to reason (or so I think) that nationalized helthcare would be more efficient than a private system with insurance companies, court cases, creditors, and all the related paperwork, not to mention advertising. How much of those 17% of gdp goes to advertising?

georgeob1 wrote:

Health care may well be an excellent example of the long-term bad effects of government , as opposed to private sector, resource allocation and investment.

Actually to me nationalized helthcare seems pretty competitive when comparing on a cost/coverage or cost/services rendered basis.

georgeob wrote:

Norway's management of its oil and fishery reserves has been both efficient and effective. The U.S. does a roughly similar thing with respect to our offshore oil fields.

I pretty much agree, though I think we need to push harder for access to the EU fish-market.

0 Replies

Good idea that we should avoid labels and get to the point.

Should health care be a commodity that can be sold and purchased?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know