Socialism Doesn't Work?

I would abstain before I vote 'right'! But the latest coming out of the intelligence investigations into Russia's role in the election is that they heavily attacked/influenced both campaigns starting right from the beginning with the primaries.

It's just about looking to me like the whole thing was not valid and we need a special election starting with primaries to correct this. Hillary may not have been the real democratic candidate, and trump most probably wasn't the real republican candidate.

 

Frankly, I cannot believe there are people who still have such ideas in their heads. This is the era of information! You know? Information? All you have to do is be able to read to find all kinds of information and if you use your head you can usually sift through the conflicting info to see what makes sense and what does not. It works like this:

1). A point of view.
2). A conflicting point of view.
3). "After the fact" results on any given incident/issue.
4). Logic will then tell you which view is most likely correct.

ATTENTION: 'Logic' must come from your own personal research or experience. Without it you're stuffed ....... but good!

 

Oh - My - God

 

Of course it's my personal opinion. The difference between your opinion on this and mine, is that mine is backed by the facts. The very fact that no free country in the world chooses socialism as it's economic system, and that all those who have previously done so and remain free have defenestrated it (or are still in the process of doing so), clearly demonstrates my point that socialism is already on the ash-heap of history.

All one need do is look at countries, since the industrial revolution, in which the government has owned and controlled the means of production and there are no property rights; then check out how that country's economy and populace have fared during that time.

Then, look at the countries that have gone from socialism to Laissez-Faire capitalism and instituted and protected property rights.

Probably the most vivid demonstration of the stupendous power of free market capitalism is that unlike your socialist fantasyland, capitalism doesn't require 100% perfect circumstances in order to work. Free market capitalism with property rights works and helps average citizens to the extent that countries implement it.

China is an excellent example of this. When Mao died, he(and socialism) had pounded china's economy and society back into the stone age on many levels. Since then, as the still authoritarian government has allowed increasing economic freedom, implemented ever more market principles such as property rights, sold off and downsized state owned enterprises, allowed foreign direct investment and otherwise introduced or allowed free market competition in it's economy; hundreds of millions of chinese citizens have raised themselves up out of poverty and both the country and it's people have benefitted tremendously overall.

To summarize, someday you're going to have to figure out that in order for any economy to succeed and it's citizens prosper over the long haul, those citizens have to have both the incentive to create wealth and the rule of law - including property rights, strong monetary policy and government protected and enforced contracts - that incentivize and support entrepreneurialism, working with and for others, and risk-taking.

Someday, perhaps, you'll realize that free market capitalism can do this, and socialism cannot.

 

Now there's revisionism for you! China had been in the grips of a horribly cruel feudalism for many, many years. That was all passed and better times were on the horizon.

Other than that you are pretending capitalism didn't go through a long period of struggle similar in many ways. That is revisionism too.

 

Socialism is for the weak. It's the equivalent of a parent providing for a child. It punishes the exceptional in order to elevate the mediocre. No wonder so many find it an attractive option.

 

No revisionism; just you making more excuses for the spectacular failure that socialism has proven to be.

China had indeed been in the grip of feudalism/tyranny for centuries; yet Mao and socialism still succeeded in making the economy even worse and life even more horrible for the chinese populace(And that's leaving aside the multi-millions Mao tortured and/or killed).

And no, free market capitalism under the rule of law has never had struggles similar to socialism; although it certainly has had it's struggles, and it certainly has always had significant flaws and drawbacks, as any institution that involves human beings does. In fact, Laissez-Faire capitalism is the worst economic system in the history of the world; except compared to everything else mankind has ever tried.

 

whatever

 

Look, I have no interest in trying to browbeat anyone into agreeing with me; I'm just not a fan of attacking a POV and, especially, impugning the motives of those who hold it; without backing evidence to support it. That's the Donald Trump/Harry Reid way and I despise it.

I always enjoy a well reasoned discussion with those I don't agree with, so long as it's a respectful one, and over the past few years, I've probably read more books/articles/blogs/studies from opposing views than I have ones that I agree with.

Tell you what; if you have a book or article that you think cogently makes the case for socialism over capitalism as an economic system, I'll be happy to read it and discuss it with you, if you in turn agree to read one I select and discuss that.

 

I appreciate that reply. Thanks.

I don't have a book, as such, to recommend. My viewpoint was cultivated by reading and meeting and talking with people over 40 years ago. But what I do have is a reference to a long list of videos if you would like to take that approach. Just search Youtube for all Richard Wolff's videos. Wolff got his bachelor's in economics at Harvard, his Masters in economics at Stanford, and his Doctorate in economics at Yale, and he spent his life as an economics college professor. So he cultivated a good delivery to keep the students interested. He's easy to listen to. Here are a couple to get you started if you're interested:





On second though, for something that makes the case for socialism, I can also recommend reading the following:

https://usworker.coop/democratic-workplaces/

http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/wp-content/themes/mondragon/docs/History-MONDRAGON.pdf

And if you're really interested in reading, this isn't "certified socialism" but it has proposals that are socialist in nature. If you familiarize yourself with the above material, you will easily detect which of these are socialist approaches and which are not.
http://thenextsystem.org/

There are also plenty of critiques of capitalism available.

If you would like to discuss some of the above material I listed, I'd be happy to engage you.

 

Personally I support socialism, but remember some annoying conservative pundit being interviewed for a book he wrote on The Wealth of Nations and further how fabulous Free Market Capitalism is.

Just as I was thinking of turning off the screen he was asked what was the single most important thing needed for wealth, or at least a good economy. He said he was surprised by his own conclusion that the rule of law was the single most important ingredient. If you don't have honest rules, how can any system work?

I think that was people ignore when arguing if one country or another was successfully economical is whether they were corrupt or not.

 

Con artists suffer from cognitive dissonance on the issue of socialism. All con artists love supply-side socialism that benefits the rich, ie Free (To have workers, consumers, and taxpayers socialize business costs) Markets. What upsets con artists, which is consistent with their anti-Christian beliefs, is the American belief
of promoting the general welfare rather than the corporate welfare state.

 

Perhaps. I think it is the glorification of the "job creators" along with the oversimplification of the whole system, not necessarily con-artists.

 

Sorry for the delay; but I've had some stuff to deal with and haven't had much time for chat boards lately.

I've seen some of Wolff's stuff and I became interested in Mondragon and did a good bit of research on them several years ago. Also, I will be happy to read those articles.

Hard and fast definitions of both capitalism and socialism are pretty hard to come by, but I've already read a good bit of Marx and, for a more current socialist(or anarchist) view, Noam Chomsky and several others; so I think I'm relatively(for a "conservative") up on the historical and more current view of socialism, from the POV of "mainstream" socialists themselves.

Sorry for the delay. Been dealing with some important stuff and haven't had time for chat boards lately.

I've read/seen some of Wolff's stuff, and I like how civil he is in his arguments.

Sorry for the delay. I've had some stuff going on and haven't had time for chat boards lately.

I've seen a good bit of Wolff's stuff and I like his respectful, reasoned style of discussion on what is a volatile subject. I'll be happy to look at some more of his stuff.

I also became interested in Mondragon several years ago and did a good bit of research on them. What I found is that from what I can see Mondragon looks like a capitalist venture, not a socialist one, and that it isn't much different from many other large conglomorates in how it operates, other than that it allows somewhat greater input than is commonplace on major company decisions for some(but nowhere near all) of it's workers, and has more sever caps on it's highest earners. While Mondragon officially caps wage disparity(I think it's something like the highest earners can have 6.5x the lowest salary), that doesn't apply to all Mondragon workers and that absolutely is not "from each according to his abilty/to each according to his need", as the socialist mantra goes. I'd love to have a discussion on Mondragon, as IMO, it goes to the essence of what is capitalism and what is socialism ; I think we could do a whole thread on that alone.

I guess if we're to have a good discussion on socialism vs capitalism, we'll both first need to explain our own personal view on what socialism is and what capitalism is, as we see it; because pretty much everyone has at least slightly different definitions from everyone else on both.

I'll go first.

The economic/social system I espouse is Laissez-Faire capitalism, wherein government's role is a strong but very limited one; mainly to enforce the rule of law, individual liberty and rights, personal and collective responsibility; property rights, the legitimacy and enforcement of contracts, and government's constitutional duties of law enforcement and national defense.

I see socialism, as espoused by most, as government ownership/control over the economy and society(Yes, I know many socialists say it's collective ownership/control, but once you get beyond very small communities, there's really no practical difference, since there's simply no practical way for every citizen of even a small country to be able to examine, decide and act upon every issue that such a huge entity has to deal with; which means a relatively small percentage of the people will be put in charge, just as is currently the case in any democratic/republican government. The main difference I see is that the market, based upon the rule of law and the rights/freedoms noted above, makes the economic decisions, while the government makes them in a socialist economy.

I'm still very busy, so I won't be a frequent poster, but I look forward to your explanation of capitalism/socialism as you see them, and to further discussions on areas in which we both agree and disagree.

Also, the best book I've ever read explaining just how important the rule of law and strongly enforced individual property rights are is this one:


It's a short book and an easy read. I highly recommend it to everyone.

 

You seem to have had a bit of difficulty with posting. So I cut your post back to the following for the purpose of a reply.

I'm unaware of any restrictions or neglect regarding provision of opportunities for all workers to provide inputs to the company. They did say they have found that there are new challenges to maintaining democratic input when worker count reached a higher number, like 50,000 or such. But yes the business has some similarities to capitalist businesses, like having management, pay scales, work hours, and rules. But the important and decisive issue is who controls the business and makes the decisions. And I think this interview may answer that pretty well.

But that's not the socialist mantra. There are two: one characterizing socialism and one characterizing communism. You quoted the one relating to communism (classless, stateless society of 1000 years in the future). The socialist "mantra" is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work".

And if there are exceptions to the 6.5-to-1 pay rule, I wouldn't be one to judge and dictate what it should be. I would look for democratic worker decision on it. What they collectively and democratically decide is fine. That is what socialism is about, not rigid empirical rules to follow mechanically. But I would be interested in a link to your source on this.

That could be really good. And it would involve many links to existing data. Such an understanding of it all would be valuable I think, if you would like to start such a thread.

But you wanted to explain your own personal views on what socialism is. If this is your personal view, I would encourage you to develop it more in line with the evolving, advancing, current definition of "socialism". Socialism is in its early stages of development. There is no example yet of an application of socialist principles that has effectively created a stable and functional economic system as we have with capitalism. So strategies are changing and will continue to change until that stability is finally achieved. Thus, it's important to know that progress on this is being made. And the leading theories I find seem to agree that government control leads to very real problems that defy resolution.

Thanks. I'll look into it.

Regarding my definitions of capitalism and socialism, I see one fundamental and critical distinction: the relationship between those who labor in some way (includes accountants, lawyers, business managers, etc.) and those who control and decide the operation of the business (includes the CEO and Board of Directors or recognized business owners in smaller privately owned businesses).

And that relationship in capitalism is one we're familiar with in which the owner makes decision on what to produce, how to produce it, where to produce it, when to produce it, and what to do with the revenues from sales, and the workers serve the business owner as ordered.

But that relationship in socialism is one in which those who control the operation and make those same decisions are also the people who labor to produce the products of the business.

Simple as that.

Everything else is determined by how it relates to those basic relationships.

 

Treebeard, I found an online pdf of the entire text of "The Mystery of Capital" and I'm reading it. By the time I got to page 7 I already learned something very important and very useful to know regarding the reason that Third World is so underdeveloped.

Thanks for recommending the book. No doubt I will have more to say later.

 

Banks could not exist without government help? Really??

Customer deposits money in bank. Bank stores money. Customer withdraws money from bank. Why is government needed for this?

 

The idea of living together in a community was born in the dawn of history to derive the benefit of division of labor and responsibilities, using the available talents and abilities in the most advantageous manner. This makes the total much larger than the sum of all individuals.

Division of labor naturally results in free market economy. Even though, the earlier communities tended to be highly socialistic, between the communities, free market and capitalism was the only way economic dealings could exist.

The bottom line is that free market, capitalism and socialism are tools that must be used for the benefit of the society. When one class exploits others, using any of these tools, the basic purpose is defeated. Free market concept presupposes full competition. But when a class can corner the market or certain products the society suffers. All human groups (even this forum) have rules - socialism.

Community living requires taking some individual freedom away for the benefit of the whole. These rules are the essence of socialism. The rules are enforced using the fear of punishment. The group entrusted with the enforcement is called the government. Thus no community can exist without its government (formal or informal, as in the case of earlier communities) and socialism. Even the law itself is socialism.

No life-entity ever wants to compromise its existence. Thus governments tend to grow in size and power. When a government becomes the master of the society rather than a servant, the basic purpose is defied. The governments should try to rule as less as practical, and only in line for the good of the whole society. 'The rule that rules the least is the best.'

Governments can easily abuse their power in the name of socialism (USSR), or free market (much of the West). Slums of industrialization are vivid examples of unscrupulous free market.

Whether we are addressing Economics, Socialism or Government, we need to remember, that they all have practical limits propagated by the need to make the society happy. All social equations omitting the factor of society's wellbeing are incomplete and side with evil.

Capitalism, free market, socialism and government are all tools required to achieve the happy functionality of a society. But each of these tools have to be used prudently. Too much government causes inefficiency and tyranny, while too little of it creates law of jungle atmosphere. Lack of capitalism takes away the motivation for production, while reckless capitalism creates unjust distribution of wealth (Bottom 50% share 4% wealth in USA). Overwhelming socialism creates lazy selfishness. It is like making a machine; the processes of forging, cutting, grinding and fastening have to be applied correctly.

All fears are detrimental to happiness. Violence and greed cause pains and generate fears in others. From the very beginning, societies have rules to curtail its members' aggression. Democracy is the best form of government today. It decentralizes the power, curtailing its potential for injustice. But the rules to curtail greed are lacking a lot. Seems like the next lesion in humanity's curriculum is: "unrestricted capitalism is detrimental to society's wellbeing."

 

That is temporary.
The influx of 'migrants' will bankrupt the system. It's already happening in Britain. Death panels, refusal of healthcare for older citizens.

 

No. But it does show promise as a diet plan.

SOCIALISM, THE 21ST CENTURY DIET PLAN
The limits of human endurance are now being tested in Venezuela. The Wall Street Journal reports: “Venezuela is starving.” Venezuela was once Latin America’s richest, producing food for export. Venezuela now can’t grow enough to feed its own people in an economy hobbled by the nationalization of private farms, and price and currency controls. Socialism, in other words.

Venezuela has the world’s highest inflation—estimated by the International Monetary Fund to reach 720% this year—making it nearly impossible for families to make ends meet. Since 2013, the economy has shrunk 27%, according to local investment bank Torino Capital; imports of food have plunged 70%.

Hordes of people, many with children in tow, rummage through garbage, an uncommon sight a year ago. People in the countryside pick farms clean at night, stealing everything from fruits hanging on trees to pumpkins on the ground, adding to the misery of farmers hurt by shortages of seed and fertilizer. Looters target food stores. Families padlock their refrigerators.

Three in four Venezuelans said they had lost weight last year, an average of 19 pounds, according to the National Poll of Living Conditions, an annual study by social scientists.

Families are taking turns eating, hoping to stave off starvation:

On a recent day, Mr. Alzolay was frying sardines. To stretch the food they have, a couple of family members skip eating one day to leave enough for the others.

Mr. Palma and his grandson Germain, 11 years old, eat less food to leave more for the two younger children. Germain’s once-thick hair is turning yellow.

“They need it more than me,” said Germain, who weighs 50 pounds instead of 70 pounds, about the average for a boy his age. … Asked his favorite meal, he said, “Arroz con pollo,” rice and chicken, which he last ate in 2015.

Starvation: it is the inevitable end point of socialism. Yet a growing number of Americans want to enact socialist policies here.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/05/socialism-the-21st-century-diet-plan.php

Beware the Utopians and Master-Planners. Our Freedom and Liberty make their plans impossible, so they work against them in everything they do.

 

This is the type of nonsense that has been coming out of far left people recently, its absolutely insane.

 

Humans have always lived mainly in communities. Among them many early societies shared work. For them, hunting, gathering, and preparing the food were shared communal activities without divisions of labor.


“Division of labor naturally results in free market economy.”
It didn't for many of the early tribal communities. Even Native American tribes often bartered with other tribes and later settlers for goods. Yet theirs cannot be called a "free market economy".


“Even though, the earlier communities tended to be highly socialistic, between the communities free market and capitalism was the only way economic dealings could exist.”
Since capitalism means specifically private ownership of the means of production for private profit, and since that arrangement was absent from early tribal societies which bartered with other tribes, it is not true that "free market and capitalism was the only way economic dealings could exist".


“The bottom line is that free market, capitalism and socialism are tools that must be used for the benefit of the society. When one class exploits others, using any of these tools, the basic purpose is defeated.”
It sounds like you disagree that exploitation of the working class is a fundamental fact of capitalism. But the only case where such exploitation doesn't exist under capitalism is that of the sole proprietor owner/operator business. IOW, exploitation is the rule under capitalism if any workers/employees are involved.


“Community living requires taking some individual freedom away for the benefit of the whole. These rules are the essence of socialism.The rules are enforced using the fear of punishment.”
Examples are required here. Otherwise I say it isn't true.


“The group entrusted with the enforcement is called the government. Thus no community can exist without its government (formal or informal, as in the case of earlier communities) and socialism. Even the law itself is socialism.”
That requires elaboration and explanation. Keep in mind that socialism is not just whatever someone wishes to describe and name "socialism". Socialism is specifically an economy in which the workers collectively own and operate the businesses where they work.


“Governments can easily abuse their power in the name of socialism (USSR), or free market (much of the West). Slums of industrialization are vivid examples of unscrupulous free market.”
It would be more accurate to change the wording to say "governments have easily abused their power...."


“Whether we are addressing Economics, Socialism or Government, we need to remember, that they all have practical limits propagated by the need to make the society happy. All social equations omitting the factor of society's wellbeing are incomplete and tend to be evil.”
Another way of saying it may be that the most humane, benevolent, and beneficial government is one that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

 

You weren't very specific. In fact you weren't AT ALL specific. Do you know what is going on with Trump and the investigations?

 

Yup, I believe the blogger posts to be just as truthful as any of the other attacks we have seen on both Trump and Hillary. Being crazy like this is the new norm, I get it

 

Ok, so you don't know what's going on with trump and the investigation and Flynn and the rest. That's ok. Just you hang on and wait until it's finalized and they frog-march the perps. Then you'll know what happened.