About Socialism

Jesus...educate your self or try to be honest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

 

Are you threatening me Robert?

 

Why can't you speak for yourself? Must you include everyone in your argument, as if we all have the same values and preferences as you? Try changing "we" to I, or perhaps the veracity of your assertions simply won't hold up.

 

"Capitalism" and "socialism" are just words.
Instead of arguing about words, argue about reality.

Don't argue about "is" questions, it's pointless. If you want to call various forms of non-private ownership "socialist" ... go ahead.

The question of interest is: should we have such forms, if so, to what extent? Should we have some now that we don't have? Or privatize some that we do?
Would Amazon or Microsoft or Google or General Motors serve us better if they were nationalized? Would the fire department or Yellowstone National Park serve us better if they were privatized?

 

Socialist analysis certainly all comes down to feasibility. Hayek is correct, for example, that tacit knowledge drives economic success. Unsurprisingly, market socialism recognises that and maintains traditional ownership within SMEs

 

This amused me. First, you're using wikipedia. Second, you're confirming the obvious: a mixed economy is just a reference to the economic spectrum. It typically just refers to liberal democracy within capitalism (e.g. provision of public goods; macroeconomic stabilisation through fiscal policy). Its ludicrous to suggest it is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Libertarian socialism, for example, rejects government interventionism (which is certainly needed to stabilise capitalism and reproduce capitalist profit).

 

Why? Just because they sell a product that you value, does that mean they are telling you how much you value it?

Medicine has been practiced around the world for centuries. Why is there still disease?

 

None of them have the balls to do that.

 

It's a British/Commonwealth term, meaning, according to an online dictionary , "to complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way."

I've often wondered about its relation to "to whine" and was surprised to find this fact out from the Merriam and Webster brothers: "Whinge isn't just a spelling variant of "whine." "Whinge" and "whine" are actually entirely different words with separate histories. "Whine" traces to an Old English verb, "hwinan," which means "to make a humming or whirring sound." When "hwinan" became "whinen" in Middle English, it meant "to wail distressfully"; "whine" didn't acquire its "complain" sense until the 16th century. "Whinge," on the other hand, comes from a different Old English verb, "hwinsian," which means "to wail or moan discontentedly." "Whinge" retains that original sense today, though nowadays it puts less emphasis on the sound of the complaining and more on the discontentment behind the complaint."

 

Fact. Capitalism made this world a great place without dealing with Tyrants dictacting every facet of our lives. Socialism has some benefits to help the masses, but overall, it is just another form of Tryanny a government would have to control the masses. Not everyone wants to have every facet of their lives over-regulated.

 

So we must still exploit labor, just a little less so or under a different name/motivation?

 

This may have been true in the past when wealth disparity meant the wealthy rode in a coach and the poor didn't have shoes. The poor in the U.S. today are in the top 30 percent of the wealthy worldwide. If you've got a car, a place to sleep, enough to eat, a TV, cell phone, air conditioning, etc., what do you have to revolt about? Even though the difference in monetary wealth is greater between the poorest and the richest people in the U.S. than ever before, the real difference in quality of life is less than it has been in the past. In 1800 the difference between the rich and the poor was the difference between eating well and starving, between having shoes or not. Today the difference is between eating at McDonalds or Ruths Chris, between driving a used Chevy and driving a new Mercedes. Some of the poor in America may envy the rich but many of them see that they have the opportunity to become the rich and a bunch more just don't care as long as they are keeping their lives together. The only way there will be a revolution in the U.S. is if we have a cataclysmic economic failure such as is happening in Venezuela and people don't have anything to lose by rioting and looting.

 

Nope. Economic choice is guaranteed, from resources to choose self employment to democracy within the large firm.

 

Oh dear! I've seemed to upset you!

Was it the fact that I've repeatedly pointed out you continual lack of support for your positions?

Perhaps it's the fact that I find Marxist quibbling over the fine details of disproven theories entertaining?

Or perhaps it is that I've provided counter arguments to your past assertion with nary of a response to the contrary?

Maybe it is due to the fact that Marxist economic theory is truly unreconcilable with a free market due to the fact it dictates value? That rascal, the Economic Calculation problem, got you down!

You seem frustrated, and that is unfortunate. Perhaps once you discover sound economic theory, it will be.less so for you.

I truly wish you all the luck in the world with that.

TTFN!

 

What resources?

 

Market socialism includes the need for redistribution. Burczak, for example, refers to a one off payment worth the resources needed to acquire a PhD. How you use that money is up to you...

 

Who does the redistributing? And what happens after you spend your pre paid doctorate on hookers and blow?

 

Task of the state of course. The payment is to allow economic choice. Of course you're free to waste it away. It isn't replenished.

 

Such gracious table manners!

 

They share NO traits. One is nil surplus collectivism, the other is surplus + individualism.

And for the thousandth time, how are social programs funded? Via communism? Of course not. Every cent of those purchased programs is paid for via capitalism. Therefore they ARE capitalism. Any expenditure arising from the profits of capitalism are a part of that capitalism.

 

Nonsense. The wealth disparity in the Third and Second Worlds is FAR greater. We have the least disparity on earth. There'll be no revolutions - not unless our grotesquely privileged 'poor' are so incensed by missing out on the latest iphone that they're prepared to kill. We will simply fall slowly into a more equitable position - probably Second World. THAT'S how you fix disparity - organically, via the dissolution of the First and Third Worlds (the extremes).

 

And yet you (GY) never will. Because you LOVE what capitalism does for you. You can purchase anything you want or need with those yummy profits .. and heck, given enough social programs you'll even snaffle those capitalist profits without effort!

I mock because it's so patently absurd to suggest that the average American Lefty is anything but capitalism fetishist. They can themselves whatever they want, but the reality is that they desperately want those delicious profits - just like the 2%ers.

 

Live and work collectively (in small groups), voluntarily, towards a nil profit self-sufficiency.

 

None of that would make any difference. Would still be capitalism.

 

And what percentage of humanity would put that payment towards its intended use (the betterment of their circumstances)? I suspect you know it would be one in a dozen, if not less. Which is the real reason we see a wealth divide in a First World capitalist democracy.