More drivel! Wealth redistribution is not a sufficient condition for socialism. The clue is its inclusion in neoclassical's welfare economics.
Now you are blaming me for what you are doing in this post. You are the one that painted things in some "black vs white" context which is an abuse of the economic spectrum. ... not me. You were the one that made the nonsensical inference that there was no Socialism in western democracy .... and in this post you turn around and use the term "Socialist Political Economy" What a joke.
Wrong again! You do love being consistent... I referred to the need to refer to political economy. The economic spectrum cannot be used to understand socialism. Anyone suggesting otherwise is just displaying ignorance. You take policies used in capitalism and simply crow "that's socialist!". Its like convincing yourself pigs don't exist as you think they're a particular breed of dog.
No, I oppose the standard brainwashing we've received. They are incorrectly referred to as "communist" because they were not and are not. It's not "silly semantics". It's not even "semantics" except to someone who has an interest in perpetrating a perpetuation of propaganda for some reason. Nope. Not obtuse at all. We have political and economic problems, right? And the first step in solving a problem is to define and describe it correctly and accurately, right? That's my intention. What's yours?
You can stand on a soap box and cry "ignorance ignorance" all you like but, this is not an argument for much. The idea that the economic spectrum has nothing to do with socialism is as ignorant as it gets ... laughably so .. preposterously and painfully ignorant.
Yes you are. You have claimed that socialism has nothing to do with the economic spectrum. This is loonie tunes. Not sure what definition of socialism you are using but, there are none that I know of that do not involve an economic component. Please enlighten us with your definition of Socialism ... after which ... I will wipe your silly claim out of the galaxy.
It doesn't, by definition. The economic spectrum refers to the extent of interventionism. Capitalism has of course various levels of interventionism (e.g. compare social democracy with market fundamentalism). Socialism does too. Examples of minimal government include market socialism and social anarchy. Definitions are obvious! The value is in the different schools of thought. While socialism can be embedded within the Austrian school of thought, there will be others who focus more on aspects of Marxism etc etc etc
Pigs aren't dogs! Try to realise the obvious: socialism is a change in the economic paradigm. You can't even use simple notions like 'nationalisation is socialist'. Were the Conservatives socialist when they nationalised Rolls Royce? Of course not. Was it socialist to nationalise banks following the financial crisis? Of course not. They are situations which refer to defending capitalism, maintaining the economic paradigm.
W I agreed with you that they were incorrectly referred to as communist in a pure sense What part of that did you not understand. You should have then figured out that what I was referring to was a the Soviet Style communism. If you do not like the use of the term communism ... FINE ... relabel and we will use that term. All you are doing by waffling in semantics is dragging this topic down the rabbit hole and being disingenuously ignorant. YOU KNOW what was meant .. Soviet or Chinese Totalitarianism. If you wish to call this something different .... FINE ... relabel and lets move on rather than debating the correct definition of Communism (Semantics by Definition). OK ? This is particularly irritating and obtuse in light of the fact that I already defined what I was talking about ... "A few elite controlling most resources and means of production" What term would you like to use. Second .... I also defined totalitarianism .... "Dictatorship or a state such as the Chinese "communist party - I did not give it that name ... they did" where the party ... comprised as a few elite has all the power" We can further define this if you like but I am assuming I am not dealing with a kindergarten student. Correct ... I have been trying to do this and you have been fighting me every inch of the way. My intention is "Solving a Problem" yours is to "Be Right in some silly game of Semantics". I have already said that you are Right .. yet you continue to drag this conversation down the Semantic Rabbit hole. If you want to relabel " A system where a few have control of most resources and means of production" GREAT .... do so ... then we will be on the same page and can get on with the conversation.
In reference to what I underlined, I understand what you're saying and I hate it when someone does that to me. That wasn't my intention, so let's end all appearance of that right now with this post. Other than that, your comments would depend on what point in the evolution of the Soviet or Chinese process we talk about. I assume you are referring to the latter stages in which they had failed to continue advancing socialist policies and began consolidating power by granting favors and privileges to their elite, followed by increasingly capitalist policies. That period I would refer to as totalitarian and/or abandonment of Marxism. How about "emerging state capitalism" or "state capitalism"? If we refer to it as "totalitarian" we must also recognize that it occurred after the abandonment of Marxism, making it a "communist party" in name only but not in fact. However, Stalin does present a particular problem since his methods were not what we would consider "reasonable". But such deception is common to all dictatorships and their despots. Let's not let them perpetrate their deceptions on us. So I would say "totalitarianism or dictatorship typical of the Russian/Chinese state capitalists." Now now now! You SHOULD say "yours appears to be some silly....". I told you my intentions. I made my case for why these distinctions are very important. It's simpler, faster, and clearer to say "state capitalism" because it establishes the politics involved. OK, so let's get on with it.
Give a definition of Socialism that does not include economic interventionalism. The fact that none exist is what is nonsense.
You claim that socialism has nothing to do with economic interventionalism - has nothing to do with the economic spectrum. Now you are claiming socialism is a change in the economic paradigm. WTF ?? how do you expect to have a civilized conversation when you speak like this. The one thing you said that finally makes some sense "Pigs arn't dogs" Right .. claiming that socialism has nothing to do with the economic spectrum is calling a Pig a dog.
Good... "State Capitalism" a system where the state has control of resources and means of production such as was the case in the Soviet Union and China. The point I made initially was that that in the case of State Capitalism - you end up with a few elite controlling most resources and means of production. In this case the Gov't is top heavy and totalitarian in nature. At the other end of the spectrum you lave "Laissez faire" where you end up at the same place - a few elite controlling most resources of means of production. In this case the Gov't generally viewed as non interventionalist. What we have now is a mixture of both .. We have an interventionalist Gov't that is moving towards a quazi totalitarian police state ... and we have a few elite controlling most resources and means of production. The Gov't supports the Oligopolies/Oligarchs through regulation and tax law and by not enforcing anti competition, anti trust and laws banning nefarious practices. Definition - Establishment ( international financiers and Oligarchs, Political elite, Deep state bureaucracy". We now have a system where the Establishment owns the MSM and creates propaganda which is disseminated by the MSM. This is combined with an increasing lack of transparency in Gov't where bad deeds by our Gov't is considered "Classified". The Rule of Law and principle on which this nation was founded "Individual liberty ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't has been under attack for centuries and it has now gotten to the point where we can now be considered moving towards a quazi police state.
You can read? Hallelujah! Your writing abilities unfortunately do not achieve the dizzy heights of your reading! It isn't difficult. You have implied, but I'm not sure you even know it, that interventionism equates to socialism. I have told you that is drivel. The economic spectrum, referring to the level of interventionism, tells us nothing about the economic paradigm. It only tells us the extent of government activity. We of course know that government interventionism is key for the survival of capitalism: referring to both stabilisation policy (e.g. US's historical reliance on the military sector) and equity (e.g. social democratic countries using wealth redistribution to encourage entrepreneurial activity)
I've already referred to two forms of socialism which minimise government intervention: market socialism and social anarchy. I've done that to illustrate the folly of referring to the economic spectrum to predict some made-up notion of a 'degree of socialism'. Market socialism, for example, requires less macroeconomic demand management than capitalism (given it eliminates the problems generated by monopoly power)
Ok good, but be aware that the spectrum to which you refer is just the spectrum of capitalism. There is no feudalism, socialism, or communism in that spectrum. Agreed!! Agreed!! Agreed again!!
Well look at that .. very much we are in agreement. The reference to the Feudal was in that, like in the Feudal System the Serf does not own any property- ownership of private property was quit restrictive. The serf would get a small piece of land which he could work for food and in compensation he would work the Feudal lords land ... a kind of indentured servitude. Today we have the illusion of private property ownership but, this property is actually rented from the state, in most cases the property tax is very high. The necessities of life - Food, Energy and so on - are controlled by Oligopolies who engage in collusion, anti competitive practices and price fixing. There is little difference between "extortion" and what the Healthcare Oligopolies do. Every time a tax law or regulation is being made the Oligopoly is sitting at the table - and perhaps they have a right to be there. The problem is that the person who is supposed to be representing the worker is either in the pocket of or under the influence of the Oligopoly. It's not like the Oligopoly wins every table but, over time, table after table - the rules of the game get skewed in favor of the Oligopoly. Often (although such forces exist) there is no cabal or star chamber. It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed. Make it to congress and insider trading is quazi legal. You (or better yet your buddy) can give contract to ABC company and invest in that company before the news hits the street. This is a license to print money - "I want in on that game". Every so often some "do gooder" stands up and calls out this practice. Everyone then turns and says "LOOK LOOK ... freedom of speech ... what a great system we have" - That voice is then quickly drowned out by the cacophony on the take. Would you be the one to shoot the goose laying the golden eggs. I probably wouldn't. Few have the stones to run against a herd of stampeding bulls ...and nor is this very wise in most cases. It is the natural out cropping of self interest and greed. We have a pay to play system. Hillary speaks for 15 minutes at a wall street luncheon and gets paid 250K a pop. This is not for her charm and good looks. This is for a job well done. When you play - you get paid. Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster
Right! So given that both the Democrats and the Republicans are complicit in playing this game in favor of top capital and we-the-people lose continually, how can we reasonably, realistically, change this to benefit the majority as it should be?
Britain's Momentum show what can be done. It's taken a Labour Party which, previously a supporter of neoliberalism and austerity, now has social democratic bite
Getting people to stop voting Red and Blue and start voting independent. There needs to be a movement. That time is coming. We saw signs of this in the Anti Establishment movement ... Bernie on the left and Trump on the Right. The problem is that the movement as it sits today does not have a well defined target... but this is coming. At some point a charismatic leader will arise and .. like how folks followed Trump ... they will follow this leader. Trump was obviously a big fake and has turned out to be an Establishment wonk. Once again the raging masses fell for platitudes ... mind you, it was not like they had a choice. At least they did not know for sure that Trump would be an Establishment wonk... they knew for sure that Hillary was. And then there is the fact that having to listen to Hillary for 4 years would be far to painful to bear.
I take that to mean we should persuade people to vote without regard to party, but for the person. But the problem is that Big Capital makes damned sure to buy off any politician to get legislation it wants. Hell, we already have A.L.E.C. where lobbyists and their corporate attorneys write up the legislation they want and then hand it to willing, receptive politicians for instant submission to congress. Voting without regard for party affiliation won't stop Big Capital from owning government like this. In fact, the Koch brothers just announced that they intend to spend $400 million on the next election! And they're not the only ones buying government. We can't compete with that and they know it. So my vote is that your first recommendation won't do anything. Currently MoveOn is linking with other orgs to provide a massive response when the time comes. But still, your point is well taken. The people are not organized as they must be. There was far more organization and activism in the 1920s and 30s. Government has willingly complied with Big Capital on this. Government doesn't want the people to discover their power. Look back at what Obama did. He campaigned heavily on "we the people" and "we will do it together" and "are you with me? I need you with me!" And then when he got into office his message was essentially "thanks folks. I've got it from here." Government is scared to death of an organized public but they work to keep us from knowing that of course. I figure all it would take is about 5% of the population to show up with demands. No, they didn't, and only because the powers-that-be worked to make damned sure Bernie wouldn't win the nomination. Amen!
I agree that there is little chance for change. The powers at be have gotten far to powerful and influential. So much so that the do not even care if a few voices speak out... so long as the raging masses are kept ignorant these voices have no effect.
