|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:53 pm
 |
|
|
 |
 I myself am a Social Democrat (some call it soft socialism), and although I commend the Libertarian's policies on Social issues, I cannot agree with them on political issues.
As for Communism, or command economies, I doubt that it could ever be used on a grand scale. It works in small groups because members usually have a common ideology. In order to make it work on a larger scale, we would have to have the vast majority believe in the ideology. But because people tend to want to be individuals, they'll go against the flow... thus making Communism less effective.
Capitalism, or free market economies, though it allows for individual ideologies, creates too much economic inequalities and lowers the standard of living for the vast majority.
As for what I believe the 'best' form of economy is, I'd have to say a mixed-market. My view is, too much state control and we turn into a totalitarian state... too little and economic freedom is out the door. Socialism, at lest Social Democracies, is the perfect median. It allows for individualism AND a higher standard of living. I think the perfect example would be Sweden's example. They've had a history of high wages (thanks to organized workers), relatively low unemployment, and low inflation.
 heart 4laugh |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:51 am
|
|
|
|
dl1371 Gracchia Saint-Justine dl1371 Well sure thats one goal of communism, but I doubt thats the major goal. After skimming through The Communist Manifesto again(well the first few times I read the whole thing)I've noticed that Marx and Engels focus much more of the liberation of the proletariat than the abolition of the employers, which would lead to the end result that you're talking about. than how much greater society would be under communism. Oh yes, actually it was the early socialists who were interested in how much more society would produce under their plans. No, it is the goal of communism. The liberation of the proletariat is the only means to get there. The proletariat is the only class with the organistion (through being collectively organised at the point of production in the form of factories) and the objective desire to trancend class society. In short, it is the only class which unifies both the desire and the ability to do such. The Manifesto* isn't the only work of Marxism, and in fact is merely a propaganda document by an organisation on the eve of a revolution. A more complete exposition is found in the draft version written by Engels, which has come down to us titled Principles of Communism.* Marxist theory, later (and most correctly) termed Dialectical Materialism by Plekhanov, the father of Russian Marxism is mainly explained or demonstraited in Marx's Capital, Critique of the Gotha Programme,* Engels' Anti-Duhring,* and their joint effort The German Ideology, which they wrote as a work of self-clarification, and not for publication (though it is, of course, available both in print and online). An especially nice and accessable explanation of this view is in Principles of Communism, under question 20, "What will be the consequences of the ultimate disappearance of private property?" *: These works are available in the link in my signature. Those without an asterisk are available at marxists.org but are not provided in the link in my sig. a) Wouldn't anarcho-communism be the best because it also takes people who would ordinarily be in the government and put them in manufacturing. b) Why in hell are we discussing what Marx thought? Last time I checked I was an individual, and I'm pretty sure you are too(although you could be a bot or a group of people)
a) No, because the anarcho-communist path to an anarcho/communist society ignores/denies the necessity of a revolutionary vanguard party which can lead the working class through the revolution, and they deny the necessity of a dictatorship of the working class to be established after the initial siezure of power.
b) Because the thread went off topic to communism/Marxism. It is like discussing Christianity and getting pissed off when people cite the bible to explain christianity, or discussing Keynesianism without actually looking at what Keynes wrote. You don't have to agree that Marx is correct, but I if you say that Marxism holds positions it doesn't, then I will correct you. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:33 pm
|
|
|
|
Gracchia Saint-Justine dl1371 Gracchia Saint-Justine dl1371 Well sure thats one goal of communism, but I doubt thats the major goal. After skimming through The Communist Manifesto again(well the first few times I read the whole thing)I've noticed that Marx and Engels focus much more of the liberation of the proletariat than the abolition of the employers, which would lead to the end result that you're talking about. than how much greater society would be under communism. Oh yes, actually it was the early socialists who were interested in how much more society would produce under their plans. No, it is the goal of communism. The liberation of the proletariat is the only means to get there. The proletariat is the only class with the organistion (through being collectively organised at the point of production in the form of factories) and the objective desire to trancend class society. In short, it is the only class which unifies both the desire and the ability to do such. The Manifesto* isn't the only work of Marxism, and in fact is merely a propaganda document by an organisation on the eve of a revolution. A more complete exposition is found in the draft version written by Engels, which has come down to us titled Principles of Communism.* Marxist theory, later (and most correctly) termed Dialectical Materialism by Plekhanov, the father of Russian Marxism is mainly explained or demonstraited in Marx's Capital, Critique of the Gotha Programme,* Engels' Anti-Duhring,* and their joint effort The German Ideology, which they wrote as a work of self-clarification, and not for publication (though it is, of course, available both in print and online). An especially nice and accessable explanation of this view is in Principles of Communism, under question 20, "What will be the consequences of the ultimate disappearance of private property?" *: These works are available in the link in my signature. Those without an asterisk are available at marxists.org but are not provided in the link in my sig. a) Wouldn't anarcho-communism be the best because it also takes people who would ordinarily be in the government and put them in manufacturing. b) Why in hell are we discussing what Marx thought? Last time I checked I was an individual, and I'm pretty sure you are too(although you could be a bot or a group of people) a) No, because the anarcho-communist path to an anarcho/communist society ignores/denies the necessity of a revolutionary vanguard party which can lead the working class through the revolution, and they deny the necessity of a dictatorship of the working class to be established after the initial siezure of power. b) Because the thread went off topic to communism/Marxism. It is like discussing Christianity and getting pissed off when people cite the bible to explain christianity, or discussing Keynesianism without actually looking at what Keynes wrote. You don't have to agree that Marx is correct, but I if you say that Marxism holds positions it doesn't, then I will correct you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:34 am
|
|
|
|
Je Suis La Vie I myself am a Social Democrat (some call it soft socialism), and although I commend the Libertarian's policies on Social issues, I cannot agree with them on political issues.
As for Communism, or command economies, I doubt that it could ever be used on a grand scale. It works in small groups because members usually have a common ideology. In order to make it work on a larger scale, we would have to have the vast majority believe in the ideology. But because people tend to want to be individuals, they'll go against the flow... thus making Communism less effective.
Capitalism, or free market economies, though it allows for individual ideologies, creates too much economic inequalities and lowers the standard of living for the vast majority.
As for what I believe the 'best' form of economy is, I'd have to say a mixed-market. My view is, too much state control and we turn into a totalitarian state... too little and economic freedom is out the door. Socialism, at lest Social Democracies, is the perfect median. It allows for individualism AND a higher standard of living. I think the perfect example would be Sweden's example. They've had a history of high wages (thanks to organized workers), relatively low unemployment, and low inflation.
heart 4laugh
The only way you will have the support of the capitalists, that is, the actual business owners, especially the big financial institutions, if if they are not confined to your country. Only through taxing profits made through the cheap labour of foreign workers, such as the sweatshops in China, Mexico, and Indonesia, will you be able to fund all this wonderful stuff, and still have the support of the capitalists. Essentially, only through the exploitation of 'countries of belated capitalist development' can a welfare state be maintained.
There is also the point to be made that welfare states all around the world are shrinking, and have been doing so since the early 1990's, i.e., since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They are shrinking because capitalism was only willing to maintain the welfare state in order to provide a counter-example to the working class. With the SU gone, and working class militancy the lowest its ever been (in the west), there is simply no reason to maintain the welfare state.
It is, at best, a well-wishers' dream. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 1:06 pm
|
|
|
|
Gracchia Saint-Justine Je Suis La Vie I myself am a Social Democrat (some call it soft socialism), and although I commend the Libertarian's policies on Social issues, I cannot agree with them on political issues.
As for Communism, or command economies, I doubt that it could ever be used on a grand scale. It works in small groups because members usually have a common ideology. In order to make it work on a larger scale, we would have to have the vast majority believe in the ideology. But because people tend to want to be individuals, they'll go against the flow... thus making Communism less effective.
Capitalism, or free market economies, though it allows for individual ideologies, creates too much economic inequalities and lowers the standard of living for the vast majority.
As for what I believe the 'best' form of economy is, I'd have to say a mixed-market. My view is, too much state control and we turn into a totalitarian state... too little and economic freedom is out the door. Socialism, at lest Social Democracies, is the perfect median. It allows for individualism AND a higher standard of living. I think the perfect example would be Sweden's example. They've had a history of high wages (thanks to organized workers), relatively low unemployment, and low inflation.
heart 4laugh The problem with this is that everything you do, while holding such views, will be half-hearted. You will put forward a bunch of wonderful policies, but then you won't be able to fulfil them because they infringe on capitalism too much.
This is an interesting comment, since the poster didn't actually set any definition of what is "too much infringement on capitalism". I don't really know how you would know anything about the extent to which he could fulfill policies which he hasn't outlined.
If we take his example of Sweden, your assertion is pretty much wrong. There's a huge rate of unionization in Sweden, and the Social Democratic party were the champions of capitalism in the 1980's. They maintain a robust socialist system in certain sectors such as healthcare while also maintaining one of the highest per capita PPP in the world; higher than the UK.
Quote: And then there are the costs. The only way you will have the support of the capitalists, that is, the actual business owners, especially the big financial institutions, if if they are not confined to your country.
It would be foolish to restrict them. I can't think of a country that could be considered socially democratic that is closed to international business.
Quote: Only through taxing profits made through the cheap labour of foreign workers, such as the sweatshops in China, Mexico, and Indonesia, will you be able to fund all this wonderful stuff, and still have the support of the capitalists. Essentially, only through the exploitation of 'countries of belated capitalist development' can a welfare state be maintained.
Two things:
1. As long as you attempt to maintain even partial capitalism, you're going to have to accept the evils of it. Of course, you can always implement ways to limit them, but as you said profits will decrease. I wonder what the price is of human dignity.
2. Again, this statement is quite the generalization considering the fact that we don't even know the structure of the society he's talking about. We don't know what kinds of natural resources it has, or the skills of its people. There are certainly many cases of partially socialist states that satisfy over 80% of business owners. Obviously they won't satisfy the sociopathic corporations that don't get sick, or retire, or ever have reason to recieve "welfare", but any society based on a moral imperative will never satisfy amoral "people".
Quote: There is also the point to be made that welfare states all around the world are shrinking, and have been doing so since the early 1990's, i.e., since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They are shrinking because capitalism was only willing to maintain the welfare state in order to provide a counter-example to the working class. With the SU gone, and working class militancy the lowest its ever been (in the west), there is simply no reason to maintain the welfare state.
This is factually untrue. All of the states I can think of that could be described at "socially democratic" have seen economic growth since the early 1990's. Germany, France, Norway, Sweden...All have seen a growth in GDP, as one would expect from any economy not mired in constant recession.
The thing to remember about social democracy is that it's an advocate of several fronts. It's an advocate of socialism, but also of capitalism, and also of course of democracy. Depending on the individual, the balance is found somewhere between Laissez-faire and a command economy. I personally draw the line where commodities go to the private sector while necessities go to the public, with a chance for the better off to reject the public offer in favor of something else. But this guy might draw it somewhere else; he might not support a "welfare state" as you know it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:38 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar This is an interesting comment, since the poster didn't actually set any definition of what is "too much infringement on capitalism". I don't really know how you would know anything about the extent to which he could fulfill policies which he hasn't outlined. If we take his example of Sweden, your assertion is pretty much wrong. There's a huge rate of unionization in Sweden, and the Social Democratic party were the champions of capitalism in the 1980's. They maintain a robust socialist system in certain sectors such as healthcare while also maintaining one of the highest per capita PPP in the world; higher than the UK.
Actually, they gave an example: Sweden. And regardless of the specific national terrain, my generalisations hold true for the welfare states in western and northern Europe, Canada, and Australia.
I also don't understand what 'rate of unionisation' has to do with what I said. Again, as I said earlier: The ability of Sweden to pay for all this and remain competitive is because it does not fund it with 'native' funds, but with profit gained by ******** over workers in other countries. A kind of subsidy, if you will.
Quote: It would be foolish to restrict them. I can't think of a country that could be considered socially democratic that is closed to international business.
The point was not that they should be restricted, but that it is only possible to have a welfare state when ******** over other countries, so it is impossible for a country with most of the native capitalists having negligible economic impact elsewhere.
Quote: Two things: 1. As long as you attempt to maintain even partial capitalism, you're going to have to accept the evils of it. Of course, you can always implement ways to limit them, but as you said profits will decrease. I wonder what the price is of human dignity. 2. Again, this statement is quite the generalization considering the fact that we don't even know the structure of the society he's talking about. We don't know what kinds of natural resources it has, or the skills of its people. There are certainly many cases of partially socialist states that satisfy over 80% of business owners. Obviously they won't satisfy the sociopathic corporations that don't get sick, or retire, or ever have reason to recieve "welfare", but any society based on a moral imperative will never satisfy amoral "people".
In response to 1.:
The issue highlighted is not with capitalism, but with one manifestation of it: Imperialism. it is not merely that workers are getting ******** over, but the only way to fund the welfare state is to ******** over other countries.
Quote: This is factually untrue. All of the states I can think of that could be described at "socially democratic" have seen economic growth since the early 1990's. Germany, France, Norway, Sweden...All have seen a growth in GDP, as one would expect from any economy not mired in constant recession.
I'm talking about the welfare state: How much money, in absolute terms, and as a fraction of GDP, is being devoted to it? The money devoted to the welfare system: Health, unemployment benefits, pensions, all of that stuff, is dropping. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:17 am
|
|
|
|
Gracchia Saint-Justine Lethkhar This is an interesting comment, since the poster didn't actually set any definition of what is "too much infringement on capitalism". I don't really know how you would know anything about the extent to which he could fulfill policies which he hasn't outlined. If we take his example of Sweden, your assertion is pretty much wrong. There's a huge rate of unionization in Sweden, and the Social Democratic party were the champions of capitalism in the 1980's. They maintain a robust socialist system in certain sectors such as healthcare while also maintaining one of the highest per capita PPP in the world; higher than the UK. Actually, they gave an example: Sweden. And regardless of the specific national terrain, my generalisations hold true for the welfare states in western and northern Europe, Canada, and Australia. I also don't understand what 'rate of unionisation' has to do with what I said.
Well, the Social Democratic party in Sweden has implemented policies to encourage unionization. These were fulfilled. They've been quite successful, really.
Quote: Again, as I said earlier: The ability of Sweden to pay for all this and remain competitive is because it does not fund it with 'native' funds, but with profit gained by ******** over workers in other countries. A kind of subsidy, if you will.
Of course, but you're going to find that in any society that involves a certain amount of capitalistic principles. It has nothing to do with Sweden's socialist elements, which are more concerned with how to use those resources once they've been obtained through capitalistic means.
Quote: Quote: It would be foolish to restrict them. I can't think of a country that could be considered socially democratic that is closed to international business. The point was not that they should be restricted, but that it is only possible to have a welfare state when ******** over other countries, so it is impossible for a country with most of the native capitalists having negligible economic impact elsewhere.
It's impossible to have capitalism without ******** over somebody.
Quote: Quote: Two things: 1. As long as you attempt to maintain even partial capitalism, you're going to have to accept the evils of it. Of course, you can always implement ways to limit them, but as you said profits will decrease. I wonder what the price is of human dignity. 2. Again, this statement is quite the generalization considering the fact that we don't even know the structure of the society he's talking about. We don't know what kinds of natural resources it has, or the skills of its people. There are certainly many cases of partially socialist states that satisfy over 80% of business owners. Obviously they won't satisfy the sociopathic corporations that don't get sick, or retire, or ever have reason to recieve "welfare", but any society based on a moral imperative will never satisfy amoral "people". In response to 1.: The issue highlighted is not with capitalism, but with one manifestation of it: Imperialism. it is not merely that workers are getting ******** over, but the only way to fund the welfare state is to ******** over other countries.
Your link did nothing to show a connection between imperialism and a "welfare state". Imperialism, as you pointed out, is a manifestation of capitalism, not socialism. It's been around far longer than socialism has.
Quote: Quote: This is factually untrue. All of the states I can think of that could be described at "socially democratic" have seen economic growth since the early 1990's. Germany, France, Norway, Sweden...All have seen a growth in GDP, as one would expect from any economy not mired in constant recession. I'm talking about the welfare state: How much money, in absolute terms, and as a fraction of GDP, is being devoted to it? The money devoted to the welfare system: Health, unemployment benefits, pensions, all of that stuff, is dropping.
And what does this have to do with the poster's values? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:06 pm
|
|
|
|
D i v i n i t y Lethkhar Socially-Yes, anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. Economically-No, a complete lack of regulation in a market leads to corporatism and a lack of responsibility by investors, as was seen in the latest market's crash. I also believe that the government should be responsible for providing equal opportunity for everyone, something which Libertarians are against. And honestly, the "Libertarian" Party here in the US isn't strictly libertarian. Bob Barr, the guy who ran for president in their party in 2008, is really just a neoconservative. If they were actually libertarian, you'd see Ron Paul running on their platform. I highly agree with the economical part that you said. If there is no regulation of the market then it is very possible that we will have another Great Depression sad Government regulation is just needed...
Um...That's pretty much exactly what I said...I'm for regulation. Libertarians are not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:36 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:22 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:50 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar Socially-Yes, anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. So should people be allowed to say treasonous things, and/or insult people publicly? Again: They should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone or infringe on their rights. So...I don't see why not, as long as their insults aren't threatening in nature. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:22 pm
|
|
|
|
dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar Socially-Yes, anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. So should people be allowed to say treasonous things, and/or insult people publicly? Again: They should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone or infringe on their rights. So...I don't see why not, as long as their insults aren't threatening in nature. It may cause someone to lose their job...
What? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 2:29 pm
|
|
|
|
Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar dl1371 Lethkhar Socially-Yes, anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone. So should people be allowed to say treasonous things, and/or insult people publicly? Again: They should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone or infringe on their rights. So...I don't see why not, as long as their insults aren't threatening in nature. It may cause someone to lose their job... What? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
