Democracy?

[RightinNYC]

I think your confusing your 'isms' here. Under socialism, we would see simply greatly controlled capitalism. This means that people would still likely make very near, if not exactly what they currently make. The difference is the prominence of redistributive programs. Taxes would go up, for the rich especially, and yes, growth would be slightly lower. But, on the flipside, which you probably won't get to in this little response, is that the control over that growth would be greatly increased. In capitalism, we can plainly see that great growth favors the rich. In socialism, with government control of industry, and with a government run by the people (democracy), growth will favor the working classes. And, going back to growth, do not overestimate what I have said, because history will tell you that any centralized economy will produce ample growth to sustain the economy.

I think you're misunderestimating my understanding of Socialist Theory.

I don't know what examples you're referring to that show that centralized economies are comparable to decentralized ones.

I understand that the US has many governmental controls on our economy, and I am glad for many of them. In truth, I don't think you and I are operating under different premises, we just disagree on where the slider bar of government control should be placed. I would disagree with your assertion that increased control would be for the best, because you and I place different values on:

a) equality
b) equality of opportunity
c) fairness
d) upward mobility
e) property rights
f) governmental controls


You can say "go south, and see who suffers," but that ignores one major premise of economic theory. No person will ever enter an economic agreement unless it is beneficial to them. While companies may outsource jobs to sweatshops in the 3rd world, people wouldn't work there unless it was they highest paying job they could find. So effectively, the corporation is helping the community by giving jobs. It may not be ethical, but it's not the people working there who are complaining.

 

[Mixed View]

Does anyone in America realize that 1 in 3 people is HIV positive. That several babies are killed every year do to abortion. That people are being raped and killed by a dictator. That 7000 kids in Africa die everyday because of Aids. That a murderer is getting his right to life in jail when his victim doesn't. Do you realize that Holliwood is mostly liberal and rich and they fight to raise taxes on the rich and then they find the flippin loop wholes and don't have to pay the tax increase they dawned opon those greedy Republicans. You guys sound greedy. Steal from the people who got an education and beifet America. Did you know that stealing is illegal. Why don't you socialists just move to china or cuba. They run your kind of taxes and way of life.

 

[RightinNYC]

Does anyone in America realize that 1 in 3 people is HIV positive. That several babies are killed every year do to abortion. That people are being raped and killed by a dictator. That 7000 kids in Africa die everyday because of Aids. That a murderer is getting his right to life in jail when his victim doesn't. Do you realize that Holliwood is mostly liberal and rich and they fight to raise taxes on the rich and then they find the flippin loop wholes and don't have to pay the tax increase they dawned opon those greedy Republicans. You guys sound greedy. Steal from the people who got an education and beifet America. Did you know that stealing is illegal. Why don't you socialists just move to china or cuba. They run your kind of taxes and way of life.

I'm going to take the time to distance my party from this statement.

1 in 3? Where'd you hear that?

SEVERAL babies are killed each year?

Stealing is illegal?

 

[anomaly]

I think you're misunderestimating my understanding of Socialist Theory.

I don't know what examples you're referring to that show that centralized economies are comparable to decentralized ones.

I understand that the US has many governmental controls on our economy, and I am glad for many of them. In truth, I don't think you and I are operating under different premises, we just disagree on where the slider bar of government control should be placed. I would disagree with your assertion that increased control would be for the best, because you and I place different values on:

a) equality
b) equality of opportunity
c) fairness
d) upward mobility
e) property rights
f) governmental controls


You can say "go south, and see who suffers," but that ignores one major premise of economic theory. No person will ever enter an economic agreement unless it is beneficial to them. While companies may outsource jobs to sweatshops in the 3rd world, people wouldn't work there unless it was they highest paying job they could find. So effectively, the corporation is helping the community by giving jobs. It may not be ethical, but it's not the people working there who are complaining.

In the 1950s the Soviet Union, a totalitarian socialist country, had a higher GDP than the USA. That's what I'm referring to. Personally, I think a democratic socialist state could quite probably bring a greater GDP, and certainly a far better life for the people (who would indirectly own their own economy). That's what I'm talking about.

I've decided not to respond to your little list until you explain it a bit, so I don't make hasty generalizations about your meaning.

And actually the people whom those companies 'so greatly help' have fought back in the past, and some continue to fight back. Unfortunately, under capitalism, human welfare is not a top priority. The only thing that matters under capitalism is individual profit, leading to the environment we now see of dog-eat-dog, beat the other guy capitalism. While you may object to such a description, you must admit its accuracy. As long as the world's economy is owned and run by such a small amount of people, conditions will not change. Capitalism thrives upon this type of human exploitation, it thrives upon this cheap labor we see. It is time to advance.

 

[RightinNYC]

In the 1950s the Soviet Union, a totalitarian socialist country, had a higher GDP than the USA. That's what I'm referring to. Personally, I think a democratic socialist state could quite probably bring a greater GDP, and certainly a far better life for the people (who would indirectly own their own economy). That's what I'm talking about.

GDP doesn't mean anything if the population isn't comparable. Luxembourg's GDP is nowhere near that of India's, but the GDP per person is much higher. Let's see some statistics.

I've decided not to respond to your little list until you explain it a bit, so I don't make hasty generalizations about your meaning.

I wasn't really looking for a response, I was just explaining that you and I value different vaules differently. (Great sentence progression, I know)

And actually the people whom those companies 'so greatly help' have fought back in the past, and some continue to fight back. Unfortunately, under capitalism, human welfare is not a top priority. The only thing that matters under capitalism is individual profit, leading to the environment we now see of dog-eat-dog, beat the other guy capitalism. While you may object to such a description, you must admit its accuracy. As long as the world's economy is owned and run by such a small amount of people, conditions will not change. Capitalism thrives upon this type of human exploitation, it thrives upon this cheap labor we see. It is time to advance.

I don't object to that description at all. I embrace it. That's the whole point of a capitalist society, the best part, the icing on the cake. Competition inspires creativity and productivity, the twin saviours of our country.

Advance? This is the pinnacle of society. There will never be anything better. Flat out.

 

[anomaly]

GDP doesn't mean anything if the population isn't comparable. Luxembourg's GDP is nowhere near that of India's, but the GDP per person is much higher. Let's see some statistics.

I'm actually not making this one up (lol). Simply type in 'Soviet economy 1950s' into google, or something along those lines. Let me help your argument, though, as I must stress that this growth is not relective of the people's quality of life, it is more reflective upon the Soviet's mad military buildup.

I don't object to that description at all. I embrace it. That's the whole point of a capitalist society, the best part, the icing on the cake. Competition inspires creativity and productivity, the twin saviours of our country.

Advance? This is the pinnacle of society. There will never be anything better. Flat out.

Unfortunately competition means nothing between an entity of power (management, the owners of capital) and workers (the ones who need the capital). But about societal advance, I completely agree with you.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'm actually not making this one up (lol). Simply type in 'Soviet economy 1950s' into google, or something along those lines. Let me help your argument, though, as I must stress that this growth is not relective of the people's quality of life, it is more reflective upon the Soviet's mad military buildup.

You're missing my point. Even if the USSR's GDP was bigger than the US's (which it wasn't), that means nothing because of their much higher population and vassal states. The per capita income is the telltale sign, and that was never even close.

And even if GDP mattered, you're still off:

But the 6.5% average annual growth of the Soviet Gross National Product for the period 1955-1960 was considerably above the 3.5% rate of the US GNP for the years 1950-1963. During the 1950's the Soviet Union's much more rapid rate of growth made it seem that the Soviet economy would not take long to overtake that of the US. But the improved performance of the US economy during the sixties has influenced economists to view the Soviet prospects for economic leadership less optimistically.

Their growth rate was higher, but that doesn't signify anything. Our total GDP was always higher.

And you're right, this certainly was not indicative of quality of life.

Unfortunately competition means nothing between an entity of power (management, the owners of capital) and workers (the ones who need the capital). But about societal advance, I completely agree with you.

It does to the 2 million odd entrepreneurs, as well as to the tens of millions of other workers who work in creative jobs. The fact is, if I don't know that I will be rewarded for an exceptional performance, I'm not working as hard.

 

[anomaly]

You're missing my point. Even if the USSR's GDP was bigger than the US's (which it wasn't), that means nothing because of their much higher population and vassal states. The per capita income is the telltale sign, and that was never even close.

And even if GDP mattered, you're still off:

But the 6.5% average annual growth of the Soviet Gross National Product for the period 1955-1960 was considerably above the 3.5% rate of the US GNP for the years 1950-1963. During the 1950's the Soviet Union's much more rapid rate of growth made it seem that the Soviet economy would not take long to overtake that of the US. But the improved performance of the US economy during the sixties has influenced economists to view the Soviet prospects for economic leadership less optimistically.

Their growth rate was higher, but that doesn't signify anything. Our total GDP was always higher.

And you're right, this certainly was not indicative of quality of life.




It does to the 2 million odd entrepreneurs, as well as to the tens of millions of other workers who work in creative jobs. The fact is, if I don't know that I will be rewarded for an exceptional performance, I'm not working as hard.

Did the USSR really have a larger population? If so, I wasn't aware of this.

 

[RightinNYC]

Did the USSR really have a larger population? If so, I wasn't aware of this.

Marxists.org claims that the USSR had approx 240 million people in 1950.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/u/n.htm

We had 150

 

[anomaly]

Marxists.org claims that the USSR had approx 240 million people in 1950.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/orgs/u/n.htm

We had 150

Interesting. But did you not consider speaking of the rest of the article, of how capitalism has actually hurt these people? Not that I'm condoning Russian Communism, only that I see yet another failure of capitalism.

 

[RightinNYC]

Interesting. But did you not consider speaking of the rest of the article, of how capitalism has actually hurt these people? Not that I'm condoning Russian Communism, only that I see yet another failure of capitalism.

What article, the original one?

I addressed it a month ago.

 

[Soviet_Guy]

Did the USSR really have a larger population? If so, I wasn't aware of this.

Yes, only slightly, in the late eighties, the U.S. population was at 275 million, the U.S.S.R's population was at 310 million.

Now, the U.S.S.R came out teh winner, both countries, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R spent millions on aiding 3rd world countries in civil wars, and nuclear buildup, the U.S.S.R decided to stop building up the debt, so it plumetted into caos.

the United States however, wow, the fall for them ain't gonna be pretty.

 

[RightinNYC]

Yes, only slightly, in the late eighties, the U.S. population was at 275 million, the U.S.S.R's population was at 310 million.

Now, the U.S.S.R came out teh winner, both countries, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R spent millions on aiding 3rd world countries in civil wars, and nuclear buildup, the U.S.S.R decided to stop building up the debt, so it plumetted into caos.

the United States however, wow, the fall for them ain't gonna be pretty.

Forgive me if I doubt your carefully researched, meticulously studied, expert opinion...

 

[Soviet_Guy]

You're just an Anti-Communist/Socialist, you Capitalist B*stard! :soap lol

 

[RightinNYC]

You're just an Anti-Communist/Socialist, you Capitalist B*stard! :soap lol

I know.

 

[Soviet_Guy]

" Runs for the hills "

 

[stump]

Now, the U.S.S.R came out teh winner, both countries, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R spent millions on aiding 3rd world countries in civil wars, and nuclear buildup, the U.S.S.R decided to stop building up the debt, so it plumetted into caos.

the United States however, wow, the fall for them ain't gonna be pretty.

Yes, the late 90s when we stopped building up debt and started paying it off was real hell for us economically. :shock:

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Yes, the late 90s when we stopped building up debt and started paying it off was real hell for us economically. :shock:

Table of National Debt for years 1993 - 2000

09/30/2000 - $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 - $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 - $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 - $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 - $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 - $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 - $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 - $4,411,488,883,139.38

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

Does anybody else see a trend here? Though the rate of increase for our national debt did slow down during the Clinton years; the fact remains that it did go up every year he was in office. The budget surplus Clinton claimed to have created was wiped out by the debt that was incurred during his presidency.

 

[holocaustpulp]

Of course it is the will of the capitalists to degrade workers' democracy and empower themselves via centralized company order. The bourgeois are merely adhering to their exploitative expectations (i.e., those present in capitalism), and neglect their workers because - quite frankly - they don't care that much. To them laborers are commoditities; after all, the whole theory of capitalism is private property and the sale of labor, hence wage (better termed slave) labor is borne out of this regressive system and it promotes class and the divigation from equality.

A good example of such exploitation and a lack of care for laborers is Wal-Mart's distaste for unions as well as their endorsed policy of underpaying their employees. Yet the CEO of Wal-Mart is one of the richest men on earth. Wal-Mart also supports cheap labor in exploitative foreign textile factories and the such ("sweatshops," you know - like Nike).

I presume the capitalists believe that - by abridging the workers' rights (i.e., by denying them democracy, tantamount to slavery) - that they're maintain a better hold on their business and maintain undisputed order.

Fortunately they're wrong.

Class consciousness and equality now! No more employers and corporate armies! No more government defense of the exploiters! Socialism is already on its way in Venezuela...

- Holocaustpulp

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Of course it is the will of the capitalists to degrade workers' democracy and empower themselves via centralized company order. The bourgeois are merely adhering to their exploitative expectations (i.e., those present in capitalism), and neglect their workers because - quite frankly - they don't care that much. To them laborers are commoditities; after all, the whole theory of capitalism is private property and the sale of labor, hence wage (better termed slave) labor is borne out of this regressive system and it promotes class and the divigation from equality.

A good example of such exploitation and a lack of care for laborers is Wal-Mart's distaste for unions as well as their endorsed policy of underpaying their employees. Yet the CEO of Wal-Mart is one of the richest men on earth. Wal-Mart also supports cheap labor in exploitative foreign textile factories and the such ("sweatshops," you know - like Nike).

I presume the capitalists believe that - by abridging the workers' rights (i.e., by denying them democracy, tantamount to slavery) - that they're maintain a better hold on their business and maintain undisputed order.

Fortunately they're wrong.

Class consciousness and equality now! No more employers and corporate armies! No more government defense of the exploiters! Socialism is already on its way in Venezuela...

- Holocaustpulp

Funny stuff...Wal-Mart doesn't even sell Nike shoes. Also, right here in my home town Wal-Mart pays as good or better than Meijer or Kroger. Both, by the way, are union employers. My mother-in-law worked for Meijer for almost 15 years & has been at Wal-Mart now for about 5 years & makes more at Wal-Mart than she ever did at Meijer. Plus, in many cases, those labor unions depend on those low paying jobs. Why? Well, it's because if everyone could make what a union worker makes without the union then there would be no need or use for unions at all. & to compare slavery to manual labor shows your ignorance. Slavery is about ownership of a human being. Manual labor is a means of earning your slice of the capitalist pie.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Funny stuff...Wal-Mart doesn't even sell Nike shoes. Also, right here in my home town Wal-Mart pays as good or better than Meijer or Kroger. Both, by the way, are union employers. My mother-in-law worked for Meijer for almost 15 years & has been at Wal-Mart now for about 5 years & makes more at Wal-Mart than she ever did at Meijer. Plus, in many cases, those labor unions depend on those low paying jobs. Why? Well, it's because if everyone could make what a union worker makes without the union then there would be no need or use for unions at all. & to compare slavery to manual labor shows your ignorance. Slavery is about ownership of a human being. Manual labor is a means of earning your slice of the capitalist pie.

Well now, if we knew the name of your home town; the wage scale of the various entities involved; what your mother did at each place and the time period involved, we might be able to evaluate this statement. You claim that WalMart pays more than a union shop. Prove it.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Well now, if we knew the name of your home town; the wage scale of the various entities involved; what your mother did at each place and the time period involved, we might be able to evaluate this statement. You claim that WalMart pays more than a union shop. Prove it.

Findlay, Ohio (1 hour south of Toledo)

Plus this is my Mother-In-Law...not mother (my mother is a retired school teacher...she could tell you some stories about her wonderful union).

She now lives in Waverly, Ohio (1/2 hour south of Columbus)

In 15 years at Meijer (which is Unionized) she never made over $7 per hour. She worked the flower department (this was in Findlay...during the late 80s & all thru the 90s) Now, with about 5 years at Wal-Mart she is over $8 per hour. She works the men's clothing department (this is in Waverly...since about 2000).

My Brother-In-Law, who got a job at Wal-Mart upon retiring from the Air Force started at more than $8 per hour (this is in Findlay). Why? Because Wal-Mart has a progressive way to determine what your starting wage will be. Why? Because Wal-Mart understands that all employees are not equal. Things that could raise your starting wage at Wal-Mart...10 cents more per hour for every job you've held for at least three years (bro-in-law had 21 years in the military)...the amount of education (college, tech school, etc)...experience in retail. Wal-Mart also has a point system in which you earn your raises. Everyone at a different rate based on your personal performance. My bro-in-law would have been near $10 per hour in less than a year based on his performance; but he was chosen for promotion to manager. This will pay him about $40,000 a year. I believe he said his salary is based off of 50 hour weeks...this calculates to about $15 per hour or so. For a basic middle management position (a shift manger). Not bad for a minimal amount of schooling. This is based on his performance at work. Nothing wrong with rewarding one's hard work; is there?

Actually, I think Kroger might be a little better in pay...I stress a little as none of them pay more than $10 per hour to their hourly labor employees. Meijer definitely pays less than Wal-Mart. Kroger & Meijer are both unionized...while Wal-Mart is not.

You said to prove it...I can't really...all I can give you is the experience of those around me. I have laid out the facts...you can do with them what you want.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Now, the U.S.S.R came out teh winner, both countries, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R spent millions on aiding 3rd world countries in civil wars, and nuclear buildup, the U.S.S.R decided to stop building up the debt, so it plumetted into caos.

Examples:Nicaragua Grenada Cuba(failed) Chile Peru Colombia Panama Venezuela Vietnam(failed) China(failed) Russia(failed)Cambodia(succeeded, then failed) Laos(failed), Alomost every Latin American Country, These are but a few examples. Also US always had&has more nukes than any other country, except a few years under brezhnev who sort of acted like stalin. Also I should point out that in vietnam war, N Vietnem HAD elections, voted in Ho Chi Minh, S Vietnam claimed to be protector of democracy but NEVER had an election, Diem stopped them and this action was supported by US, claiming Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of vote, Just because THE PEOPLE would support Ho Chi Minh, Diem was later killed because his own subjects hated him
and US used chemical weapons, Chemical Orange and Napalm, Chile: socialist Allende stopped trading with US and because of this poverty started to disappear, Allende was later killed when US supplied a general, and that general later established a dictatorship,Spain:Only USSR supplied the anti-fascist Loyalists, US sat around, Russia:in 1917 US & 20 countries invaded to support the Imperialist Tsar, whose only real support in the country were the Cossacks, the Tsar's private army.Cambodia: US put in Pol Pot because he hated N vietnam during vietnam war, later thrown out by VIETNAM
Colombia: US supported the killing Pablo Escobar a rich Leftist,muched loved by the PEOPLE of Colombia for spending billions to help them out of poverty

 

[holocaustpulp]

Arthur: "Funny stuff...Wal-Mart doesn't even sell Nike shoes. Also, right here in my home town Wal-Mart pays as good or better than Meijer or Kroger. Both, by the way, are union employers. My mother-in-law worked for Meijer for almost 15 years & has been at Wal-Mart now for about 5 years & makes more at Wal-Mart than she ever did at Meijer. Plus, in many cases, those labor unions depend on those low paying jobs. Why? Well, it's because if everyone could make what a union worker makes without the union then there would be no need or use for unions at all. & to compare slavery to manual labor shows your ignorance. Slavery is about ownership of a human being. Manual labor is a means of earning your slice of the capitalist pie."

I never said Wal-Mart sells Nike products. I read your whole specification only why Wal-Mart is allegedly better than unionized businesses, yet in your examples you fail to account for a fundamental element: inflation. If you anticipated inflation, the wage increase probably would be insignificant.

There is a high need for unionsto protect the worker's rights. The fact that Wal-Mart essentially bans unionized workers gives us reason why the Wal-Mart policy to its employees has not been reformed. That is, in lists compiled by twenty-some states across the US, Wal-Mart has come out among the top companies who have their workers rely on state institutions for health care. This denotes a corporation who is greedy, neglects the employee, and consequentially STEALS enormous amounts of money from state taxpayers.

To say that wage labor isn't tantamount to slavery is ignorant - in both instances man is a commodity, his labor is sold. Hence, capitalism is the utter exhibition of the "ownership of a human being." The only difference is that slaves didn't get any wages, while today's capitalist laborers get a portion of their deserved wages (the other portion, the surplus labor, is stolen by the borugois employers for their own uses).

- Holocaustpulp

 

[anomaly]

HP, what are your thoughts on skipping socialism entirely in favor of a more or less direct transition from capitalism to communism. I've been reading up on this idea on RL and I must say it sounds quite intriguing.