Socialism and Capitalism. Let us learn about each other.

[anomaly]

In your socialist economy, is the private citizen allowed to start his/her own business, or is their just one major "Corporation" for every individual industry need.

(Perhaps ,Blackflagx, you should get some of your other Socialist friends to join this thread in order to keep you from getting swamped by questions.)

I am also curious as to how you will answer Flex's questions.

The diference (this is more of a response to you other post, my apologies) is that likely this individual with these ideas on producing computers and computer software would be employed by the government, which in turn would set up factories or work stations to produce the computers. These work places would be run in the way I have described. You may frown on the idea of working for the government, but we have to remember that this is a. a democratically elected government i.e. they cannot overpower you and b. that you will have a steady job, whereas in the capitalist system you may fail and be in ruin, without any job. Basically, such individuals, those with these great ideas, would contact the local government which in turn would contact both local production plants and the larger government, higher up in the bureacracy. Therefore, all of these great individuals with these ideas would be greatly rewarded, perhaps even moreso than they currently are.

 

[anomaly]

Most of the rest of this forum so far is just made up of compromises (VI, how could you!).

I will respond to two things quickly. First, I want to know what you cappies think 'pure' socialism is. I believe that my ideas are quite at odds with anything Marx originally planned on as being 'socialist'. For example, I do think that private industries, small ones, should be allowed to exist. Prively owned restaurants and those old 'general stores' that used to flourish should still exist. The government will oversee these companies, and reserve full rights to dismantle them, if the local community so decides (they vote for this government, remember), but they shall be allowed to operate. Getting rid of all private property is actually a proposterous idea, when you think about what it entails. People, in my mind, under socialism, shall still have the right to own a car and own a house, among other things (these are just off the top of my head, but the idea I'm conveying is clear). Though citizens may buy such goods from government operated or government overseen businesses is quite irrelevant, what matters is that citizens will in fact own certain things, and these things are in fact private property. But again, I am not clear as to what you cappies mean by 'pure' socialism. VI correctly noted that currently the radical left is in ruins (organisationally, atleast), and much of the reason for that is this dispute over definitions, something VI knows that I think is petty arguing that will not result in the progress we so deeply need. Therefore I have submitted to him but not you capies my ideas on unification. If you would like to hear them (though I doubt you, as enemies of the radical left, would be at all interested...) I'm sure VI can copy and paste for me (I rather like what I wrote to you, Lenin, and I doubt that I can sufficiently reproduce it).

Now, as far as this 'democratization of the workplace' goes, I think the idea is a good one, but needs explaining. I have already submitted my ideas on a combination of a bureacracy and a democracy to plan the economy and run the government. The workplace is simply the base level of the bureacracy, meaning that all economic planning starts there. I suggest that workers in a local workplace democratically elect one of there own to plan the production of their local production unit. This is to be done with the help of an economist, so as to make sure production goes smoothely, and the economist will be overseen by the government, which of ocurse is elected by the people, the majority, the workers. It is circular, covering all positions, a cycle of trust and efficiency, if you will. Now this democratically elected worker will plan his own factories output, as I've mentioned, and will be helped by a local economist (this is what I meant when I said managers will be eliminated, they will be replaced by local economists). The reason for this is that a veteran worker, the kind a group of workers is likely to elect, knows his factories output rather well, our atleast could be brought up to date extremely quickly with the help of his predecessor. All of this entails a truly democratic system, and this is my idea of a democratic workplace.

On another note, I rather like this forum. Nice job here, voice of reason.

 

[GPS_Flex]

You may frown on the idea of working for the government, but we have to remember that this is a. a democratically elected government i.e. they cannot overpower you and b. that you will have a steady job, whereas in the capitalist system you may fail and be in ruin, without any job.

I haven’t quite caught the part where job security or “having a steady job” is something socialism promises. Is this something new or is this a new version of socialism?

If you were referring to drawing unemployment checks from the government for the entire time you go on a drinking binge after your company tanks, as though it were a form of employment, you should be clear about that.

this individual with these ideas on producing computers and computer software would be employed by the government, which in turn would set up factories or work stations to produce the computers.

Not too keen on the efficiency of the government sector versus the private sector are you?

 

[anomaly]

I haven’t quite caught the part where job security or “having a steady job” is something socialism promises. Is this something new or is this a new version of socialism?

If you were referring to drawing unemployment checks from the government for the entire time you go on a drinking binge after your company tanks, as though it were a form of employment, you should be clear about that.

Job security is not something socialism promises perse, but I do think that unemployment will lower under socialism and that homelessness will be eliminated. And no, that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that the market creates winners and losers, and that with a government planed economy, the amount of losers could be reduced. Therefore unemployment rates go down.

Not too keen on the efficiency of the government sector versus the private sector are you?

I fail to see the 'efficiency' of the private sector. The private sector is great at producing a surplus, but a surplus is not the definition of efficiency, and producing a large surplus is extremely inefficient. And besides, the efficiency of the government sector would likely increase do to planning done by workers themselves on the most local of scales. One of the reasons for socialism's superiority is its higher efficiency. The anarchic, unplanned production process of capitalism always results in the wasting of human and natural resources.

 

[Blackflagx]

For example, I do think that private industries, small ones, should be allowed to exist. Prively owned restaurants and those old 'general stores' that used to flourish should still exist. The government will oversee these companies, and reserve full rights to dismantle them, if the local community so decides (they vote for this government, remember), but they shall be allowed to operate.

Fair enough. You are right when you say we cannot dismantle all private property immediatly. Small businesses will be allowed to exist and the major industries will be nationalized. Though we may get rid of all enterprises over time in the later stages of socialism.

People, in my mind, under socialism, shall still have the right to own a car and own a house

Of course! There is a difference between personal property and private property. Your house is yours, your clothes are yours, your car is yours. What I mean by private property is the means of production.

I suggest that workers in a local workplace democratically elect one of there own to plan the production of their local production unit.

Yes, perhaps I was going to somewhat of an extreme by suggesting full direct democracy. A system of representative democracy would probably be more efficient now that I think about it.

 

[Voice of Reason]

I suggest that workers in a local workplace democratically elect one of there own to plan the production of their local production unit. This is to be done with the help of an economist, so as to make sure production goes smoothely, and the economist will be overseen by the government, which of ocurse is elected by the people, the majority, the workers. It is circular, covering all positions, a cycle of trust and efficiency, if you will. Now this democratically elected worker will plan his own factories output, as I've mentioned, and will be helped by a local economist (this is what I meant when I said managers will be eliminated, they will be replaced by local economists). The reason for this is that a veteran worker, the kind a group of workers is likely to elect, knows his factories output rather well, our atleast could be brought up to date extremely quickly with the help of his predecessor. All of this entails a truly democratic system, and this is my idea of a democratic workplace.

Does this not throw off-balance the idea that everyone holds a nearly equal position within the organization. One elected person with the power to make decisions (even if democratically elected) has nore power than the man operating the widget machine in the factory. Perhaps this is of no matter practically but it is a flaw in my eyes.

Also moving on to something else. If we live in a world in which every individual views our world through different eyes, ideas , and dreams, what does this new socialist system hold for those whose views are abstract and out of the mainstream. (i.e. those whose votes will almost always be in the minority) It seems like this system will also leave alot of the true visionaries out in the cold, regardless of good intention. Many times the voice of one man holds far more reason than the roar of the masses. How do you respond?

(I guess what I am doing is noticing how all of your arguments support positives for the whole citezenship overall but I have heard little about all of the individuals that make up that citizenship. Before I want to be a part of something new I want to know about me and my family. How will we be happy? How will I be able to follow my dreams and to choose my path. How does this system not allow the mass to have a voice over me? On a council of 10 men 1 voice holds a significant weight. On a ballot of millions my vote may as well not exist, and if the mass makes a vote which I absolutely hate, in America I can simply switch out of one widget factory and into another with a completely different set of rules and ideas which meet more of my personal needs within a company. Remember that people always will demand a right to choose. (I do not consider a vote of 1/25,000 to be the answer to this question.) That is not choice, it is the illusion of choice.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Job security is not something socialism promises perse, but I do think that unemployment will lower under socialism and that homelessness will be eliminated.

I’m glad we agree on something. It takes only a modicum of common sense to realize that the most efficient way to deal with the problem of the unemployed individual, is the traditional American way of putting him on his own mettle to find that thing, which he can do, that other people most value. To the extent that some may still need outside help, the most effective help is apt to be a local agency, whether public or private, that can respond to the “individual” needs, without having to satisfy the checklists or theories of a distant government committee, in a distant Capital.

I was referring to the fact that the market creates winners and losers, and that with a government planed economy, the amount of losers could be reduced.

A government planned economy? How you bought into the idea that a government can effectively “plan” an economy is baffling but believing they will reduce the number of losers in business is beyond my comprehension.

Jobs will inevitably be eliminated, either by a new technology or the end of a cycle. People are not interchangeable. We do not all have equivalent aptitudes or even nearly equivalent aptitudes. Those who come to pick fruit and vegetables may not be able to adapt to the only jobs that may be available if more growers go to automated systems. The same applies to niche workers in technological job categories and myriad of other worker categories. Short of preventing the development of new technologies that would replace the worker, I fail to see how government planning would be a solution to the natural evolution of technologies and with it, the market.

By adding a new layer of variables, which must be considered, it can only slow down the ability of a market to adjust to changing conditions. The more elaborate the intrusion, the greater the detriment. Central planning in a complex economy would inhibit the capacity of a market for self-correction.

I fail to see the 'efficiency' of the private sector. The private sector is great at producing a surplus, but a surplus is not the definition of efficiency, and producing a large surplus is extremely inefficient.

To what source do you attribute this free market tendency to consistently over produce? A free market moves inevitably towards a self-correcting equilibrium, one that fairly balances the factors of production with the demands for production at an optimum level. Surpluses are inexorably corrected by the very nature of a free market. Should I explain how this works and offer historical context upon which this fact is based? This “surplus” idea is a red herring, as you well know.

A free market economy is a dynamic. While there is an inherent tendency towards equilibrium in a free economy, changing realities, habits, wants, and natural forces, will always prevent there ever being a point where perfect equilibrium is actually obtained. If this is true of a free market, where the players can each make the best possible immediate adjustments for their own clearly perceived interests; it is far more evident where Government seeks to intrude decisions made by distant committees, with far less adequate perception of those interests, adding another layer of fluctuating variables to slow down a market's ability to respond to previously changing factors.

Virtually every action by Government intended to effect economic adjustment to real conditions, or intended to impose upon economic activity a set of social goals or objectives, involves a matter of setting values: Of substituting the values dominant in the Government, effectively the values of a remote committee, for the valuations put on goods, resources and human action by the dynamic, inter-active market. The inherent flaw in the concept is obvious.

And besides, the efficiency of the government sector would likely increase do to planning done by workers themselves on the most local of scales.

Workers planning what? Are you seeking to make a CEO or board member out of every callous bearing illiterate in this utopian society?

One of the reasons for socialism's superiority is its higher efficiency.

This is where I ask for case models, throw the innumerable failures of nearly every socialist nation at you and point to the statistical odds of such socialist nations turning into totalitarian or dictatorial regimes. To which, you respond by explaining that ”your” brand of socialism has never been tried. Did I get that right for the most part?

You can jot down “wouldn’t it be loverly” ideas on every bar room napkin you encounter but it won’t change the reality of the world we live in. I admire your desire to make the world a better place but wishing it so won’t make it any more real than your claim about socialism being superior to capitalism in efficiency. Try clicking your heels together three times and wishing really, really hard.

The anarchic, unplanned production process of capitalism always results in the wasting of human and natural resources.

Government can never create prosperity. Intrusive Government is ever the impediment to prosperity. In its very ability to complicate each decision, to make economic adjustment of every sort more difficult and uncertain, while taxing production to pay for that very wasting of human resources in an administrative bureaucracy enforcing an intrusive purpose, necessitating responsive layers of unproductive and misdirected supervisors engaged in damage control in the private sector; there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that intrusive Government is the single most baleful influence on any economy.

 

[GPS_Flex]

First, I want to know what you cappies think 'pure' socialism is.

A non-existent utopia that looks good on paper but fails in practical application due to the obvious and inherent flaws in understanding human nature and the nature of the government it seeks to create. In essence, it is the forfeiture of ones inalienable rights to a centralized government in exchange for the fallacious promise of socioeconomic security.

For example, I do think that private industries, small ones, should be allowed to exist….. The government will oversee these companies, and reserve full rights to dismantle them….

Yes, the government has all the rights in your system and bestows the privileges it sees fit upon those it so chooses. Yet you cling to the illusion that your government isn’t and wont become the next socialist regime turned totalitarian?

Getting rid of all private property is actually a proposterous idea, when you think about what it entails. People, in my mind, under socialism, shall still have the right to own a car and own a house, among other things (these are just off the top of my head, but the idea I'm conveying is clear).

No, in your system people will have privileges rather than rights. There’s a huge difference between the two.

I suggest that workers in a local workplace democratically elect one of there own to plan the production of their local production unit.

What qualifies these workers to make such choices? How can they possibly evaluate the credentials and abilities of an individual far more educated than themselves for a position they haven’t the capacity to understand? Snake oil anyone?

This is to be done with the help of an economist, so as to make sure production goes smoothely, and the economist will be overseen by the government, which of ocurse is elected by the people, the majority, the workers.

The “help of an economist”? Could you be any more vague if you tried? Now we are paying an economist as well as those in the colossal government who are overseeing him, to do what? Give advice about how to best make a widget they know nothing about? To tell the mindless and illiterate worker who he should elect? This is a circle of insanity.

It is circular, covering all positions, a cycle of trust and efficiency, if you will.

Who in the hell are you kidding? It isn’t circular at all. You couldn’t draw a more linear picture if you tried. Workers voting on issues they aren’t qualified to decide, Government agents/economists helping them decide, managers to oversee the economists/agents and finally a government elected by those who are privy to nothing more than those they presumably elect would hand down from upon high? You really have so sense of historical perspective do you?

Now this democratically elected worker will plan his own factories output, as I've mentioned, and will be helped by a local economist (this is what I meant when I said managers will be eliminated, they will be replaced by local economists).

You haven’t eliminated managers. You’ve simply replaced them with government agents who’ve won a popularity contest. This is your recipe for a system that’s more efficient than a free market?

The reason for this is that a veteran worker, the kind a group of workers is likely to elect, knows his factories output rather well, our atleast could be brought up to date extremely quickly with the help of his predecessor.

Your inexperience in a working environment is glaring but your understanding of human nature is verging on ignorance. A veteran worker who is most popular among his peers isn’t going to be qualified to make the leap into running a business unless he has the education and skills to do so. Unless your government agent/economist has the power to veto the election or your workers are all educated enough to recognize the skills and talents required to fill the position, you have a recipe for disaster.

How can you possibly expect people of lesser intellectual aptitudes and/or education to effectively evaluate a person’s qualifications for a job they themselves aren’t qualified to fill? What you’ll get is a political nightmare within every company and a guaranteed reduction in production if not a complete collapse of the entire economic system.

All of this entails a truly democratic system, and this is my idea of a democratic workplace.

I’m glad this is just an idea. I’d hate to imagine what would happen to any nation that adopted this system.

 

[anomaly]

Does this not throw off-balance the idea that everyone holds a nearly equal position within the organization. One elected person with the power to make decisions (even if democratically elected) has nore power than the man operating the widget machine in the factory. Perhaps this is of no matter practically but it is a flaw in my eyes.

This is no flaw at all. Leadership, in my mind, will be quite neccesary under socialism, which is why I've envisioned a bureacracy. Everyone in any workplace holds an equal vote for who they want to plan production. If every worker was involved in planning, meaning 'collective' planning, how efficient do you think that would be? If we give the workers a choice, I suspect that not only will worker productivity meet the demands of a leader they chose. That is what is missing in todays system: the worker's choice. In my idea of socialism, we give the worker a choice, and also this new planning leader, a former worker, will give workers in a factory some very material motivation, as this leader will likely make more money than your average worker. But this is no flaw, it is simply democracy.

Also moving on to something else. If we live in a world in which every individual views our world through different eyes, ideas , and dreams, what does this new socialist system hold for those whose views are abstract and out of the mainstream. (i.e. those whose votes will almost always be in the minority) It seems like this system will also leave alot of the true visionaries out in the cold, regardless of good intention. Many times the voice of one man holds far more reason than the roar of the masses. How do you respond?

(I guess what I am doing is noticing how all of your arguments support positives for the whole citezenship overall but I have heard little about all of the individuals that make up that citizenship. Before I want to be a part of something new I want to know about me and my family. How will we be happy? How will I be able to follow my dreams and to choose my path. How does this system not allow the mass to have a voice over me? On a council of 10 men 1 voice holds a significant weight. On a ballot of millions my vote may as well not exist, and if the mass makes a vote which I absolutely hate, in America I can simply switch out of one widget factory and into another with a completely different set of rules and ideas which meet more of my personal needs within a company. Remember that people always will demand a right to choose. (I do not consider a vote of 1/25,000 to be the answer to this question.) That is not choice, it is the illusion of choice.

So your basically saying my ideas make you worry about individual rights, correct? If any individual has a bright idea, like those great individuals you describe, they would go to their local government to inform them of it, besides of course voting for a person who shares this idea. Also, this individual could run for public office. I envision a democracy where being a lawyer doesn't automatically mean your fit to lead. If we turn the emphasis to workers' rights, which is what socialism does, we may very well have retired workers holding public office. But, to specifically answer your inquiry, any individual with a good idea will have an outlet for this idea.

While I'm thinking about it, VI, next time you get on here, perhaps you could do me a favor and copy paste my ACP message I sent you?

 

[anomaly]

A government planned economy? How you bought into the idea that a government can effectively “plan” an economy is baffling but believing they will reduce the number of losers in business is beyond my comprehension.

Jobs will inevitably be eliminated, either by a new technology or the end of a cycle. People are not interchangeable. We do not all have equivalent aptitudes or even nearly equivalent aptitudes. Those who come to pick fruit and vegetables may not be able to adapt to the only jobs that may be available if more growers go to automated systems. The same applies to niche workers in technological job categories and myriad of other worker categories. Short of preventing the development of new technologies that would replace the worker, I fail to see how government planning would be a solution to the natural evolution of technologies and with it, the market.

In such a system that I have described, do you have any idea how many new jobs will be created? There will be many more government jobs, many jobs relating to the economy, and more demand for workers likely. Do you understand that business will be controlled by the government? This entails that if we have one of these magic individuals you cappies consistently describe, they will ikely have a place in the production cycle. Only an idiotic government would not listen to what these individuals have to say. But again, the technologies you describe would be produced by the government, meaning new jobs that are overseen by the government, since some individual somewhere would have to come forward with these ideas. What I fail to see if your specific objection to government planning in this instance. You cannot seriously worry that technology will simply cease advancing, so what is your objection?[/QUOTE]

By adding a new layer of variables, which must be considered, it can only slow down the ability of a market to adjust to changing conditions. The more elaborate the intrusion, the greater the detriment. Central planning in a complex economy would inhibit the capacity of a market for self-correction.

'Self correction'? What changing conditions are you referring to? Change is rather gradual, and any democratic body can keep up with this slow change. A bureacracy I think would be sped up by the democratic principles up[on which it is based. So here your basically worried that those 'complex' laws of supply and demand, with which a market 'self-corrects', would not be met by a planned economy. First, do you realize that the system I have proposed is not totally 'centralized' as you have falsely stated? The localization of the bureacratic processes, the local workplace, will ensure efficient econokmic production. With a planned economy, demand can be calculated rather efficiently, given experience and the input of the workers themselves, and supply will meet this demand. In the unplanned system of capitalism, demand neccesarily must be met, therefore overproductivity occurs. You must realize that this is one natural flaw of capitalism-the surpluses created. This ensures economic recession every few years, and if the economy is not as large as the USA's, this can be a huge disaster. I don't think you have any valid point here, I'm afraid.

To what source do you attribute this free market tendency to consistently over produce? A free market moves inevitably towards a self-correcting equilibrium, one that fairly balances the factors of production with the demands for production at an optimum level. Surpluses are inexorably corrected by the very nature of a free market. Should I explain how this works and offer historical context upon which this fact is based? This “surplus” idea is a red herring, as you well know.

A free market economy is a dynamic. While there is an inherent tendency towards equilibrium in a free economy, changing realities, habits, wants, and natural forces, will always prevent there ever being a point where perfect equilibrium is actually obtained. If this is true of a free market, where the players can each make the best possible immediate adjustments for their own clearly perceived interests; it is far more evident where Government seeks to intrude decisions made by distant committees, with far less adequate perception of those interests, adding another layer of fluctuating variables to slow down a market's ability to respond to previously changing factors.

You don't realize that capitalism always produces more than is needed? You're actually not aware of this? Have you no knowledge of the system you're defending, my friend! You're right that surpluses are 'corrected', as you put it, but this is after economic recession occurs. Consider a company doing good business. They produce, and find that all they produce is consumed by the public, therefore they produce more, to gain more profit. Simple right? Now consider another business entering the same area of the market. Consumers automatically find that they have a choice now, and some obviously choose this new company. A surplus has been created by the first company. Another way a surplus can be created can affect an entire sector of the market. Workers wages must be cut to produce more of any product, and as this happens, workers have less and less consuming power, and then must buy less and less. Good business quickly turns to bad business through capitalist greed for more profit. A surplus is again created, but not just by one company, but buy an entire market sector. You describe a market on paper, not a real one. You have to accept that production of surpluses and the recession they create is a natural part of capitalism. And again you refer to 'distant' committees, and again you do not know of my idea, apparently. Committees would be quite local, with a single worker, with the help of an economist, who is watched over by a local government, planning production. This 'far-off' idea will be a myth under my system.

Virtually every action by Government intended to effect economic adjustment to real conditions, or intended to impose upon economic activity a set of social goals or objectives, involves a matter of setting values: Of substituting the values dominant in the Government, effectively the values of a remote committee, for the valuations put on goods, resources and human action by the dynamic, inter-active market. The inherent flaw in the concept is obvious.

You refer to the market as if it's a living entity. It is not. It's a rigid system of production, or atleast that's the market you refer to. In actuality, any market is quite simple, and not quite as dynamic as you describe. A system of exchange, that;s all a market is. What your actually syaing is that capitalist produciton, private production, is dynamic. And again your flaw is that you describe 'remote' committees, and the remote ones may very well be a flaw in old Soviet production, which is why I've previously suggested localized planning, instead of these 'remote' committees you so hate. 'Government' in this case is not some inhuman entity, but rather an entity made up of humans, that is, workers themselves, not a government body, will actually plan produciton. Government will make sure production is efficient, rather than wasteful, through the means I've previously described.

Workers planning what? Are you seeking to make a CEO or board member out of every callous bearing illiterate in this utopian society?

Gee, and you said you were reading my posts. Workers shall democratically elect one of their own who, wiht the help of an economist or production manager, shall plan production.

This is where I ask for case models, throw the innumerable failures of nearly every socialist nation at you and point to the statistical odds of such socialist nations turning into totalitarian or dictatorial regimes. To which, you respond by explaining that ”your” brand of socialism has never been tried. Did I get that right for the most part?

Every so-called socialist nation thus far attempted on this earth has been totalitarian, as you rightly point out. The culprit for this despotism is Stalin, not socialism itself. It is caused by a simple misunderstanding of what Marx long ago wrote. MY democratic brand of socialism has never been tried, you are correct. What statistical odds do you refer to?

 

[anomaly]

You can jot down “wouldn’t it be loverly” ideas on every bar room napkin you encounter but it won’t change the reality of the world we live in. I admire your desire to make the world a better place but wishing it so won’t make it any more real than your claim about socialism being superior to capitalism in efficiency. Try clicking your heels together three times and wishing really, really hard.

So instead of debating, you simply criticize my system which you've falsely described numerous times in your response? Your arrogance will get you nowhere, that I assure you. This is not a 'wouldn't it be lovely' idea. I've planned the economy and the government. But obviously you aren't familiar wiht them as you repeatedly simply make things up about my ideas and about socialism in general.

Government can never create prosperity. Intrusive Government is ever the impediment to prosperity. In its very ability to complicate each decision, to make economic adjustment of every sort more difficult and uncertain, while taxing production to pay for that very wasting of human resources in an administrative bureaucracy enforcing an intrusive purpose, necessitating responsive layers of unproductive and misdirected supervisors engaged in damage control in the private sector; there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that intrusive Government is the single most baleful influence on any economy.

You mention 'wasting human resources' and in doing so have nearly convinced me that you are blind to these ideas. Capitalism wastes natural and human resources in creating the surpluses I previously described. Ther is only a mountain of evidence that totalitarian government is disruptive to the economic cycle. In Europe, living standards are quite high with greatly more economic planning and nationalization in most countries. In capitalist nations where nationalization of industry nearly ceases to exist (China and India) living standards are quite low. And yet, these countries with bad living conditions have incredibly high rates of economic growth (10%). We must weigh humanity and economic success. In my ideas, economic efficiency is nearly guarenteed, all while humans have good working conditions and presumably good living standards. Again, I do not think you fully appreciate the democratic nature of my vision of socialism (not just mine, as most socialists today are extremely democratic).

 

[anomaly]

A non-existent utopia that looks good on paper but fails in practical application due to the obvious and inherent flaws in understanding human nature and the nature of the government it seeks to create. In essence, it is the forfeiture of ones inalienable rights to a centralized government in exchange for the fallacious promise of socioeconomic security.

You haven't described socialism at all. This is a glaring error, my friend. Didn't you call yourself eductated on socialism in a previous post, and then you post back with htis mountain of ignorance. GPS, you dissapoint me.

Yes, the government has all the rights in your system and bestows the privileges it sees fit upon those it so chooses. Yet you cling to the illusion that your government isn’t and wont become the next socialist regime turned totalitarian?

Democracy is the greatest check any government can have.

No, in your system people will have privileges rather than rights. There’s a huge difference between the two.

I actually plan to take after the American constitution and have a definite bill of rights. Yes, the word is rights, not privileges. Again you are mistaken.

What qualifies these workers to make such choices? How can they possibly evaluate the credentials and abilities of an individual far more educated than themselves for a position they haven’t the capacity to understand? Snake oil anyone?

Do yuo not think a veteran worker will know his own workplaces production trends better than anyone else? This is a person who has been doing the production for years, remember. I don't see how anyone can be any more qualified. I suppose you'd want a mamger whom the workers have absolutely no control over? Yes, that's much better.

The “help of an economist”? Could you be any more vague if you tried? Now we are paying an economist as well as those in the colossal government who are overseeing him, to do what? Give advice about how to best make a widget they know nothing about? To tell the mindless and illiterate worker who he should elect? This is a circle of insanity.

I was wondering when this query would arise, I'm glad you've asked it. I use the term 'economist', and it is rather vague. This will be a man who knows the production process extremely well, one who specializes in the area, and knows what to do to make the economy run efficiently. He will aid the worker in planning his factories productive output by informing the worker of changes in the needs of the market. He will certainly not tell the worker how to produce, as you again mistakenly say. He doesn't tell the 'illiterate' worker who to elect either. With your contempt of workers, its not wonder your not a socialist, but rather are a worker hating capitalist pig. Yes, that was an insult, now I give you this opportunity to bitch about it.

Who in the hell are you kidding? It isn’t circular at all. You couldn’t draw a more linear picture if you tried. Workers voting on issues they aren’t qualified to decide, Government agents/economists helping them decide, managers to oversee the economists/agents and finally a government elected by those who are privy to nothing more than those they presumably elect would hand down from upon high? You really have so sense of historical perspective do you?

An understanding of history is precisely what you lack. Workers elect one of their own to produce, an economist as I have described aids him/her, a democratically elected government oversees this economist, and the workers elected this government, meaning they must act in worker interests or be removed from power. I don't know where you saw these managers from. It would seem as though you read between the lines so well that you saw something that wasn't there. Surely you deserve a reward for such insight!

You haven’t eliminated managers. You’ve simply replaced them with government agents who’ve won a popularity contest. This is your recipe for a system that’s more efficient than a free market?

It's called democracy, not 'popularity contest'. Your anti-democratic views are quite disturbing. And this government will be there to collect needs of the surrounding community (the local govenrment, in other words). Federal government won't do too much with the economy, unless some local area is going under or something.

Your inexperience in a working environment is glaring but your understanding of human nature is verging on ignorance. A veteran worker who is most popular among his peers isn’t going to be qualified to make the leap into running a business unless he has the education and skills to do so. Unless your government agent/economist has the power to veto the election or your workers are all educated enough to recognize the skills and talents required to fill the position, you have a recipe for disaster.

Do you actually think these workers will elect someone who will destroy production? And besides, this elected worker will have help, but it only makes sense to have a factory worker help in planning the output of the factory. Having someone with no experience decide is rather dumb, don't you think? In fact, you've criticized this remote committee idea before, and now you're criticizing local production planning. You just cannot decide what it is you don't like, can you?

How can you possibly expect people of lesser intellectual aptitudes and/or education to effectively evaluate a person’s qualifications for a job they themselves aren’t qualified to fill? What you’ll get is a political nightmare within every company and a guaranteed reduction in production if not a complete collapse of the entire economic system.

Planners help plan the output of their individual factory alone. Therefore individual failures, which will ikely be few anyway, will not have much of an effect on the industry as a whole. Yuo mention 'company', and yet you must understand that 'company' is irrelevant. Production will be done by the govenrment, not by competing companies. Production will decrease, obviously, so as to be more efficient, but I'm sure that's not what you meant.

 

[slim]

"No, he has dictatorial power over the company’s business. There’s a big difference. I can’t force all the people who work for me to dye their hair purple or to have sex with me or to give me their first-born child. "

This statement is totally untrue.

A "boss" in the USA earns about 25 times more than his blue collar workers on average. This is just some injustice of the system.

Back on track,
A boss can ask a worker to do anything he wants within the contract but the major point is that the boss can dictate how much money the worker will earn. If the worker is unhappy with conditions and is fired then he will have no job and other companies will frown on his economic record. The boss has the potential of dictatorial powers in the workplace.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

"No, he has dictatorial power over the company’s business. There’s a big difference. I can’t force all the people who work for me to dye their hair purple or to have sex with me or to give me their first-born child. "

This statement is totally untrue.

A "boss" in the USA earns about 25 times more than his blue collar workers on average. This is just some injustice of the system.

Back on track,
A boss can ask a worker to do anything he wants within the contract but the major point is that the boss can dictate how much money the worker will earn. If the worker is unhappy with conditions and is fired then he will have no job and other companies will frown on his economic record. The boss has the potential of dictatorial powers in the workplace.

When you say "boss" are you meaning the owner/CEO/president...?...in other words the number one top guy? In that case you're forgetting all positions of middle management...this includes office management as well as production or labor management. Also all office personnel & office support to include customer service are not represented by your group labeled "boss." The reason I bring this up is because all these folks you just simply left out are not "blue collar" workers. They also do not make 25 times more than their blue collar/labor counterparts. In many cases middle management makes very little over what the laborer makes & even sometimes that laborer can make more with a little bit of overtime. I have seen this on many occasions. Many office jobs (payroll, secretary, etc.) do not pay as well as labor/blue collar jobs. Then in some industries the "skilled trade" labor will sometimes make more than the middle management positions (at least those middle management positions that oversee basic unskilled laborers).

 

[walrus]

I can understand totally this faith in turning over the business of America to the government bureaucracy. I mean, they do such a good job with the industries they control now. Call the Social Security Administration, you are sure to get a competent, committed, well-oiled cog of the government machine to help you with any problems you may have.

Where has Socialism worked? Russia? - hardly, they teetered on the verge of economic collapse for fifty years. China? - better example, but most profitable Chinese industry are and have been run on a proto-capitalistic model and experience has shown that the more free reign they give these industries the more efficient and profitable they become. Cuba? North Korea? - yes, true workers paradises. People like to point to socialized medicine in Europe as a success. Socialized medicine costs the average citizen far more in taxes, lost productivity (both individual and national) and bureaucracy than is ever gained. However, once you put so vital and necessary an industry as health care in the hands of the government you will never get it back. That is true of all of this, once you give this freedom to the government you will never get it back.

Even if Socialism worked as it has been laid out here, it requires a benevolent government. Socialism and Communism both are great ideas, as long as you can do something as simple as erase the nature of mankind. We don't share well on the playground, and we don't share well as adults. Socialism requires putting the power in the hands of someone who did not take risks to start a venture, does not risk much if the venture fails, and does not benefit greatly if the venture succeeds. You want a good example of the dedication and efficiency created in such an environment? Spend an afternoon at your local DMV.

 

[GPS_Flex]

I actually plan to take after the American constitution and have a definite bill of rights. Yes, the word is rights, not privileges. Again you are mistaken.

I’m certain I’d have a much better understanding of how things would work in your economic system if you’d be so kind as to share this bill of rights with me.

 

[anomaly]

I can understand totally this faith in turning over the business of America to the government bureaucracy. I mean, they do such a good job with the industries they control now. Call the Social Security Administration, you are sure to get a competent, committed, well-oiled cog of the government machine to help you with any problems you may have.

Where has Socialism worked? Russia? - hardly, they teetered on the verge of economic collapse for fifty years. China? - better example, but most profitable Chinese industry are and have been run on a proto-capitalistic model and experience has shown that the more free reign they give these industries the more efficient and profitable they become. Cuba? North Korea? - yes, true workers paradises. People like to point to socialized medicine in Europe as a success. Socialized medicine costs the average citizen far more in taxes, lost productivity (both individual and national) and bureaucracy than is ever gained. However, once you put so vital and necessary an industry as health care in the hands of the government you will never get it back. That is true of all of this, once you give this freedom to the government you will never get it back.

Even if Socialism worked as it has been laid out here, it requires a benevolent government. Socialism and Communism both are great ideas, as long as you can do something as simple as erase the nature of mankind. We don't share well on the playground, and we don't share well as adults. Socialism requires putting the power in the hands of someone who did not take risks to start a venture, does not risk much if the venture fails, and does not benefit greatly if the venture succeeds. You want a good example of the dedication and efficiency created in such an environment? Spend an afternoon at your local DMV.

When we truly hand the means of production, the factories, the workplaces etc., to the workers, as I plan to do through representative democracy, will such 'remote' bureacracy even exist any more? If we substitute local bureacracy with this remote bureacracy we have currently, do you not think things will improve? It is precisely because of the lack of representation for the 'common folk', as most of you would say, that a bureacracy is now seen as the evil thing is outwardly today seems to be. It is not the bureacracy itself, but rather how todays bureacracies function that are the problem. I plan to give control of factories to the government, but the government itself does not actually do the production planning for each local work unit. Instead, I place the job of planning to an elected worker of the factory, and he is aided by an economist whom I have previously described. If the workers are actually carrying out this venture, as you call it, do you not think the incentive will remain for this worker to plan well? If the worker plans production efficiently, the benefits are quite obvious (perhaps a boost in his own pay, for one thing). With this in mind, your objection appears not so realistic.

 

[anomaly]

I’m certain I’d have a much better understanding of how things would work in your economic system if you’d be so kind as to share this bill of rights with me.

I obviously don't have them typed up and sitting right beside me, but I can tell you that basic freedoms, basically those outlined in the American bill of rights, will be given. I obviously will have the 1st amendment of the American constitution as one of these rights, and I myself am a proponent of the right to bear arms in socialism, although I realize some of my comrades may not feel likewise. But one thing that is very important is to control this government's power. Privacy rights in any owned home must be guarenteed (warrants required for searching, all the stuff we see today). Workers' right to organize and strike must be guarenteed. Environmental reforms must be past, to hopefull slow this earth's deterioration. This should give you a general idea of what I have in mind. The 'bill of rights' will be used as another check on the government's power. I want the government to control the means of production, and have economic planning organized in the ways I've previously mentioned, but I want the government to stay out of a person's everyday life as much as possible. In other words, I do not want something like 'Big Brother' watching, or anything like that. We must of course be careful so as to not have this society end up like Orwell's 1984. And I think fear of such a scenario is the main reason you so strongly object to such a system.

 

[codyvo]

So many times it has been said on this thread that a socialist form of government and economy does not work. Looking throughout history I do not intend to argue this truth, because it hasn't worked. What I would like to do is bring to your attention, the fact that a capitalist form of economy does not work either. The american deficit has exceeded 7 trillion dollars and economists predict that sometime between 2013 and 2017, the economic income will be surpassed by the deficit, meaning, total economic collapse. Now, you may say, oh this can't be true, I still have everything I need, the economy isn't bad, but that is what the everyday bourgeois american is supposed to think. Everyday the government has you think that everything is fine and that since your not poor, then no one is. But the nature of capitalism is, that for every penny you earn someone else loses a penny. So you thinking everything is OK is wrong, go find a slummy area, like south LA then tell me if you think the capitalist economy works, look at the people that have to decide on which days they can eat and then tell me that everything is OK. It is time to wake up, capitalism doesn't work, it exploits, you don't have to suddenly become a socialist, just rethink the whole capitalist economy idea.

 

[walrus]

So you thinking everything is OK is wrong, go find a slummy area, like south LA then tell me if you think the capitalist economy works, look at the people that have to decide on which days they can eat and then tell me that everything is OK.

Don't point to poverty in the United States and then act as if you have discredited capitalism. The poor you will have with you always. Every system on Earth, capitilistic, democratic, communist, dictatorial - has had it's poor. No system, despite it's promises, has ended poverty. The Soviet Union claimed every year that they had erased poverty, but the fact was that the standard of living of the average Soviet citizen would have been considered an example of poverty in the United States.

If we substitute local bureacracy with this remote bureacracy we have currently, do you not think things will improve?

I have not noticed any increased efficiency between my local government bureacracy (the DMV in my example) and the "remote" bureacracy (the SSA).

It is precisely because of the lack of representation for the 'common folk', as most of you would say, that a bureacracy is now seen as the evil thing is outwardly today seems to be.

What are today's bureacracies made up of if not "common people" as I would say. Are today's bureacracies are made up of some magical pool of elites?

If the workers are actually carrying out this venture, as you call it, do you not think the incentive will remain for this worker to plan well? If the worker plans production efficiently, the benefits are quite obvious (perhaps a boost in his own pay, for one thing).

Yes, I call it a venture because that is what it is called. Since a pay raise is only a possibility (indicated by "perhaps") what other motivation would the worker have? The pride of operating an efficient company? Pride in doing one's duty to the State? Sorry, but those motivations only carry people to mediocrity, as has been proven time and time again. The only tried and true motivation for the vast majority of workers is material, and it is anathema to socialism.

The most dangerous thing about socialism is that it would work. Socialism could probably provide a living wage for everyone in America. It could probably provide universal cradle to the grave benefits - including health, education, retirement, etc... It could probably greatly reduce poverty and provide near universal employment. But at what cost? Socialism destroys entrepreneurship and innovation, the two things that have led American economic dominance for the last hundred years. What is the point of Ford building a Model T in his garage if his reward will be to have the government take his idea, appoint bureacrats to plan production, appoint bureacrats to market and sell his idea, and the best he gets is maybe a government appointment to oversee production? Why should Steve Jobs care if the fruit of his labours will be yet another revenue raising arm of the government? Socialism will produce at best a mediocre economy capable only of copying cheaply the innovations of others (China). At worst it produces a stagnant economy capable of great, government directed led advancements in some areas (say, space and defense), while no development takes place in other areas (the Soviet Union, which was capable of huge leaps when the monstrous central government moved, but remained fifty years behind the rest of the world in most other areas despite occupying most of the Eurasian continent and controlling resources at least as rich as America's). If you wish America to remain a first-rate world power, socialism is not the way. I realize there are plenty of people who are fine with the idea of a weaker America, believing it would be a stabilizing influence in the world. I understand this belief, and if I thought it was true I would probably be a scoialist too. But power abhors a vacuum, and any power we set aside will be picked up elsewhere - and there is no particular group of people that I am yet willing to trust with it other than us.

With this in mind, your objection appears not so realistic.

With this in mind, my objections have never seemed so realistic.

 

[anomaly]

I have not noticed any increased efficiency between my local government bureacracy (the DMV in my example) and the "remote" bureacracy (the SSA).

Is the bureacracy at the DMV really comparable to the bureacracy I've described? We have to keep in mind what makes some bureacracies terribly inefficient. What makes some inefficient is the addition of layers and layers and papers and papers etc., or as some call it 'red tape'. The goal of such a vast bureacracy as I have described is to reduce this red tape, which is why I've included very few layers, and made each layer interconnected to another. Also, keep in mind that the bureacracy I have conceived will be in charge of economic production and planning, and I don't know if this is really comparable to your local BMV bureacracy.

What are today's bureacracies made up of if not "common people" as I would say. Are today's bureacracies are made up of some magical pool of elites?

No not a magical pool of elites, simply elites. The beauty of the bureacracy I've conceived is that the highest layer is chosen by the lowest layer, through a form of democracy, as I've previously described. Thus this elitist feeling is mostly disposed of.

Yes, I call it a venture because that is what it is called. Since a pay raise is only a possibility (indicated by "perhaps") what other motivation would the worker have? The pride of operating an efficient company? Pride in doing one's duty to the State? Sorry, but those motivations only carry people to mediocrity, as has been proven time and time again. The only tried and true motivation for the vast majority of workers is material, and it is anathema to socialism.

I said perhaps because a raise in pay will depend upon the planner's efficiency and his work places efficient production. What I have noticed of my system is that it works seemingly well with one of Adam Smith's theories. Adam Smith said that if every individual does what is good for himself in a group, the group will run more smoothely. In my system, if the workers work more efficiently, as directed by the production planner, the workers will benefit. So if every worker does his job well, does what is good for himself, as his pay will be obviously affected by how well he does his job, the group, in this case all of society and the economy, will benefit. Before you go on a tantrum, I'll stress that obviously any bureacracy is capable of sustaining the rare flaws that occasionally arise. In this case, you'll rightly point out that not every worker will do his job well. This is expected, and with the localization of economic planning, and the bureacratic nature of the economy, these minor or individual flaws will be overcome. It is quite a paradox that this socialism is compatible with atleast one of Smith's theories, even while the major diffecrences between the proposed system and capitalism are quite apparent.

The most dangerous thing about socialism is that it would work. Socialism could probably provide a living wage for everyone in America. It could probably provide universal cradle to the grave benefits - including health, education, retirement, etc... It could probably greatly reduce poverty and provide near universal employment. But at what cost? Socialism destroys entrepreneurship and innovation, the two things that have led American economic dominance for the last hundred years. What is the point of Ford building a Model T in his garage if his reward will be to have the government take his idea, appoint bureacrats to plan production, appoint bureacrats to market and sell his idea, and the best he gets is maybe a government appointment to oversee production? Why should Steve Jobs care if the fruit of his labours will be yet another revenue raising arm of the government? Socialism will produce at best a mediocre economy capable only of copying cheaply the innovations of others (China). At worst it produces a stagnant economy capable of great, government directed led advancements in some areas (say, space and defense), while no development takes place in other areas (the Soviet Union, which was capable of huge leaps when the monstrous central government moved, but remained fifty years behind the rest of the world in most other areas despite occupying most of the Eurasian continent and controlling resources at least as rich as America's). If you wish America to remain a first-rate world power, socialism is not the way. I realize there are plenty of people who are fine with the idea of a weaker America, believing it would be a stabilizing influence in the world. I understand this belief, and if I thought it was true I would probably be a scoialist too. But power abhors a vacuum, and any power we set aside will be picked up elsewhere - and there is no particular group of people that I am yet willing to trust with it other than us.

Well, the first part of this lengthy paragraph seemed encouraging, but then you say that at best, socialism will produce mediocrity. I think you'll find that, with any economic system, the less democratic the government, the poorer the country. That is why I suggest trying to clear your mind of the 'socialist' failures of the past since every single so-called socialist country was tyrannical. I've explained before that tyranny is not compatible with socialism. Socialism implies the nationalization of economic production, and how wise is it to have the 'national' consisting of one man, or one vanguard, over whom the people have no control? It is doomed to failure. That being said, socialism has done some good for some people. Tyrannical socialism is not a complete failure (though none of them are true successes, either, and all, I predict, will eventually fail if tyrannical). Socialism in Cuba has actually helped that country out, comparative to other Carribean countries. Cube is in a better position currently than Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or even Jamaica. And much of Cuba's still relatively poor economic status can be blamed on actions of the USA, in form of economic sanctions. That is my one fear, really, that if state socialism arises in a poor country, the US leads the world in imposing sanctions on the country before the economy can get going. The USA can do terrible economic damage to any future socialist nation wiht the prospect of transnational capitalism. Therefore, I would, as you correctly assume, not oppose the weakening of the US, atleast economically. The US, as you likely realize, is the major economic player in this world, and does and will continue to impose its will. Sanctions on Iraq lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, and this kind of damage could potentially be inflicted upon any new socialist nation.

 

[codyvo]

Don't point to poverty in the United States and then act as if you have discredited capitalism. The poor you will have with you always. Every system on Earth, capitilistic, democratic, communist, dictatorial - has had it's poor. No system, despite it's promises, has ended poverty. The Soviet Union claimed every year that they had erased poverty, but the fact was that the standard of living of the average Soviet citizen would have been considered an example of poverty in the United States.

The root of poverty, can be directed from capitalism. In a capitalist society, whenever one person gets rich easily ten more got poor as a result. This is why every feudalistic based society has or will collape, eventually the proletariat will grow so great in number that their victory is inevitable. And yes I am saying capitalism is a feudalistic based society. After feudalism failed throughout the world, they developed a new way to run the country. The new way was essentially the same, but gave the governing class more ability to persuade the proletariat to think that nothing is wrong, much helped by the advances of media. This new tactic is why so many modern capitalistic societies have lasted so long, the people thought everything was alright, but the truth is still this, capitalism will produce poverty and eventually will be crushed by the impoverished.

 

[slim]

When you say "boss" are you meaning the owner/CEO/president...?...in other words the number one top guy? In that case you're forgetting all positions of middle management...this includes office management as well as production or labor management. Also all office personnel & office support to include customer service are not represented by your group labeled "boss." The reason I bring this up is because all these folks you just simply left out are not "blue collar" workers. They also do not make 25 times more than their blue collar/labor counterparts. In many cases middle management makes very little over what the laborer makes & even sometimes that laborer can make more with a little bit of overtime. I have seen this on many occasions. Many office jobs (payroll, secretary, etc.) do not pay as well as labor/blue collar jobs. Then in some industries the "skilled trade" labor will sometimes make more than the middle management positions (at least those middle management positions that oversee basic unskilled laborers).

Sorry about the lateness of this reply...

I was reffering to CEOs and such forth. Middle management are still from the working class as they are dependent on their jobs for survival.

 

[walrus]

And yes I am saying capitalism is a feudalistic based society. After feudalism failed throughout the world, they developed a new way to run the country.

Please compare and contrast feudalism and capitalism and show me in what way capitalism is based on feudalism. I'm not doubting you (yet), but if this comparison is easily apparent it is entirely lost on me.

We have to keep in mind what makes some bureacracies terribly inefficient. What makes some inefficient is the addition of layers and layers and papers and papers etc., or as some call it 'red tape'. The goal of such a vast bureacracy as I have described is to reduce this red tape, which is why I've included very few layers, and made each layer interconnected to another.

So what you are saying is that large bureacracies are by definition more efficient than small ones? Do you have an example? The opposite would seem the case in my experience of bureacracy.

No not a magical pool of elites, simply elites. The beauty of the bureacracy I've conceived is that the highest layer is chosen by the lowest layer, through a form of democracy, as I've previously described. Thus this elitist feeling is mostly disposed of.

So those models of efficiency staffing our government bureacracies today are elites? I deal with various government agencies daily, and if those are elites - the common man doesn't stand a chance.

I said perhaps because a raise in pay will depend upon the planner's efficiency and his work places efficient production. What I have noticed of my system is that it works seemingly well with one of Adam Smith's theories. Adam Smith said that if every individual does what is good for himself in a group, the group will run more smoothely. In my system, if the workers work more efficiently, as directed by the production planner, the workers will benefit. So if every worker does his job well, does what is good for himself, as his pay will be obviously affected by how well he does his job, the group, in this case all of society and the economy, will benefit. Before you go on a tantrum, I'll stress that obviously any bureacracy is capable of sustaining the rare flaws that occasionally arise. In this case, you'll rightly point out that not every worker will do his job well. This is expected, and with the localization of economic planning, and the bureacratic nature of the economy, these minor or individual flaws will be overcome. It is quite a paradox that this socialism is compatible with atleast one of Smith's theories, even while the major diffecrences between the proposed system and capitalism are quite apparent.

All sounds swell. What it doesn't take into consideration (and what no communist/socialist theory has) is that western man is notoriously bad at working for the common good. Both systems require that the "good of the many outweighs the good of the one". This hasn't sold yet in a western nation, and I doubt folks are buying today. It may be selfish, it may be self-destructive, it may even be immoral - but it has been, is, and always will be the American Way. This idea that we can turn over all economic power to some faceless, vast, benevolent bureacracy staffed by selfless people commited to the good of State and Citizenry is a utopian fantasy.

Socialism in Cuba has actually helped that country out, comparative to other Carribean countries.

I am guessing you have never been there.

That is my one fear, really, that if state socialism arises in a poor country, the US leads the world in imposing sanctions on the country before the economy can get going. The USA can do terrible economic damage to any future socialist nation wiht the prospect of transnational capitalism.

Yeah, that's the system of government that I want. One that requires the cooperation of other nations in order to compete. Socialism might (a huge might) work if all nations on Earth were socialist. Socialism is so poor at economically competing with capitalism that any capitalist nation would quickly dominate the world. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Therefore, I would, as you correctly assume, not oppose the weakening of the US, atleast economically. The US, as you likely realize, is the major economic player in this world, and does and will continue to impose its will.

Yeah, sounds about right to me. Do you have another candidate whose will you would like imposed? As I have said, socialism only works if "we can all just get along", and unfortunately we can't. Any economic, military, or political power the US divests itself of will be picked up elsewhere, most likely China. I know it is the workers paradise and all, but I am not quite ready to hand over the mantle of major world power to people who do not have my best interests at heart.

Sanctions on Iraq lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, and this kind of damage could potentially be inflicted upon any new socialist nation.

Hussein's refusal to take the actions required by the sanctions (thereby preventing their being lifted) lead to the deaths of any children "killed by the sanctions".

Socialism never really frightens me. I have never understood how anyone with more that a year between themselves and the sheltered halls of university could think that it would work. It is basic human psychology. Four people on an island can't share - but an entire nation can? Every tyrannical socialist state started with an intention to create an utopia. Their rulers quickly discovered that the only way to create anything even approximating a socialist ideal is through the force of government. In each case this force was meant to be temporary, but as I have said before; no government in history has ever voluntarily set aside "temporary" powers given to it. A temporary expedient quickly becomes a permanent tyranny. It has happened in every place communism/socialism has been tried. I have been to Cuba. I have been to China. I have been to South Korea and spoken with many immigrants from the North. These people may not have enough education to distinguish between capitalism and socialism but they can look at their lives and they can look at the lives of the average American and easily see the difference. And I mean the average American - not the CEO, not the "bosses", not those who control the means of production. These downtrodden workers that you hope to unite in America make more in absolute value, have more in buying power, have better access to health care and education, and a better standard of living than their counterparts in the "workers paradises".

 

[anomaly]

Please compare and contrast feudalism and capitalism and show me in what way capitalism is based on feudalism. I'm not doubting you (yet), but if this comparison is easily apparent it is entirely lost on me.

Do you not realize that capitalism evolved out of feudalism? All that changed was that now the serfs had a chance to move up to a hgiher social class. The massive disparity of welath has, and under capitalism, always will remain.

So what you are saying is that large bureacracies are by definition more efficient than small ones? Do you have an example? The opposite would seem the case in my experience of bureacracy.

No, I didn't say this at all, oh wise one. I said that any bureacracy that can limit its 'red tape' will be efficient.

So those models of efficiency staffing our government bureacracies today are elites? I deal with various government agencies daily, and if those are elites - the common man doesn't stand a chance.

They are capitalists, they make much money, you have little control over most of them (especially such bureacracies as those at the BMV, small, non-democratic ones). So yes, I'd call them elites.

All sounds swell. What it doesn't take into consideration (and what no communist/socialist theory has) is that western man is notoriously bad at working for the common good. Both systems require that the "good of the many outweighs the good of the one". This hasn't sold yet in a western nation, and I doubt folks are buying today. It may be selfish, it may be self-destructive, it may even be immoral - but it has been, is, and always will be the American Way. This idea that we can turn over all economic power to some faceless, vast, benevolent bureacracy staffed by selfless people commited to the good of State and Citizenry is a utopian fantasy.

My idea is not as utopian as you may think (unless you are extremely narrow minded, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). My idea is a rigid, yet democratic bureacracy, encorporating the lowest levels of economic production, that is, the common workplace. Faith in the moral character is not what you need. You only need faith in democracy, which is the basis for my entire system.

I am guessing you have never been there.

I'm guessing you've never been to Haiti, the Dominican Republic, or Jamaica. I'll go on the record here and say that I'd much rather live in cuba than any of those three.

Yeah, that's the system of government that I want. One that requires the cooperation of other nations in order to compete. Socialism might (a huge might) work if all nations on Earth were socialist. Socialism is so poor at economically competing with capitalism that any capitalist nation would quickly dominate the world. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

No nation is sel sufficient. Trade is always neccesary. Therefore you must not understand trade. The cooperation of other countries is essential to any economic system. The problem with a poor socialist country is that if the mighty US so chooses, it can crush the small socialist economy. Of course, if we could establish socialism in a richer country (likely Italy of France where MArxist parties are relatively strong), this problem would be all but eliminated.

Yeah, sounds about right to me. Do you have another candidate whose will you would like imposed? As I have said, socialism only works if "we can all just get along", and unfortunately we can't. Any economic, military, or political power the US divests itself of will be picked up elsewhere, most likely China. I know it is the workers paradise and all, but I am not quite ready to hand over the mantle of major world power to people who do not have my best interests at heart.

All I want is for the US to keep its hands off any poor socialist state that may arise in the future. But the US is notorious for looking out for its own business interests rather than the welfare of other peoples. A socialist economy as I've described likely will prove quite beneficial to a poor nation (for that matter, any nation), but in a poor nation, it will require some time to get itself going. And you show your true knowledge by claiming that China is socialist. China is a very capitalist nation now, perhaps even more capitalist in its economic production than the US. This just goes to hsow you that capitalism doesn't guarentee the welfare of the people living under it. In fact, worldwide, you'll notice that the countries who provide their people with the best quality of life are not highly capitalist nations, but rather those nations that first went through the industrial revolution.

Hussein's refusal to take the actions required by the sanctions (thereby preventing their being lifted) lead to the deaths of any children "killed by the sanctions".

Hussein's breaking some rules set by the UN (as the US repeatedly has done as well) warrants the killing of a quarter million Iraqis? I don't see that as justified or fair in the least. Oh yeah, I forgot, life's not fair, like you cappies continually say. If a quarter million Iraqis are killed through economic sanctions, well, what the hell. Life's not fair, and those Iraqis better realize it!

Socialism never really frightens me. I have never understood how anyone with more that a year between themselves and the sheltered halls of university could think that it would work. It is basic human psychology. Four people on an island can't share - but an entire nation can? Every tyrannical socialist state started with an intention to create an utopia. Their rulers quickly discovered that the only way to create anything even approximating a socialist ideal is through the force of government. In each case this force was meant to be temporary, but as I have said before; no government in history has ever voluntarily set aside "temporary" powers given to it. A temporary expedient quickly becomes a permanent tyranny. It has happened in every place communism/socialism has been tried. I have been to Cuba. I have been to China. I have been to South Korea and spoken with many immigrants from the North. These people may not have enough education to distinguish between capitalism and socialism but they can look at their lives and they can look at the lives of the average American and easily see the difference. And I mean the average American - not the CEO, not the "bosses", not those who control the means of production. These downtrodden workers that you hope to unite in America make more in absolute value, have more in buying power, have better access to health care and education, and a better standard of living than their counterparts in the "workers paradises".

You know, it is rather frustrating when cappies simply refuse to listen (in this case read) anything a socialist has to say. I have repeatedly denounced the actions of the tyrannical socialist states, and repeatedly I have said I do not aim to create tyranny. The US, like many countries in Europe, were simply the first to go through industrialization, and now are reaping the benefits. Argentina has perhaps the most capitalistic economy in the world, and have had such an economy for some time. And yet the average Argentine does not live a life of luxury. Basically, we have a scenario where the colonizers have a better economy and situation than the colonized. This shouldn't shock anyone. The point, though, is that democratic socialism as I have described can help these people.