Why Socialism?

[Shimmer.Fade]

You force people to earn wages above what the market dictates then you better be prepared for massive job cuts/unemployment you cant have your cake and eat it too.

What the market dictates?? Humans dictate the market.

 

[ebola?]

But the US did great when there were strong unions in the post-war period. One could argue that a large middle class with disposable income helps drive consumption and drives innovation.

With strongly justified reason: Keynes and Marx converge on a similar understanding of this matter (at least as one synthesizes the two theorists).

ebola

 

[Jabberwocky]

Once again, just as before the great depression, income inequality is at an all time high and capital has become the most important influence over society.

When wasn't it the most important, influential noun over society? Spare the lip service about 'people' unless you can elaborate on it

 

[Bardeaux]

Consider the FDR era and it's response to the great depression. Intense Wall Street reforms, increased income taxes on the wealthy, social security, minimum wage, the abolition of child labor, the Fair Labor Standards Act ect weren't bought and sold reforms between the wealthy and the government. These concessions worked against the influence of capital in favor of the emerging labor movement.

 

[Jabberwocky]

^is that in response to me? What does that have to do with what I'd said? You said that now, as before the great depression, capital has become the most important influence over society; I said it always was (if society is people in a place, then the stuff there is the next biggest factor, no?) This phenomena isn't tied to what you were saying in any way I can see.

 

[Bardeaux]

^is that in response to me?

yes

What does that have to do with what I'd said?

It answers your question directly.

It's an historical example of the power of capital taking a backseat and being subordinate to concessions demanded by labor.

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

When wasn't it the most important, influential noun over society? Spare the lip service about 'people' unless you can elaborate on it

I think it would be hard to determine what the most important noun over society is or was. I know to certain individuals things like family (and all nouns which belong to it), friends, happiness, health, sex life etc... are more important than capital (monetary).

 

[superelephant]

Food stamps are just a part of the minimal welfare state that exists in America. That is not Socialism by any definition no more so then the Nordic model of the Welfare state is Socialism. The economy is still a Capitalist one so nope no Socialism.

No it's not. Any degree of welfare, any degree of utilizing a social safety net, is not capitalism. Welfare state = corporatism/socialism.

No, these are government concessions given to stabilize capitalism. With out them, capitalism would be much more volatile and would receive much more resistance. We can observe this by comparing the levels of instability in countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway as opposed to countries that are introducing austerity measures like Greece, Spain and Italy. The former countries aren't socialist countries, they're very stable capitalist countries.

Welfare capitalism causes much less stress on the working class than countries without comprehensive concessions. This is why the "socialist" parties of Europe really have no intention of transitioning into a socialist economy, their job is to stabilize and preserve capitalism by minimizing it's instability and the dissent that accompanies instability.

I'm not even going to dignify this with an articulated response.

Could you elaborate on this? You also assume they own themselves.

People don't need to buy things from the store to get by. Lots of people could maintain a better quality of life by trading amongst themselves rather than enabling corporations for simple convenience.


and yes, people own themselves. (WTF?)

Why is it common sense that an employer would pay an employee a living wage? If they employer has created a large potential employee pool then the employer doesn't have to pay a living wage to the very lowest rung as those that don't show up to work can be easily replaced. Of course he pays his essential employees who have perhaps proven themselves a living wage, but the rest? Eh...

What would happen if each individual within this 'employee pool' refused to work for less than 15 an hour, (arrived at by the mutual agreement that others with easier jobs will be getting paid a lot more for easier work) entertain that thought for just one second.

LOL. Maybe because it is illegal to pay documented people so little money?! This just illustrates your point about people not working for less than current minimum wage is bullshit.

No, because that 'so little money' isn't so little in costa rica.

By anything I mean two things. One is that desperate people will turn to criminal activity, especially those with a certain type of self worth. The other is that desperate people will work hard for next to nothing to in order to barely get by, especially those with another type of self worth. The point is that it is good to keep people's minimum requirements covered, so that they do not become desperate.

People who would turn to crime if they don't have a welfare check or a shitty job have no place in civilized society anyway. The majority of people would defend common law and criminals would not make it very far in this scenario. The majority of criminals rely on people being away from their belongings for extended periods of time.

Have you been to a big city before? What about those areas where there isn't enough water (remember we have pumped a lot of fossil water out of the ground already in arid places)? Who gives up land to to account for those who under the new system would otherwise perish?

Yes. No one has to give up land. People without sufficient means would have to work (not necessarily for a corporate entity) and could spend money on products provided by people rather than corporations.

I wish we could live like native americans too. Sadly, there are too many people on this planet right now with current infrastructure and technology for that to really work out. A hungry, more organized nation would abuse such a 'free from the market' nation.

The point I'm trying to make is that the people could cripple these ridiculous corporations to the point of being malleable to the whims of said people. This fiction you seem to enjoy perpetuating (that it's not possible) is exactly what's wrong with everything.

 

[Bardeaux]

I'm not even going to dignify this with an articulated response.

It would appear you already did.

No it's not. Any degree of welfare, any degree of utilizing a social safety net, is not capitalism. Welfare state = corporatism/socialism.

Can you find me one singular definition or published analysis anywhere that would support this? How in the world do you associate socialism with corporatism? It boggles the mind. Corporatism exists within the capitalist framework of production. Socialism cannot. Corporatism is an arrangement of privately held legal entities and enterprise delivering it's goods and services via the private market while privately accumulating capital in coordination with the state. Capitalism is simply an arrangement of privately held means of production with goods and services being distributed via the private market and privately accumulated surplus value. The corporatist model exists within the capitalist model. Just because the arrangement isn't quite spiced up to your preferred taste doesn't mean that it isn't capitalism.

Socialism has none of these qualities. Productive means and ends are held in common and distributed cooperatively, either by a planned economy or a network of cooperative enterprise.

Welfare capitalism exists where the method of production and distribution in the economy are arranged under a capitalist mode of production. As far as I know, none of the welfare capitalist countries operate under a planned or cooperative socialist economy.

According to your definition, capitalism is a mythical utopia that has only ever existed in Ayn Rand's delusional scribble. Even the black market has some sort of direct or indirect government influence.

 

[bit_pattern]

 

[superelephant]

Can you find me one singular definition or published analysis anywhere that would support this?

This is another problem. People coining terms (all fucking over the place) and going through extensive lengths to define them. I'm sure I could, but I won't because posting it would make me a hypocrite.

How in the world do you associate socialism with corporatism? It boggles the mind.

because social safety nets primarily benefit mega corporations.

Corporatism exists within the capitalist framework

Capitalism is not defined by a framework, it exist or it doesn't.

of production.

Capitalism is has nothing to do with production. It is only the means of disseminating whatever production happens to occur.

Socialism cannot.

Any utilizing of a SOCIAL safety net is not capitalism.

Corporatism is an arrangement of privately held legal entities and enterprise delivering it's goods and services via the private market while privately accumulating capital in coordination with the state. Capitalism is simply an arrangement of privately held means of production with goods and services being distributed via the private market and privately accumulated surplus value.

How do you have so much faith in all of these coined terms?

The corporatist model exists within the capitalist model.

Damn it, there is no capitalist model. Corporations would have a hard time existing within capitalism in the first place.

Just because the arrangement isn't quite spiced up to your preferred taste doesn't mean that it isn't capitalism.

watch this.

Socialism has none of these qualities. Productive means and ends are held in common and distributed cooperatively, either by a planned economy or a network of cooperative enterprise.

Just because the arrangement isn't quite spiced up to your preferred taste doesn't mean that it isn't socialism.

Welfare capitalism exists where the method of production and distribution in the economy are arranged under a capitalist mode of production.

/facepalm

As far as I know, none of the welfare capitalist countries operate under a planned or cooperative socialist economy.

I'm running out of face to palm.

According to your definition, capitalism is a mythical utopia that has only ever existed in Ayn Rand's delusional scribble. Even the black market has some sort of direct or indirect government influence.

Okay, I'll recognize this. I've said before that capitalism probably hasn't existed yet, just that it probably could (finally) now. AFAIK the socialism you're referring to hasn't existed anywhere either. Maybe I should replace 'social safety net' with 'corporate safety net' (although I loathe coined terms) so we can stop this. Just know that corporatism is not capitalism.

I could support a technocratic socialism as long as the vast majority (~95 % ) of people didn't have to labor, (technology being utilized to perform majority of labor) but I don't think we are quite there yet.

 

[Bardeaux]

Capitalism is not defined by a framework.

Capitalism is has nothing to do with production.

Said no economist or political theorist ever.

I honestly don't know how you come up with a lot of your content in this thread. It would appear much of it is simply made up.

How do you have so much faith in all of these coined terms?

Economics and sociology are social sciences. In order to study something and draft theories around its mechanics its very useful to have terms and definitions to describe what it is you're studying.

 

[bloodshed344]

Said no economist or political theorist ever.

I honestly don't know how you come up with a lot of your content in this thread. It would appear much of it is simply made up.



Economics and sociology are social sciences. In order to study something and draft theories around its mechanics its very useful to have terms and definitions to describe what it is you're studying.

Aside from all ideology, the USA is at a time where its economy and currency are being completely destroyed. How will the US fix its economy? Is a socialist approach what is needed? Or would that be the last nail in the coffin?

 

[Bardeaux]

Ideology aside, a socialist approach is the only long term, practical remedy I see. Over the last generation we've gone in the opposite direction entirely, and our current situation is reflecting this. The only way for the economy to rebuild itself is for our citizens to take control over it themselves, rather than wishing and hoping that oligarchs will do whats right for everyone and not just line their own pockets.

There are specific examples of just how beneficial this could be. Detroit, for example. When the government bought up large portions of GM and other auto parts corporations, they didn't change anything. They just handed it back over to the same banks and CEOs that ran it before. One option would have been for the government to hand it over to the workforce, who would use the productive capacities to create things that people actually need. Rather than building more cars to congest the crumbling highways, they could have built things like high speed rail materials or something that would benefit the region directly. Or if they decided to build cars, they could allocate capital in such a way that the average worker at these factories could actually afford the cars they are producing.

When multi-national companies pack up and move overseas they rarely sell off what assets they have sitting abandoned here in the US. There are vacant factories and other productive means everywhere across the country, and there are millions of former workers who are currently drawing money from the government. It just doesn't make sense, and there's no capitalistic incentive to solve it. Profits have never been higher in most sectors. The solution is for the workforce to own and run the production themselves, take these abandoned auto factories, aerospace facilities, shipyards and start producing again. THEY have the incentive to keep industry alive in their towns, multi-national corporations do not. THEY have the incentive to make sure everything is running efficiently, as they're managing their own lives by managing their own workplace. They're not just figures on a spreadsheet that can be shifted to another region when things start getting sticky or when lower labor costs become available elsewhere.

If the workforce is going to face the consequences of economic interaction, it only makes sense that the workforce is in charge of economic interaction. When the entities in charge have never been better while everything crumbles around them, there needs to be a change in management. Otherwise, what incentive is there to turn anything around?

 

[bit_pattern]

Any utilizing of a SOCIAL safety net is not capitalism.

You really don't understand the words you use, do you?

 

[superelephant]

Said no economist or political theorist ever.

I honestly don't know how you come up with a lot of your content in this thread. It would appear much of it is simply made up.



Economics and sociology are social sciences. In order to study something and draft theories around its mechanics its very useful to have terms and definitions to describe what it is you're studying.

The majority of terms that exist are unnecessary. the only terms that need to exist are a term that means 'market' and one that means 'controlled market'. Any control exerted over the market negates it's premise.

 

[superelephant]

You really don't understand the words you use, do you?

I don't. I don't even speak english.

 

[L2R]

Aside from all ideology, the USA is at a time where its economy and currency are being completely destroyed. How will the US fix its economy? Is a socialist approach what is needed? Or would that be the last nail in the coffin?

america's financial woes would be significantly resolved overnight if only the wealthy simply gave a shit about their own country. if previous taxation wrongs were righted voluntarily by those who benefitted from upper class tax concessions, and all that abundant wealth which is sitting idle for the sake of itself re-enters circulation, the economy will recover real fast.

but taxing the rich is blasphemous. right?

 

[bit_pattern]

The majority of terms that exist are unnecessary. the only terms that need to exist are a term that means 'market' and one that means 'controlled market'. Any control exerted over the market negates it's premise.

This is really quite hilarious

 

[Bardeaux]

The majority of terms that exist are unnecessary. the only terms that need to exist are a term that means 'market' and one that means 'controlled market'.

h'okay then.

america's financial woes would be significantly resolved overnight if only the wealthy simply gave a shit about their own country.

The problem with this is that much of America's wealthy (as in outrageously wealthy) have more connections and assets invested multinationally. Especially those in the heavy industrial and manufacturing sector, they only need America as a place to dump their products and to build/drop the bombs.