Will a new communist/Marxist/socialist state ever emerge?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by WheelsRCool

i'm sorry, but i have to point out that a completely unregulated capitalist system would thrive off of child labor and exploitation, as they are fiscally sound ideas.

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
So, wait. Did you start this thread out of curiosity and a desire for debate, or because you wanted to get a "yay capitalism" circle-jerk going and call anyone who disagrees a Nazi supporter? Well, regardless, I figure the ignorant must be taught...

I never started this thread, I just post in it...as to WHY I post, because arguing can be fun and a learning experience...

If free trade works, then why doesn't it... y'know... work? Deregulation does not increase competition, it lowers quality. Global competition does not increase productivity, it exploits poor regions and impoverishes wealthier ones. If it's not oppressive, then why are people who work under the system... largely oppressed? The principles of free trade are what bring us sweatshops, child labor, and pinkertons.

That is absolutely not true. Free trade most definitely works. That's why the global economy is growing so prosperous overall right now. And de-regulation pretty much always increases competition. When the airlines were de-regulated, when the telecommunications industry was de-regulated, when the mail industry was de-regulated, etc...competition and quality all went way up.

One reason the computer and software industry are so inventive and develop so incredibly fast is because they are virtually devoid of regulation.

The drugi ndustry, on the other hand, which is highly regulated, has very little competition and is relatively starved of new drugs in comparison to what it could have.

And no, it does not exploit poor regions. To the contrary, it brings prosperity to poor regions, and allows them to grow their economies. It allows the poor to become wealthier and the already wealthy to increase their wealth.

As for oppression...what oppression? People who work under a capitalist system aren't oppressed at all, unless a monopoly forms which is usually from government intervention.

For example, coal miners in the early days of America were subject to a monopoly control of the industry because the coal companies lobbied the government to create a tariff on all foreign mining companies, thus allowing them to obtain a monopoly, and exploit their workers as they pleased.

You go to Britain, Japan, South Korea, or just drive around America, I do not see any oppressed peoples.

Sweatshops are the initial starting effect under a capitalist system. As competition increases, and labor unions form, these end. South Korea is a perfect example of this.

And those sweatshops tend to pay a lot more than any other job the people in the countries they're located in could traditionally get.

This isn't to say they're morally right. In today's modern times, I think corporations should have the morality to create safe working conditions at least.

But in the long run, sweatshops disappear anyhow. They are never a permanent feature of a country unless that country absolutely refuses to adopt to capitalism.

Child labor was actually abolished by capitalists, and was only utilized by them up until they had technology sufficient to operate without them.

Ending child labor was to benefit industry, but that's a whole other story. Basically the industrialists wanted a dumbed-down working class for cheap labor, and allowing children to work so early in life makes them rugged and independent-minded, something the industrialists didn't like.

Capitalism does work, I'll grant you. Unfortunately what it works at is being a ponzi scheme, where everyone puts in money and a handful prosper from it. The ultimate expression of capitalism is slavery - It's as close to 100% profit as a person can make.

Actually, no it doesn't. It works by allowing individuals to engage in contracts with one another without coercion. If you decide to work for a company, if the contract says they'll pay you for work, fine, that's the contract. You work for them, they pay you. You aren't entitled to the profits the business owner makes, unless the contract specifies this. It isn't your business.

Now a good way to inspire employees to work hard is to give them a stake in the company, i.e. stock options for example. For example, many employees of Google are now leaving that company because their stock options are worth about $4 million each, so they're cashing out to go and start their own companies.

When you give people a stake in the company, they can most definitely reap from the profits.

I think you have it backwards there. Our economy was crap from our nation's inception to the early 20th century, and it perfectly matched the "free market" ideal during that time - almost no government involvement. And yet, even with almost totally wage-free labor (slavery in the south, wage slavery in the north - later just wage slavery in both areas) and massive resources taken by conquest from Mexico and the Native peoples, America could barely keep itself afloat on the world market.

No it wasn't. The early American economy was a time of rugged individualism at the time, but it was rather small then.

In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt took office, and brought with him anti-trust laws, monopoly breakups, labor support, and the Square Deal - The Hepburn Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Meat Inspection Act. Know what happened? The United States began strong economic growth in response to this government involvement.

No it didn't. It began strong economic growth despite that governmetn involvement. And it continues to. The United States economy is currently the largest in the world, yet the U.S. government plays an incredibly small role in our economy in comparison to other countries.

The only kind of government involvement that helped the economy was involvement that increased competition, such as monopoly breakups to monopolies that needed to be broken, and anti-trust laws.

Labor support was good initially, but it is what has driven so much of the industry (and blue-collar jobs) out of this country.


posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:51 AM

In 1921, Warren Harding took office, and began undoing all that through a policy of isolationism, nativism, and moving away from the activist governments of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson. Included in this was of course the first tax big tax break in American history - the Revenue Act. After Harding died in office, Coolidge took over where he left off, instituting large deregulation and laissez-fair policies. The result? A six-year boom from combining very low taxes with the prosperity created by Roosevelt - Wilson... followed by the Great Depression. Hoover tried to cut in the middle - he didn't touch Harding and Coolidge's policies, but instead tried to raise taxes. Smart move numbnuts.

You got that part right. The six-year book because of the economy being freed. The 1929 Stock Market crash was a result of that.

Free market economies experience ups and downs, booms and busts, bubbles, etc...it's normal. The Stock Market crashed again in the late 1980s, and again in 2000 as well.

The Great Depression had nothing to do with laissez-faire, but was rather the result of the Federal Reserve failing to do its job of keeping banks solvent.

Cue FDR and the New Deal, along with all manner of other programs reminiscent of the first three 20th century American presidents. Know what happened? The economy began picking up again. There was huge government involvement in the economy, and the United States managed to pull itself out of depression via these policies, without slipping into fascism or aggression. Of course, credit where credit is due, a lot of our post WW2 boom was due in part to the fact we were the only country left with an intact industrial base at the end of the war.

Actually, the policies of FDR didn't do squat for the economy growth-wise. They helped aid people somewhat because the money supply was shrinking so much, and people thought capitalism was failing.

The economy would have recovered from the Stock Market crash like it normally does from a crash, but the Fed. did the oppositeo f their purpose and let hundreds of banks fail. This threw the economy into a depression.

No one knew this at the time however, and thus those who said to "let the economy recover by itself" didn't know that this simply wouldn't work at the time.

So FDR instituted government policies.

The United States pulled itself out of the Great Depression because of World War II, not FDR.

And the United States DID almost slip into fascism. Look up FDR's "National Industrial Recovery Act," which would have granted him powers virtually identical to those of Hitler over the economy. It was passed by the 73rd Congress, June, 1933, and soon knocked down by the Supreme Court:

"The President may investigated the labor practices, policies, wages, hours of labor, and conditions of employment in such trade or industry or subdivision thereof; and upon the basis of such investigations, and after such hearings as the President finds advisable, he is authorized to prescribe a limited code of fair competition fixing such maximum hours of labor, minimum rates of pay, and other conditions of eomployment in the trade of industry or subdivision thereof investigated as he finds to be necessary to effectuate the policy of this title..."

And in 1934 Roosevelt's National Planning Board was looking to Germany, Russia, Italy, and Japan for models of how a government ought best organize and control its nation's economy.

You're right, the US government has been withdrawing from the economy rapidly since the Reagan years. And what's happened since then? Where is the Dollar going? Down. Steadily. Why? Because production and work is what our money is based on - and government deregulations and withdraw of worker support have led to lower quality products, more monopolization, and the largest drop in wages relative to inflation since the Great Depression.

The dollar going down has little to do with Reagan. It has more to do with the policies of the Federal Reserve, and also the development of foreign economies thanks to their implementing free-market policies.

I have no idea what "lower quality products" you are talking about. You go to buy a television, computer, grill, refrigerator, car, truck, winter gear, whatever, all are very high quality these days.

Monopolization I don't know of either. In general monopolies are only temporary anyhow. The only ones government has any business getting involved with are ones that directly affect people, like the water company for example.

It is because of Reagan's policies that we have had the almost utopian level economy we've got today.
Prior to Reagan, growth was somewhat cyclical, a few good years followed by a recession (70, 74, 75 and 80 all saw recessions). Further, the high inflation of the 1970s meant that GDP growth in "good" years was eroded. As Reagan pushed through reforms, we weathered the 1982 recession, and then began a period of growth that really has not stopped. 1991 is the only recession year since 1982. So basically Reagan started an expansion and broke the business cycle which has not ended.

NAFTA should tell you all you need to know about where we're going. NAFTA was an agreement that strongly favored lack of standards and government regulation with regards to production, wages, and compensation - and it was imposed upon a nation without an economy as strong as our was at the time. Know what NAFTA has done to Mexico? Here's a hint, illegal immigration was not nearly the problem then that it was now.

Mexico is an economy with a lot of socialist-leanings,, and when you take a rather socialist economy and take away any standards for production, wages, compensation, etc...while still making it rather difficult to start businesses and engage in competition, and thrust this all on a people who aren't too used to the notion of free-market capitalism, and you mess things up.

I disagree somewhat on the flaws of communism. Communism's deadly flawed, as you note, but it's flawed because people are territorial and hierarchal. A classless sharing society is impossible.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:52 AM

However, you're very wrong that people function as individuals. We are not collectivists, but we are var from isolationists. We are a tribal species. Capitalism, as a policy, tells us that we must compete against everyone, strive to harm them four our betterment, and that if we don't they will do the same to us. Eat or be eaten. We do not actually work that way, at least not as individuals.

No it doesn't, and political conservatism is especially against this. Capitalism focuses on individualism, and the rights of the individual, who engage in competition with each other.

It's supposed to be implied that people try to be moral with each other to while competing, but since people tend to give up their morals in capitalism, that is why capitalism is the best system. Because it allows freedom of choice.

Look at the values of conventional small-town America, which believe in hard work, free-market capitalism, individualism, etc...but at the same time, the small town ideals of if your neighbor needs help, well help him.

You keep using that word, socialist - I do not think you know what it means. I think you're looking for fascism. Stalin's policies mirrored those of Hitler far more than those of Marx. And if you really think the United States was free, well, you might want to look up McCarthyism. Or the Civil Rights movement. Or you know, all those countries we tried to conquer to "contain communism" (that the communists were trying to conquer to contain capitalism, no less).

We did contain communism most likely, and keep it from spreading.

You are right, Stalin's policies were very much like Hitler's, because fascism and socialism are so very similar ultimately.

Socialism has it's different variations, but overall it's when the government outright owns the means of production, and there is no private property ownership.

Marx was a Communist, not a socialist. Stalin and other "communist" dictators used the veils of forming a glorious communist society to implement a socialist dictatorship.

Regarding Civil Rights, you are right-on, it was very wrong for America to infringe on the rights of people like that. However, Civil Rights legislation never fixed this problem, but rather only institutionalized discrimination.

McCarthyism is an interesting subject, because many people thought he was a quack at the time, but now historians are actually starting to see he wasn't as wrong as originally thought.

Nevertheless, it was wrong to scare people as much as he did.

You're quite wrong. Businesses make an offer. The potential employee takes it or leaves it. The people running the business know that sooner or later someone will take it.

No they don't. If that was the case, businesses wouldn't pay so much for top-quality employees. Businesses make an offer and if you are a needed employee and consider going to another business with a better offer, the businesses will improve their offers.

If a business doesn't serve the customer of employee, it goes out of business. Look at CompUSA. They treated their employees terribly and their customers terribly. Now they're going out of business, because Best Buy is kicking their butts.

Capitalism is very much about serving people. Filling needs. Solving problems. Making things easier for people.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
There are very, very few businesses where one person is so integral as to be able to demand "top wages" and actually receive it. In the modern deregulated era of increased monopolization, it's becoming more and more true that a prospective worker must either take what the business is willing to offer him, or remain unemployed. As such conditions persist, and even increase, that offer gets smaller, and smaller, and smaller.

Hmm, well I don't know where you're getting that, or about increased monopolization. There is more competition nowadays than ever before and nowadays is one of the best times in history to be in business.

You go and get a job as a lawyer, financial profession, engineer, etc...lots of professions are in high demand, and as such command pretty high salaries.

There is fierce competition in many industries.

Regulations CREATE monopolies, not abolish them. Look at the drug industry.

Corporations oftentimes lobby politicians to draft legislation that will regulate out all the little guys from their industry so they can have a monopoly.

Why do you think Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, and Ebay are all pushing for legislation to create price controls on the Internet right now? They "claim" it's to protect small businesses, but anyone who looks at the history of these companies knows that's complete baloney.

What they really want to do is kill competition, so that Google and them doesn't have another future company rise up and compete with them, as they are with Microsoft.

Microsoft has been unable to maintain its monopoly precisely because of the lack of regulation in the computer/software industry, not because of it.

When the telecommunications industry was de-regulated, they had to UNDO regulations that had caused the monopoly of the industry at the time, because Bell had a monopoly thanks to government regulations.

That's communism with a dash of fascism for flavor. Again, I don't think you actually know what socialism means, and I'm beginning to suspect you base your economic theory off of B-grade cold war movies.

Nope, it was pure socialism. The Soviet Union was about as pure of a socialist state one could get.


[edit on 17-12-2007 by WheelsRCool]

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:56 AM

One, Mussolini's system was actually far closer to the end result of libertarianism - rule by corporation rather than government by hte people.

Two, Nazi fascism was far more of a pseudo-religious nationalist movement than it was a mirror of Italian Fascism.

No it wasn't. Libertarianism would never result in the rule by corporation. That is the great myth of capitalism.

The great myth of capitalism is that without government regulation, big corporations will take over and control everything, and government must be introduced to watch over and prevent this.

The truth is that this is impossible and never happens in a free-market economy with the exception of a few small parts of the economy.

In reality, corporations are able to take over and rule side-by-side with government when you introduce government regulation to "prevent" this.

Which is exactly what happened in fascist Italy and Germany. The government regulated everything, prices, wages, production quotas, etc...and killed competition completely, meanwhile creating a very close relationship between corporations and government.

Indeed, a great irony of fascism is that many people of today who vehemently despise everything fascism stood for inadverdently work towards principles that would result in a fascist economy, because they believe in government intervention in the economy so much.

Actually, Fascism was pretty successful, as far as government systems go. Greek and Spanish Fascism continued for a good long while. Chinese Fascism is still running strong, and may even be picking up steam. What brought down Italy and Germany was aggression. Bullies tend to get the crap beat out of them at some point.

There are a lot of books out there recounting how fascist economics in fact wrecked Italy. Through a variety of accounting tricks and outright lies, Mussolini made Italy appear solvent and prosperous, which lef everyone to believe that his fascist "Corporative State" ran like a well-oiled machine.

The reality, however, was far different. After fifteen years of fascist economics, Italians were paying the highest taxes ever, and their standard of living had fallen to below pre-WWI levels. By the late 1930s, there was no way anymore Mussolini could hide this. Italy was bankrupt, and on the verge of collapse.

Corruption also has skyrocketed, and then there was the fact that Mussolini had turned Italy into a dictatorship where you could lose your job, or disappear if you didn't keep your mouth shut.

China was never fascist really, they were another version of Stalinist socialism, under Maoism (who also wrote his own book I believe). Like Stalin, he killed many millions of people as well through starvation alone, and kept many more living in squalid poverty and control.

China was smart though. They had the foresight in the late 1970s to realize that, socialism doesn't work. So they began implementing capitalist elements slowly, over time, to make the economy more free and prosperous, which has led to China's recent boom.

And you can bet your butt China will probably experience a stock market crash at some point too.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, refused to budge, up until the late 1980s, when Gorbachev tried to implement capitalist elements very quickly, which was disastrous with such an economy. had they started in the late 70s, gradually bringing in capitalism, then Russia might look more like China now.

Instead, a few people in Russia got very, very rich from those capitalism elements, but everyone else was left poor, which is what happens when you try to to just change a socialist economy into a capitalist one overnight.

Russia's economy is now improving however, more wealth is being created there.

And Germany and Italy could have won WWII had their leaders not been complete idiots with regards to how to fight a war. It was because of some rather large blunders that they lost.

Socialism is the state control of the means of production - and takes varying degrees. Communism is state control of all property and all business. Arguing that Russia and China are socialist is a lot like arguing that the United States is a monarchy.

You think businesses do not consist of the means of production? Communism isn't state control of anything, it's when everything belongs to everyone and there is no big central authority. Socialism is state control over all property, businesses, etc...which are the means of production. Russia and China were very much socialist.

I suppose that you believe that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is 1) democratic, 2) uses a republican system, and 3) represents it people, too?

Korea is a very free country for the most part, which is why it is an Asian tiger. Yes, it employs democratic methods.


posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:57 AM

Strangely, the Baltic and Scandinavian states, for all their "lousy economies" still have a superior standard of living to America.

No, they don't. All one need do is visit them to see this. According to the UN Human Development Index, they have a higher living standard to America. But the UN HDI is very flawed because it uses things to measure standard of living that not only are difficult to measure, but also are the decision of some bureaucrat.

It's like me saying that if you live in an area where there are lots of horses, you have a high standard of living because you can ride horses a lot, which is enjoyable.

But whose to say you care anything about horses? What if you don't like them? Just because I say you live near them and can ride them doesn't mean you will care about that.

Furthermore, the UN HDI is only about seventeen years-old.

When you go by the much older, and much more reliable measure of a country's standard of living, GDP per capita, you see that America outpaces the Scandinavian nations, with the exception of Norway's GDP per capita, because they are the world's 3rd largest exporter of oil.

However, if you go by the Big Mac Index (which in general is a good standard of how things cost in countries compared to America), you see a Big Mac there (yes the McDonald's kind!) costs about 2x what it does in America. When stuff on average costs about twice in Norway what it does in America, their small GDP advantage dries up rather quickly.

The European nations that have the best economic growth are ones such as the United Kingdom which utlized the free-market policies implemented by Margaret Thatcher, Switzerland, and Ireland, which after lowering their corporate tax rate has gone from being a backwards country to one with standard of living equal to America's.

And yes, money doesn't automatically = happiness, but GDP per capita is a measure of the standard of living, not necessarily happiness. A country could have a lower standard of living and a happier people, though in general, the higher the living standard, the better. GDP per capita measures the average amount of money people have actually, and how much money people have in general is the best measurement for living standard.

Really, got a source for such quotes? As both Mussolini and Hitlers' fascist states operated by economic meritocracy (i.e., rightist capitalism), I would have to believe that if they stated such denunciations of capitalism, it was after a long bit of binge drinking. What you really need to realize is that capitalism is not individualistic in practice - its purpose is to enrich a few with the labor of many.

No it isn't. Capitalism is very individualist in practice. Capitalism is very simple, really: Humans on average always do what's in their best interest, whether they're a government, business, whatever.

In capitalism, businesses are forced to compete, and without government aid, they can go out of business fast if they don't treat employees and customers properly. Providing good products and services requires good employees.

With government control (socialism), you have an automatic monopoly over all industries. No one has any choice. You either work for the government or you don't work. That's it. They will pay you what they deem "proper," and if you don't like it, tough. You can't go work somewhere else. And since they're the government, you either take what they give you, or go without. It isn't a business that wants your money and trades with you for that money. It's a government that forcefully takes your money. You take what they provide in return, whether you want to or not. If you think their product is shoddy, tough.

Plus the fact that such an economic system results in rationing and central planning, which is disastrous because the price system, which is crucial for information, becomes completely out of whack, resulting in massive shortages.

The farming industry was one of the only places the Soviet Union actually partially privatized to keep the whole country from starving even. They had no choice.

They also stifle creativity, because of all the bureaucracy. Big bureaucratic corporations are like this as well.

Why people consistently think that corporations and businesses competing with each other are somehow exploitive and evil, yet a government monopoly over everything would somehow be benevolent, loving, and kind, is beyond me.

Socialism is basically the equivalent of if you let every industry be controlled by a monopoly, which is pretty much what fascism is. In fascism, the controlling corporations have a great deal of influence and relationship with the government.

Fascism is not at all capitalist. It abhors capitalism. Capitalism and fascism became associated with each other because during the 1920s and1930s, there was such little difference between fascism and the Bolsheviks, that critics of Hitler's National Socialism tagged it with the name, "National Bolshevism." The Bolshevists were HIGHLY offended by this, and at the Third International in 1934, decreed through the Comintern that the international Marxist propaganda machine should immediately associate fascism with capitalism, and fascism thus became named, "the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist, and most imperialist elements of finance capital."

This worked so well that even today critics of socialism and lovers of capitalism get tagged as fascists.

But history shows that fascism abhored capitalism:

"I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow...What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism." - Adolf Hitler, to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930 (see Paul M. Hayes, "Fascism," The Free Press, 1973).

"[In Mussolini] Socialists should be delighted to find at last a socialist who speaks and thinks as responsible rulers do." - George Bernard Shaw, 1927 (see Alastair Hamilton, "The Appeal of Fascism: A Study of Intellectuals and Fascism, 1919 - 1945, Macmillan 1971).

"We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak...and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system." - Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian (from Strasser's "Thoughts on the Tasks of the Future," 1933).


posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:00 AM
Also, some of the most important fathers of National Socialism, such as Fichte, Rodbertus, and Lassalle, are also acknowledged as fathers of socialism.

National Socialists stated that Hitler had created "the most modern socialist state in the world," - Stanley G. Payne, "A History of Fascism, 1914 - 1945, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1995.

In Mussolini's early days, many of his Marxist critics called his fascism, "more of a heresy from, than a mortal challenge to revolutionary Marxism," - Agursky's "The Third Rome," 1963.

Ernst Roehm, a dedicated socialist, leader of the SA, second only to Hitler in power in the National Socialist Party, in a letter to a friend, observed how often his street gangs swtiched back and forth between his National Socialist gangs and Communist gangs, uncertain of which they really belonged.

In his "Road to Serfdom," Hayek remarks how during the early 1930s, the propagandists of both socialism and fascism recognized the "relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice-versa," and how university professors in the U.S. and Britain noticed that students returning from study in Germany could not decide if they were Marxist-socialists or fascist, but only that they hated "Western Civilization."

Trust me, fascism was no lover of capitalism and wanted no association with it. Capitalism was a symbol of Western Civilization, such as individualism, material prosperity, etc...all abhored by the fascists.

Another clue: Jews were legendary capitalists, and still are. Hitler hated Jews. What do you think is one reason why? Because according to him, Jews were everything despised by Germany: capitalist, Western Civilization, etc...

The rights of an individual depend more on the government system and level of public involvement in it, than on the economic system used.

The rights of the individual depend very much on the economic system used. Economic freedom is a necessary component for political freedom. You cannot have a democracy without economic freedom.

Well, you "can" actually, but that's sort of like saying a dictatorship is a great form of government if you can get a very friendly dictator...

You take away people's economic freedom, you create the reigns for dictatorship. There's a reason why every dictatorship of the 20th century was socialist/fascist - Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Mihn, Che Guevera, Fidel Castro, now Hugo Chavez who is a wanna-be dictator and is also socializing Venezuela's economy.

The purpose of a socialist government is to meet the needs of its people. It is invested with this power by the people it's caring for.

Yeah, but there's some major problems with this theory, namely, as I said above, humans are humans. Humans who work for a corporation are not somehow "evil" while humans working for a government agency are somehow "caring." Both work for the benefit of their organization.

Since both are subject to the individual interests of people, a socialist government in essense becomes full monopoly control over the economy.

You will also notice that the best businesses aren't those that concentrate solely on profit, but that recognize that treating the customer and solving their needs are their purpose, and the profits just naturally flow from this.

Another flaw is that because the government controls everything, the price system is completely out of whack. There is simply no way that a government bueaucrat working in a socialist system can meet the needs of the people even if they try because of this lack of information.

Which ironically is generally the same result gained from neo-liberalism like what you seem to be in favor of, as well as anarchism. Oh, 19th-century political philosophers, will you ever cease to amuse?

No it isn't. That's the myth perpetuated by socialists to justify their actions. I am guessing by "liberalism," you mean the neo-classical liberalism of the 19th century, rather than the modern definition of "liberal," which refers to people more in favor of big government.

If so, you should read this quote from Moeller's "Das Dritte Reich:"
"Liberalism is a philosophy of life from which German youth now turns with nausea, with wrath, with a quite peculiar scorn, for there is none more foreign, more repugnant, more opposed to its own philosophy. German youth today recognizes the liberal as the enemy."

So, nobody in Finland owns anything and htye all hate us? I think you're mixing your isms again.

Finland has a lot of socialist elements, but they aren't purely socialist. Sort of like France. Very socialist, but not purely socialist (yet) anyhow.

Actually fascism regulates to protect business, not people. It's collectivism of a capitalist sort.

That's right. But it is started under the guise of protecting people. You don't think Hitler and Mussolini each got their people to elect them to power by saying, "I've got a system that will protect businesses and allow them to dominate the economy!" They themselves didn't actually believe this would happen I don't think. Mussolini himself started off as a pure Marxist socialist, but then came up with the idea to combine socialism with capitalism (i.e. fascism), which Hitler also adopted. It's the same with government regulation. Started under the guise of protecting people, but it inadverdently evolves to protect business and itself, not people. That is the nature of government.

Sort of like the Food and Drug Administration. Started under the guise to protect people, but it really only protects itself and the drug industry.

UNIONS are a wonderful example. All started to help protect workers, but evolving to protect themselves. Look up the history of organized labor and its ties with organized crime and the Mafia and so forth.

The miners unions in Britain had Britain in a deathgrip for many years, until Margaret Thatcher came along. She unlike her predecessors was smart enough to stockpile coal so that when she fought the unions and the miners went on strike, the whole country wasn't hamstringed for lack of coal.


posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:02 AM

I would argue that, since monarchy actually has a seven-thousand year lead on ANY of the concepts we've talked about, it might beat them all, combined. And you might want to ask yourself where the heck the Native Americans all packed off to.

America did mistreat the Native Americans, and monarchies did kill lots of people, but none of them can match the numbers killed by socialism, especially in a single century:

On socialist killing rampages alone, you should read, "The Black Book of Communism" by Stefane Courtois, a French historian and one-time Maoist, who in the 1990s researched how many killings it took to keep socialism alive across the planet.

He came up with an estimate of about 85 to 110 million state murders:

USSR: 20 million
China: 65 milllion
Vietnam: 1 million
North Korea: 2 million
Cambodia: 2 million
Eastern Europe: 1 million
Latin America: 150,000 (about 17,000 murdered by Castro)
Africa: 1.7 million
Afghanistan: 1.5 million

And that's just the murders! Nevermind the mass starvations which killed millions, and the billions overall kept in squalid poverty for generations.

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:36 AM
I'm sorry, I really stopped reading after you insisted that civil rights legislation was discriminatory. Well, okay, I read those "pro socialist" quotes of yours... You may want to re-evaluate them - they support my point that the men they speak of were not socialist (here's a hint, if something is a "heresy" of an idea, then it is actually in opposition to that idea)

[edit on 17-12-2007 by The Walking Fox]

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by WheelsRCool

i have a question: how many hungry children leave us per hour from starvation in the capitalist system?

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:44 PM

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
I'm sorry, I really stopped reading after you insisted that civil rights legislation was discriminatory.

Nice way to avoid having to defend your positions. If you don't think Civil Rights legislation was discriminatory, then your head is in the clouds. Civil Rights legislation was one of the worst things to happen for Civil Rights.

Well, okay, I read those "pro socialist" quotes of yours... You may want to re-evaluate them - they support my point that the men they speak of were not socialist (here's a hint, if something is a "heresy" of an idea, then it is actually in opposition to that idea)

LOL...I gave you a bunch of quotes by prominent National Socialists calling or being called socialists, and stating their hatred of capitalism, one in which Hitler himself states he's a socialist, yet you still refuse to believe.

Here's a few more:

"Fascism, which is the very antithesis of Individualism, stands as the nemsis of all economic doctrines and all economic practice of both the CAPITALIST and communistic systems." - "The Philosophy of Fascism," 1939, by Mario Palmieri, Italy's foremost fascist theologian

When the Nazis were running for power, they ran against Marxism and American "high capitalism," promising to take the best from each and create "a new socialist man." - Stanley G. Payne, "A History of Fascism, 1914 - 1945, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1995.

People like you would have been indoctrinated quite easily by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, or any of those other murderous dicators I believe.

As for the quote calling Mussolini's fascism a "heresy," yes, it was a form of socialism that was in the eyes of the Marxists, more a heresy than an actual different system. The heresy was allowing the ownership of private property, which is blasphemy to a Marxist.

Otherwise, it was rather the same, i.e. anti-capitalism, anti business, anti materialism, anti Western Civilization, etc...

From Mussolini himself:
"The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism which denied the State in the name of the Individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the Individual..."

Classical liberalism, that stuff from the mouths of John Locke, Adam Smith, deToqueville, etc...that thing of Western Civilization and the bases for capitalism...

Fascism is a variation on conventional socialism, and very anti-capitalism.

i have a question: how many hungry children leave us per hour from starvation in the capitalist system?

I have a better question: how many left us under the socialist regimes?? (HINT: see my last post on the murderous regimes).

Under capitalism, virtually none. Virtually all of the poverty occuring in capitalist countries is because of social programs, not capitalism, unless maybe you mean the Great Depression? That did have some starving, but that wasn't caused by capitalism.

Man, you folks just don't quit though do you. Despite capitalism's unprecedented worldwide success, despite the absolute horrible failure and murder levels of socialism that make Adolf Hitler look like Jesus Christ, despite all the facts showing how poverty is caused and increased through social spending, you just cannot accept capitalism, the concept of the individual.

At most, you accept trying to achieve a "balance" between socialism and capitalism, and when given cold, hard facts showing that Hitler and Mussolini already tried that strategy sixty years ago, and how it resulted not only in one country trying to wipe out anyone who wasn't a blonde, but also this big giant war that killed millions, you still refuse to accept capitalism.

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:15 AM
savage soldier

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by savage soldier
i would appreciate a list of books about socialism.

Look at things Robert Owen wrote.

Robert Owen was what is called a 'utopian socialist'. His ideas diverged considerably from those of mainstream socialist philosophy as expressed by Marx and others. His writings are not a good place to start learning about socialism.

If you want to learn about it from the original sources, the authors you want are, of course, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.

A fuller list of socialist writers (Owen is included) is given near the top of this page. Links to potted biographies and bibliographies included.

* * *

The Walking Fox

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Labor is the cornerstone of all markets.

Would you like to elaborate on this a little? It sounds like a warmed-over version of the labour theory of value. I hope you have something a little more credible for us than that.

The huge difference between a capitalist and a socialist nation is that the capitalist nation believes the sole purpose of government should be punishment and retribution against enemies and rivals - police and military force, and nothing else - while the socialist government goes the opposite route and demands its government be in total service to the welfare and prosperity of its people.

According to my understanding, the difference between socialism and capitalism lies in who owns the means of production. Under socialism, it is owned by the workers. In the strictest interpretation this means that nobody is allowed any private property. Capitalism acknowledges private property and private ownership of the means of production.

Perhaps you need to explain how that translates into internal cooperation and social welfare on the one hand, versus external aggression and repression on the other.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by Astyanax

Karl Marx is by no means and has nothing to do with the start of Socialism and where it came from. Marx was born on May the 5th, 181, the year after Robert Owen had began to try and remove poverty through socialism.

The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right (1762) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of the very first books.

Marx isn't nor never was a Socialist. He has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism and his ideas are directly in arguement with what Socialism was intended to be about.

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Astyanax
The Walking Fox

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Labor is the cornerstone of all markets.

Would you like to elaborate on this a little? It sounds like a warmed-over version of the labour theory of value. I hope you have something a little more credible for us than that.

I actually find LTV to be quite credible, just impractical, as it, like so many other economic ideals, pretends that it's not in fact the lowest common denominator who sets the course of things. But no, this is not my point.

The point to what I stated there is simply that without labor, there is no production, and there is no service. Therefore without labor, there is no market. To speak of "The Market" as an entity stripped of connections to the labor force, as neo-liberal economists and their supporters so often do, is simply counter-intuitive.

'Course, that's hardly surprising given that these people are essentially religious fundamentalists who worship an "Invisible Hand" and the "spontaneous order" that its touch creates.

According to my understanding, the difference between socialism and capitalism lies in who owns the means of production. Under socialism, it is owned by the workers. In the strictest interpretation this means that nobody is allowed any private property. Capitalism acknowledges private property and private ownership of the means of production.

Perhaps you need to explain how that translates into internal cooperation and social welfare on the one hand, versus external aggression and repression on the other.

Notice I was speaking of the states themselves, rather than the economic model in a vacuum. For the record, what you take as the "Strictest" interpretation of socialism is in fact not socialist at all.

So how does it translate?

Capitalism is competition. The idea is to amass as much wealth as you possibly can in as short a time as you can. The problem is, by the very nature of wealth, there's a limited supply (else it would be rather worthless, wouldn't it?) Thus you must prevent others from getting it, so that you can, instead. The poor must be kept poor, for starters. Diverting wealth to social programs such as welfare or housing just keeps you from having those couple of bucks. Thus with capitalism there is a great pressure to strip social obligations from governments. This leaves the police and defense forces. Both of whom are controlled by the same competitive system. So the police continue cracking down on the "undesirables" who are apparently causing all the problems, while the military, being easily bored, finds an easy excuse to attack other nations, which are seen as economic rivals.

In short, due to the competitiveness of the system and the intentional divorce of "the market" from human beings, there are no "people" outside yourself and perhaps your immediate family. It engenders a strong "us vs. them" mentality, which in turn leads to social repression and aggression to one's neighbors

On the other hand, socialism acknowledges human reality - that people need things, and that there are in fact people who would happily screw everyone over for a short-term profit. It's not exactly cooperation - there's still competition, as socialism maintains the existence of private property (just that not ALL property is private, such as essential infrastructure). But it also engenders the idea that other people are in fact people like yourself, and not rivals out to "get you." The government is kept busy maintaining the needs of its population, while the defense side of things is not glorified as conquerers and expanders of influence, as they are in the capitalist system.

It's not that one is good and the other evil. It's just that they focus on and exercise different parts of human nature. Capitalism does lend itself to a more robust economy - for those that are on the inside track, while socialism is slower, but most people get a decent bite of what's there. Question is, would you rather be fabulously wealthy in a nation where cops are paid to kick the asses of the many homeless people, or would you rather be only comfortably prosperous in a nation where homelessness is uncommon?

[edit on 3-1-2008 by The Walking Fox]

posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:19 AM

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
The point to what I stated there is simply that without labor, there is no production, and there is no service.

It does not follow from this that the labourer is entitled to set the market value of his product or service. In fact (as has been demonstrated more times than there are stars in the sky), value is set by the market. The market consists not only of buyers, but also of sellers - respectively, at either end of the chain, consumers and producers. It is in the interaction of these two entities, governed by the law of supply and demand, that determines the value of a good or service.

Therefore without labor, there is no market.

Likewise, without consumption, there is no market.

To speak of "The Market" as an entity stripped of connections to the labor force, as neo-liberal economists and their supporters so often do, is simply counter-intuitive.

No sensible economist speaks of markets as unconnected with labour. Supply and demand again. What do you think supply is, if not the product of labour?

Astyanax: Perhaps you need to explain how that translates into internal cooperation and social welfare on the one hand, versus external aggression and repression on the other.

Capitalism is competition. The idea is to amass as much wealth as you possibly can in as short a time as you can. The problem is, by the very nature of wealth, there's a limited supply (else it would be rather worthless, wouldn't it?) Thus you must prevent others from getting it, so that you can, instead.

If the supply of wealth is constant, how do you explain the increasing wealth of the world? Exploitation and inflation by themselves won't do it; you must factor in the effects of resource extraction, processing and manufacturing, distribution, financing and so on - the effects, in a word, of capitalism.

Your argument fails because its initial assumption is invalid. Wealth is not limited in potential supply.

But, as you pointed out, it takes labour to create it. Impoverishing and decimating the workforce is therefore counterproductive. Modern capitalists are aware of this, which is why workers in capitalist democracies are far better off than workers in socialist dictatorships.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in