Thread: Socialism

Originally Posted by Invisible-Bob

The notion that we are a socialist nation just because we have government is pure sophistry logic and nothing more. It may fool some people but it's a false argument.

I don't know about our having a government making us socialist, but we always have been a socialist nation to a degree. You might think that the idea that we could (or would want to) become an entire socialist society is absurd- but equally absurd in my opinion is that we would want to lose the socialist element *entirely*. A pure capitalistic society would be hell for a lot of people. There are a lot of good things that could come from both systems and the only rational discussion is one that discusses both and what elements we are going to employ from each. Having nothing but contempt for socialism is just as ridiculous as having nothing but contempt for capitalism. We've always had- and we'll always need both.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I don't know about our having a government making us socialist, but we always have been a socialist nation to a degree. You might think that the idea that we could (or would want to) become an entire socialist society is absurd- but equally absurd in my opinion is that we would want to lose the socialist element *entirely*. A pure capitalistic society would be hell for a lot of people. There are a lot of good things that could come from both systems and the only rational discussion is one that discusses both and what elements we are going to employ from each. Having nothing but contempt for socialism is just as ridiculous as having nothing but contempt for capitalism. We've always had- and we'll always need both.

Absolutely! The pendulum swings, but it never reaches either extreme. In our discussions we need to see what others do, and the results they get with an open mind, and learn from them. Simplistic decisions that our ways are the only right ways just don't give us the best solutions. Neither are jumps to judgment that change is bad; that changes have to be fought against.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

It could be argued that it is a truer understanding of socialism.

Below is footage of the National Socialist Workers Party in the highly civilitzed, overwhelmingly Chriistian, democratic country of Germany. Whether you want to call it soicialist, fascist, or something else, IMHO there was no room in that country for individual liberty at that time, although we might ask John Locke if he considered those masses to be Libertarians.

YouTube - Adolf Hitler

Originally Posted by Tom Palven

Below is footage of the National Socialist Workers Party in the highly civilitzed, overwhelmingly Chriistian, democratic country of Germany. Whether you want to call it soicialist, fascist, or something else, IMHO there was no room in that country for individual liberty at that time, although we might ask John Locke if he considered those masses to be Libertarians.

YouTube - Adolf Hitler

Are you serious? IMHO the most Nazi-like thing that's happened in politics lately (which people *really* ought to be concerned about) is the Citizen's United ruling where our conservative Supreme Court members voted to allow unlimited anonymous donations to candidates, essentially. Not knowing where a candidate gets the money that allows them to win an election is not knowing who our polititions *really* represent. THAT is shooting democracy in the back. We could even have candidates now who are put into office essentially by foreign interests!

Socialism, in its pure form, is anti-capitalist and anti-private property. The Nazis? It's pretty well known that the Nazi's, although the word "socialist" appeared in their name, weren't socialist at all. IMHO, the group that most resembles Nazis in america today is actually the group that is totally bent on eliminating every single element in our society that could be called socialism. You need a scapegoat don't you- not real answers! You just need something to point your finger at. For Hitler it was the Jews and... communists!!!

So were the socialists back then the communists, or the people who hated them? It can't be both!

Actually, Citizens United changed nothing about donations to candidates, it just said that Congress cannot censor political speech, regardless of the source. Which is about the most opposite you can get from Nazism.

Originally Posted by Tom Palven

Below is footage of the National Socialist Workers Party in the highly civilitzed, overwhelmingly Chriistian, democratic country of Germany. Whether you want to call it soicialist, fascist, or something else, IMHO there was no room in that country for individual liberty at that time, although we might ask John Locke if he considered those masses to be Libertarians.

YouTube - Adolf Hitler

I read somewhere that Hitler could have someone shot within a few hours; but, could not necessarily change established laws, due to "ten thousand clerks" (in the several States) impeding progress. It could have been called States' rights. It is an example of what could happen with too many nationalized and socialized public policies in a federal republic.

Originally Posted by adaher

That's just a way of abstracting away any rights we have. The freedom to do what you will as long as you don't harm others adequately covers slavery. However, socialists go a lost further. They want to ban practices that harm society, which takes away all individual rights, period. There is simply no way to argue that the existence of a large, private business harms any particular individual, with the exception of the business doing things that are against the law. So socialists make the claim that large businesses harm society in various ways.

No, that's not true. Every practice I'm talking about here harms individuals. I do talk about the economy as a whole, and how all of this impacts economic growth and performance, but underpinning that is the well-being of a lot of people.

Everyone should read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/op...=2&ref=opinion

What I'm seeing here is the effect I've been predicting: a permanent loss of jobs. We're in the shallows of it right now, but unemployment is officially around ten percent and holding, and in reality more like twenty percent. The middle class is disappearing. That statement encompasses a reality of people who lose their homes, are forced into early retirement, can't find jobs when they finish school -- their children won't be able to go to college at all. And all of this is a product of the private ownership of big corporations, together with advancing technology. This is not just harm to society. This is very serious harm to a great many individuals. "Harm to society" is just a shorthand and always was.

Originally Posted by adaher

Personally, I think the future is going to be mega welfare-state capitalism. I see a future where per capita GDP tops $1 billion, but unemployment is 80% due to automation. What that will probably mean is a guaranteed income for all citizens of say, $250,000/yr(in today's dollars), while the top 20% that have skills to contribute to this extremely advanced society generate wealth that not even Bill Gates could imagine.

Let me explain why that's not possible. This will require some group-think -- that is, you need to extrapolate, not for moral purposes, but merely to understand the mechanics, from the individual to the collective, because economics involves collective forces and collective behavior.

An economy must produce wealth and distribute it to those who need and want it. If it fails to do either of those, it fails to do the other as well. If most people are making too little relative to the total amount of goods and services produced -- which means even $250k might be "too little," depending -- then a portion of those goods will sit in warehouses, unsold and unsellable. Production will then be cut back. There is no point in producing goods that can't be sold.

When the relative wealth of the mega-rich -- the degree to which they are richer than the rest of us -- comes from the production and sale of goods and services, then it comes from the gap between the total sale value of what is produced, and the income received by everyone else. That is to say, if the total value of what is produced is $100 trillion, and the aggregate income of the non-rich is, say, $50 trillion, then the mega-rich rake in the other $50 trillion. But the problem is that $50 trillion in total income can't purchase $100 trillion in goods and services, so that scale of economic production can't be kept up. The economy goes into recession and production is cut back.

It doesn't matter how huge the economy becomes or how comfortable an income is being provided to the non-rich, if it isn't to the point where the gap between the rich and the non-rich is much narrower than it is today, the ratio of goods produced to consumer demand will be too high and it won't all balance. And the economy will fail. We've seen example of this again and again. It's not an accident that the amount of income hogged by the top 1% reached its peak of 24% twice in this country: in 1929 and in 2008.

However, I'll say this: a massive welfare state in which people receive truly generous welfare payments but in which corporations remain privately owned could work. However, such a society would require very high taxes on the rich to make it work in terms of the federal budget -- so that way, too, the income gap would narrow. And the question is whether it could work politically. All it took was the passing from power of the generation that, in their youth, supported FDR, for the post-war prosperity to be reversed and a return to the old economy to happen, with all its dire consequences. As long as there is an owner class, there will be a vested interest in an economy that doesn't work. Because I have the feeling that a contracted economy of which they take the lion's share would suit a lot of these folks just fine.

Unemployment compensation can be mostly self-funding. In my opinion, we only need to solve official poverty for our economy to be more efficient due to an increase in the circulation of money in money based markets.

Originally Posted by adaher

Actually, Citizens United changed nothing about donations to candidates, it just said that Congress cannot censor political speech, regardless of the source. Which is about the most opposite you can get from Nazism.

That's what I think the argument was- basically that you can't limit the amount of money spent on an election or who spends it because money = speech. There are lots of problems that need to be solved when it comes to this issue that can't be ignored. Does it matter who spends money on political campaigns? Should donors be able to give and spend money anonymously? In Oregon we got a very large taste of what Citizen's United means in reality- beyond the sound-bites.

Peter Defazio, one of our 5 congressmen, was challenged by a man named Art Robinson, a Republican who should have been totally unelectable. The man believes that our nuclear waste problem could easily be solved by diluting it and using it in the foundation and insulation of homes! C'mon!!! In any case, Defazio would have cruised to an easy victory against this guy if it weren't for a ton of money being spent on his behalf by a group called "Concerned Taxpayers of America." CTA... who were they? That was a mystery for quite a while. Read this Washington Post article:

DeFazio tries to find out who is behind mysterious attack ads

Eventually what the CTA was was exposed and it turned out it had 2 wealthy members in someplace like New Jersey... I think it was- in any case, when two wealthy individuals can almost turn the election in a state on the opposite coast, there's something seriously wrong. And the concern over foreign money being filtered into elections? That's what I understand is going on. The effort it took to expose who the CTA *was* was difficult enough- did the 2 members get money from foreign sources? My understanding is that it wouldn't be easy to tell.

Money *does* equal speech, unfortunately. The more money that a candidate gets the more free speech they have and when elections can basically be bought- potentially with the help of money originating abroad I think we have a problem that needs to be addressed. Of course that isn't going to be easy, but if it's enough just to resort to sound bites?

nevertheless, you cannot censor. Money is not speech, but speech is speech, no matter how much money is behind it. The Supreme Court originally gave BCRA a chance to work because they felt the government had a compelling interest in preventing the appearance of corruption. Two things made them change their mind in 2010:

1) The appearance of corruption was undiminished by the law. It failed to accomplish what it set out to accomplish.
2) The government went too far by trying to censor a political documentary. If Citizens United can be censored, so can Michael Moore.

So the government got slapped down, and rightfully so. Congress can still pass campaign finance reform, but in order to pass Supreme Court muster it has to actually accomplish something useful to justify the 1st amendment infringements, it has to apply only to mediums the government has established a right to regulate(TV okay, newspapers, books, and movies not okay), and it has to not be arbitrary. The recent DISCLOSE Act which failed to pass would probably have been struck down for being arbitrary. It sought to restrict pro-Republican interest groups while leaving loopholes for pro-Democrat interest groups.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Let me explain why that's not possible. This will require some group-think -- that is, you need to extrapolate, not for moral purposes, but merely to understand the mechanics, from the individual to the collective, because economics involves collective forces and collective behavior.

An economy must produce wealth and distribute it to those who need and want it. If it fails to do either of those, it fails to do the other as well. If most people are making too little relative to the total amount of goods and services produced -- which means even $250k might be "too little," depending -- then a portion of those goods will sit in warehouses, unsold and unsellable. Production will then be cut back. There is no point in producing goods that can't be sold.

When the relative wealth of the mega-rich -- the degree to which they are richer than the rest of us -- comes from the production and sale of goods and services, then it comes from the gap between the total sale value of what is produced, and the income received by everyone else. That is to say, if the total value of what is produced is $100 trillion, and the aggregate income of the non-rich is, say, $50 trillion, then the mega-rich rake in the other $50 trillion. But the problem is that $50 trillion in total income can't purchase $100 trillion in goods and services, so that scale of economic production can't be kept up. The economy goes into recession and production is cut back.

It doesn't matter how huge the economy becomes or how comfortable an income is being provided to the non-rich, if it isn't to the point where the gap between the rich and the non-rich is much narrower than it is today, the ratio of goods produced to consumer demand will be too high and it won't all balance. And the economy will fail. We've seen example of this again and again. It's not an accident that the amount of income hogged by the top 1% reached its peak of 24% twice in this country: in 1929 and in 2008.

However, I'll say this: a massive welfare state in which people receive truly generous welfare payments but in which corporations remain privately owned could work. However, such a society would require very high taxes on the rich to make it work in terms of the federal budget -- so that way, too, the income gap would narrow. And the question is whether it could work politically. All it took was the passing from power of the generation that, in their youth, supported FDR, for the post-war prosperity to be reversed and a return to the old economy to happen, with all its dire consequences. As long as there is an owner class, there will be a vested interest in an economy that doesn't work. Because I have the feeling that a contracted economy of which they take the lion's share would suit a lot of these folks just fine.

You are dead on there. This really is elementary here, the problem that the disparity of wealth creates. I wonder how so many can ignore this?

Why is unfettered Capitalism in politics a "bad" thing? In my opinion, we would not have this problem if it were socially acceptable for a party of Capitalism, to simply draft and place the on the ballot, the wealthiest person in the republic and the person who commanded the largest bonus in the history of the republic.