Socialism is winning!

The bailouts were socialising private losses. I would nationalise them all.

 

It depends on how such country is defined.
.

 

Correct. Socialism (the social ownership and democratic administration of the means of industrial/economic production [as proposed by Dr. Karl Heinrich Marx and Frederick Engels]) has yet to exist anywhere on earth. For the establishment of socialism within the context of either agrarian societies or even semi-agrarian societies (e.g., Russia of 1917, China of 1949 or, say, Cuba of 1959) is an impossibility that both Marx and Engels warned against. Socialism may only come about within the context of fully industrialized societies where the mass of workers would be able to organize themselves to the point to where it would then be possible for them - workers - to take control of the industries which they built in the first place, and to then administer those industries by way of Socialist Industrial Unionism as set forth by Daniel De Leon who was, according to Vladamir Lenin, "the only one to add anything to socialist thought since Marx and Engels themselves."


Yours.
"Eddie Haskell"

 

LOLOL.. and that's NOT socialism?

 

(Margot's comment was made in reference to "draft punk's" statement that The bailouts [socialized] private loses. I would have nationalized them all.)

No, with all due respect, nationalization is not socialism, at least not in the Marxian sense of the word "socialism." And, since it is Karl Marx that often comes to the forefront of the average person's mind whenever they think of socialism, it is usually assumed that Marxian socialism - Marxian social science - is the subject matter at hand.

Nationalization is the transfer of ownership of a given society's means of industrial/economic production (its land, factories, mines, mills, retail outlets, etc.,) to its national government or, in Marxian parlance, to its "political state" or "bureaucratic state." On the other hand, socialism - Marxian socialism - would be the social ownership and democratic administration of the means of industrial production. Known as Socialist Industrial Unionism, socialist self-government would represent society on an industrial basis rather than strictly on a geographical and political basis which is now both a wholly antiquated and utterly corrupt form of governance.


Yours.
"Eddie Haskell"

 

Except there was nothing to suggest that it was the rise in inequality which caused the recession. I've already shown that weekly wages have increases so there is nothing to suggest that the recession was caused because poor people got poorer and rich people got richer. Unless you're trying to say that it was caused because both quintles got richer but the rich got rich faster, that that also a bolder claim.

You've have to contribute that to pretty much every recession we've ever had after that point as contributing factor.

The economy was merely self correcting due to the Recession in 1920.

So the theory goes. I already pasted from sparknotes about overproduction in both industry and on farms in the 1920s.

 

The ruling Ideology is the ideology of the ruling class.

That is a false definition

The right care about employers not workers

True, the politicians represent employers and capitalists in general.

This is very confused stuff. A world government? What sort? Socialism? Socialism aims ultimately to abolish countries. Or a mythical New World Order capitalist government, run by shape shifting pretend Jews who live underground?

Actually, capitalism is a lot more national based that you might think.

False. Support.

Is this a sentence? What does it mean?

How many times do you think it has been tried? Your answer will be wrong. But have a go anyway, give some examples.

This is the basis of all anti-socialism.

And Marx explained that capitalism not only creates the working class, it creates the conditions in which the working class is able and likely to challenge for power. The working class has no need for the capitalist class any more. It would be advantageous to get rid of them, as in relieve them of their companies and make them into workers.

How come you are so misguided and misinformed? For instance Marxists have always put a huge emphasis on education. Even Cuba, a pseudo-Marxist country, spends any times more on education than America per head as a % of GDP. In Russia, illiteracy was wiped out.

The idea of socialism is that the result is that there is no ruling class, no elite, no professional politicians or managers, none of that, and the state withers away, with everybody involved in decision making. This is well known basic Marxism.

0/10 for accuracy.
Reverse all this into it's opposite to get closer to the truth.

Have you ever tried reading about real life events?

False

 

Wrong.

Ok, there is some stuff here which has a grain of truth that needs addressing.

Yes it is true you need a centralised revolutionary party to take power off capitalism. However as soon as any threat of counter-revolution has been defeated, you need to move to greater and greater democracy.

There has only been one proper attempt at revolution by Marxists which has led to a successful revolution, that was in Russia. Let's examine this.

Firstly, bear in Russia was in WW1 and had a dictatorship up to February, followed by a self appointed provisional government which promised elections but wanted to continue the war. The Bolsheviks had the support of the urban workers and soldiers on the western front.

At first the Bolsheviks ran a democratic, peaceful Russia.

Marxism says that socialism is impossible in one country, and especially difficult in a backward one. Unfortunately the revolution failed in Germany and that failure more or less meant socialism in Russia was doomed.

After the civil war Trotsky was calling for more democracy but Lenin died and Stalin managed to get the most power. Stalin personified the failure of the revolution and it's degeneration, he led a political counter-revolution.

 

You just don't get it Daft. The elite, through media can make ANY word have the definition they want. The American/European version of "socialism"/"capitalism", or "mixed market" as it is so commonly referred to, is what is coming for the world. "Mixed market" equals serfdom/pharaohs. Whatever works best for the elite from every playbook. And dumb people who are too scared to fight for anyone but those who are most likely to succeed will eat it up and feed it to their children.

Examples:
Right to work. Collective low wages verses union high wages.

Patriot Act. The most anti-American legislation to ever be passed.

Federalism. States rights? Yeah, because that makes sense.

Department of Education. More like department of original thought destruction.

I could go on and on.

Your socialism is dead. When you support the word, you will be pushing nothing more than owner class statism. Same can be said for those who push capitalism thinking it is relevant. Only the worst of both exists for the bottom. Only the best of both exists for the top. Last but not least, if you push globalism one more time while thinking you're doing workers anywhere a favor I am going to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing puke.

 

Marx considered himself a materialist not idealist, but most Marxists seem to be idealists since they quote his words like some prophet. Marx did not consider himself Marxist. By Marx's own standards he has been discredited since most academics reject his theories (Joan Robinson considering it "Hegelian stuff and nonsense", Keynes wanting to "knock the Ricardian base off it"). It's only a fringe cult keeping the flame alive, but since Marx' predicted steady concentration of wealth to the few has not happened they resort to propaganda instead. They even lack faith in their prophet.

 

I thought the ruling ideology was the ideology that worked best.

 

It isn't. Is the ideology that works best for the power. For the rich. But not for the people. People is going poorer. Yes, you can show how wages has been rised, it is normal. But the cost of life, too. And if the wages aren't be risen according to the cost of life, the people is getting poorer and it is what has been doing this last decades.

The capitalism, and more the neoliberalism that we are having now isn't the best ideology. Is the best ideology to have subjugated the people to the desires of the corporations and governments, but no more than that.

 

Please address my points separately and I'll give you all your answers.

 

I suggest you read this re the Black Army:

Anarchists in the Russian Revolution

The Makhno Myth
http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

re Spain, the 'communists' who opposed the anarchists were not communists but were Stalinists. The ex Trots of the POUM worked with the anarchists.

The anarchists wasted the revolutionary opportunity. They could have taken power but refused on principle. Later they even joined a capitalist-Stalinist government!

 

What isnt? Bailouts or nationalising them? Obviously nationalising them could be.

This is correct, ish, as far as it goes, but are you familiar with Permanent Revolution and In Defence of October?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/11/oct.htm

 

What have you got against workers internationalism?

I dont care what the ruling class defines socialism as.

 

Can you define producer controlled state socialism please; there seems a kind of oxymoron in there.

Respecting those at the top, again, I agree completely. I would commend to your reading Marc Bloch's Feudal Society; two volumes. It's way out of print, but you may find it at a used store somewhere. Bloch is French, so his perspective is from the horse's mouth as they say.

I think that for us to truly understand what's happening, and has been, we must try and avoid common buzz words and phrases attached to politics. "Liberal" education, by definition does not rely on a narrow view to draw conclusions, but rather relies on the macrocosm to ground an issue and properly "rubik cubes" it. Bloch can really help you unwind your thesis.

 

Wages were increasing during the 1920s. There was nothing to suggest it was caused by overproduction. Had it's own place in the recession, as many things cased the depression.

I don't know why you like to debate fallacy and not actually data.

An increase in wealth is see as an increase income overtime. The bottom income earners has not seen a decrease in income so they are not poorer. The only way you can become poor is if you make less money than you've made before. According to "actual statistics" the bottom income earners have had increases in wages over time.

His opinions are based on just that, opinions. If people are clueless enough to take his word for face value without evidence that's there problem

That's because they're actual figures and yours is snapshot data. The difference between actual figures and snapshot data is my figures takes into account of tax returns and wages of individuals over time.

Again with the use less snapshot data. This again, shows data from the bureau labor of statistics shows that their income has increased.

Great, another opinion piece with no data.

According to the census, during the year 2000 the percentage of income earners who made $10,000 or less was 9 percent. In 2009, that percent decreased to 7.4 percent. This is among all household income earners in the US. Notice how all the other income brackets are increasing. It only shows that overtime people obtain more wealth. People are getting richer and moving into higher income brackets.

So now we're gone from debating other people's opinions to debating myths and assumptions. Take a random picture about poverty off the internet, try to relate it in your discussion somewhere and make the conclusion, "everyone in the US is like that."

When you get some statistics, let me know.

 

I define producer controlled state socialism as this. Basically, large firms in total control of a huge state apparatus. Social programs exist, not one genuine in its intent. Just enough social programs to keep the guilt trip for taxes coming in, and an all out revolution from stealing said state's control from the owners. For instance, we don't want to pay all of these taxes to keep bums on welfare and successful people collecting social security, we don't want to pay all of these taxes for large agriculture subsidies, corporate welfare, or the billions going to the global regime's military muscle for the benefit of only them, but try and argue against taxes and in comes the guilt trip. "So you don't want bridges and roads? You don't want police and firefighters?" The most clever invention to the globalists aim was actually not the FED, but the creation of the neoconservative ideology, sealing total control of American politics as to big government and international "interventionism".

 

This is just a description of what America is - capitalist.

 

Capitalism no longer exists when a huge state apparatus is present. I find your constant "socialism has never existed, so everything is capitalist" to be childish. You are well versed in collectivism, but only studying one ideology has left you inept, as for this modern day of globalism.

 

Denmark is pretty socialist. Not completely. It's more socialized than the UK, but sure as hell less free than America.

 

Real wages didnt go up and inequality went up. Have you read the paper? "Personal saving as a percent of disposable income declined from 6.4 percent in the 1898-1916 period to 3.8 percent in the 1922-1929 period (Olney 1991: 4."

The paper by American University economics department Professor Wisman is full of data.

Inequality increased in both periods. This means relatively smaller markets.

Here is another article from Investors Live

another

This is an economics professor who has written many research papers published in refereed economics journals, a book, and who has won several awards.

What do you mean snapshot? The graph covers several decades. What do you mean yours is actual figures? So is mine, in graphical form. Yours is pre-tax income.

Here is another

http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/changeaftertax_thumb.gif

Source: Congressional Budget Office, Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979 to 2004, Table 1C, December 2006.

As you can see, the rich did a lot better than the poor.

I dunno about your graph, it doent have a link. I dug up another Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances, from 2007

mean income

2004....2007

bottom 20% 11.9 ..... 12.3

top 10% 331 .....397

family net worth

1998....2007

poorest - 7.4 .....8.1

richest 575....1119

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...sg=AFQjCNH6Y1pUEpfyLzYORaxjc-jj4S4p4g&cad=rja

Even if it was 20% for the poorest and 20% for the richest, that leads to a widening gap as 20% of a lot is greater than 20% of very little.

Why useless? What do you mean by snapshot?

According to your figures the poorest were $72 a week better off, and the richest were $508.

what do you think all the numbers were?

This doesnt take inflation into account.

I have given you loads. The simple fact is that many economists can understand that inequality increases were a large factor in both recessions.