About Socialism

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Qohelet, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. Qohelet

    Qohelet Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I've been thinking about socialism, because we have some left leaning parties in Finland and here (in forum) socialism is like curse. In Finland capitalism is base line combined with high taxes and lot of regulations (from inside or from EU). For example, public library funded by taxation is socialized (socialistic?) aspect in Finland - everyone can use it. That's not making our country Venezuela. Also other funded by taxation services can be count as socialistic stuff?

    It's a bit hard to explain what we have here, but I just say: it's a mix. We are not going to communism, but as far as I know, we have some socialism in our mechanism (like what we keep up with taxation) and it's working pretty well now.

    Going for full scale capitalism without any safety net (no public healthcare, social security, etc) may be hard for some people - but how bad it would be? My concern is that corporation driven society don't want to take care of poor people. Is there any space for real empathy if everything is for sale? I mean if money is only unit of measure for what's valuable.

    Sometimes I think that America is country where you may want system like that, you guys have enough balls to even try it. Just love your plutocrats and let corporations do whatever for profit. Kill all regulations and see how far you can get.

    But I like to know what you count as socialism?
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2019
    XploreR, Eleuthera and OldGuy?wise like this.
  2. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The grass is not truly greener here.
     
    XploreR and Eleuthera like this.
  3. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Socialism must refer to worker ownership and control of the means of production. I support a market form, although libertarian (i.e. anarchist, not the right wing Americans looking for an exotic title) analysis also offers an alternative.

    Most people make error over the definition of socialism as they confuse it with the economic spectrum (from command economy to laissez faire). They therefore make the claim 'government=socialism'. You then get the silliness that socialism is everything. Liberal democracy is deemed to be socialist. Social democracy is deemed to be socialist. Fascism is deemed to be socialist. Stalinism is deemed to be socialist. A politician farting is socialist. There's no limit to the ridiculousness!
     
    AKS, XploreR, Marcotic and 1 other person like this.
  4. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At the core of socialism is the false belief that a governing body can assess value, and impose that assessment on society.

    Can anyone tell you what your values are?
     
    BleedingHeadKen and TedintheShed like this.
  5. Qohelet

    Qohelet Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Any social system need critical amount of consensus to be able work as group. Only optional way is pure anarchy. When it comes to government, people try to elect those who have similar values and hopefully it leads to good policy. Even when you just wipe out government, you will need to be able make some agreements with other people - even with those with different values.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2019
    OldGuy?wise likes this.
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Group decisions naturally include every individual decision. Value is the most basic of these choices. Value is always determined at the individual level. Value can be observed at the group level, but cannot be measured there. No amount of group cooperation can force an equal amount of change in individual value assessment.

    Complicating the issue is the concept of trade. In every trade, the person trading away an item inherently values that item less than the item they receive in trade. Two individuals trading two items must both value those items differently for a trade to take place.

    Socialism is the belief that the system people use to trade is corrupt. Socialists falsely believe that if value is imposed on individuals, government can destroy the framework that individuals naturally use to trade and that, to a socialist, would be a good thing.

    In practice, however, you can't impose value. The natural system simply shifts to compensate for the imposed value which ultimately destroys people's ability to trade.
     
  7. fencer

    fencer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,020
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Real socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Venezuela is/was socialism as they nationalized many major industries and then inevitably, ran them into the ground.

    Government subsidizing libraries isn't socialism unless they also prohibit private libraries/booksellers. If government owns the industry and selling or lending books has to be a government function that would be socialism. Subsidizing libraries will interfere with the market in books, making it more difficult for participants in that industry to grow and thrive.

    Taxation is parasitic and subsidizing whatever service or industry, is a cancer. Those things are bad but they aren't socialism.
     
    Longshot likes this.
  8. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But free markets and property rights aren't socialist. We know that.
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neat example of the 'government=socialism' fallacy. Was the Tory government socialist when it nationalised Rolls Royce? Of course not. That would be a particularly silly claim.
     
  10. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Under socialism, we have free markets and property rights.
     
  11. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't have rights you have privileges. key difference
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  12. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, under socialism, property rights are respected and people may engage in free trade.
     
  13. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you mean as a right and what I mean as a right are two completely different things. Under socialism rights are established by the government. They exist only as a consequence of the government. Their boundaries and limits are defined by government. They can be redefined and relimited by government. They can be an often are contradictory to other established rights. Right to property ownership, for example, can be contradicted by a right to the product of someone else's labor, like healthcare.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  14. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Rights can only exist as a function of your existence, and may not impede upon the rights of others. Anything else is just a privilege.
     
  15. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So negative rights? Why does each of us have negative rights?
     
  16. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why are you changing the subject to negative rights?
     
  17. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You said that one may not impede upon the rights of others. That would mean negative rights, no?
     
  18. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No I was talking about the limits of what a right is. An activity is not a right if it impedes upon a right when exercised.

    Everyone has an undefined number of negative rights, just in the same way they have an undefined number of negative goats. You can't quantify the number of things you don't have.
     
  19. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. If I am a blacksmith I do not own the bellows, hammer and anvil that I use nor do I own the iron that I used to forge the product. I some how one the nebulous "labor". Markets process are fixed by central authority, as opposed to allow supply and demand to determine their value.

    In recent years, socialist have been bucking Marxist doctrine by attempting to rectify supply and demand with the socialist doctrine. None have been successful.
     
    Longshot likes this.
  20. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have the privilege to produce labor that you lose the second your labor produces something that can be used to produce. A blacksmith that starts with nothing but ore cannot produce his own forge, or he will lose his ownership of that forge, and the total sum of the labor he expended to produce it.
     
  21. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because this quote describes negative rights:

    Most who believe in them hold that when you exercise a negative right, it is only limited by the existence of another's negative right. This is what you described when you said "Right to property ownership, for example, can be contradicted by a right to the product of someone else's labor, like healthcare.". In other words, you said a negative right (property ownership) should supersede a positive right (healthcare) which pretty much nullifies the validity of positive rights as they require an action from others.
     
    Longshot likes this.
  22. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Labor can not be produced. It is an action. The fruits of one's labor is what is produced.

    If I take capital that own (an anvil and a hammer) and apply it to other capital that I own (iron) and produce a horse shoe, the capital produced (the horse shoe) is the fruits of my labor. I can sell, barter or keep that property.

    However if I am hired to perform labor with another person's capital, I am only entitled to the agreed upon benefits of services performed (unless there is a contractual stipulation all that I am entitled to a part of said capital produced as well). Otherwise I am not entitle to the capital produced.

    As hard as they have tried to rectify supply and demand with the socialist doctrine, the Economic Calculation probelm has never been resolved (in spite of the denial of the Neo-socialist on this forum).
     
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Labor can be produced.

    Human Action, Von Mises.

    Labor can be produced because the supply of labor can be improved. A blacksmith, through the expenditure of effort can become a better, more effective blacksmith today than he was yesterday. This requires no increase in action. In fact such improvement can require less of it.
     
  24. ralfy

    ralfy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    659
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    ronv likes this.
  25. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mises was referring to the efficiency of human action and scarcity, with no reference that it is something that can be produced. Labor is not a product- it is an abstraction that describes a type of action. That action is what makes a product, like the horse shoe described in my previous examples.

    Chapter 7, section 3 of Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises.

    Just as an FYI, the concept that labor can be produced is a Marxist idea related to LTV.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2019

Share This Page