About Socialism

I wouldn't consider Finland socialist day we spend a lot of money on public works and social safety nets, but all of that was bought and paid for by capitalism strictly.

That being said it is a slippery slope. And I do believe all socialism's end up where Venezuela is once the money runs out.

We're starting to see backlash in Europe, England voting to exit the EU rumblings about it in Spain France the Baltic Nations.

True in a capitalist society you would have a large gap between the highest earners and the lowest earners and we have that in the US right now I don't understand why it's a problem. Because if everyone's pay was increased 100% the pay Gap would not get any smaller and most people would be very satisfied with that.

If in Finland there still industries and stuff that are owned privately then you're not socialist, you live in a capitalism with social programs.

 

If what you say is true, and i doubt that it is, then the market would select some other more plentiful commodity as money. But again, I think the amount of silver would sufficient to allow it to be money.

 

That's not neofascism but capitalism.

 

Money isn't a commodity.

 

Sorry, but this is a spectacularly naive comment. Brexit reflects the consequences of the slide to free market economics, both in a country infected by Thatcherism and a EU corrupted by neoliberalism. Both Thatcherism and neoliberalism are right wing concepts, reflecting market fundamentalism that has artificially engineered crass inequalities.

 

Fiat money isn't, obviously, but market money always is. Gold. Silver. Cattle has been used. They are all commodities.

 

I'm not going to discuss with you this or anything else because it devolves into personal ****.

 

I wasn't after a discussion. I was correcting your error.

 

Uh no capitalism is the voluntary exchange of goods and services among individuals. Capitalism, as shown in the :wealth of nations" is an attempt to explain human economic behavior.

 

See previous post.

 

Not true. For example, the market is consistent with a socialist economic paradigm.

 

Again you misunderstand, capitalism, whatever assorted nonsense has been taught you by socialists is little more than a school of thought regarding how human beings behave economically. Socialism is an attempt to control aspects of that behavior that socialists don't like through government control of the means of production. The much abused term 'market' is little more than a term for human economic activity in gross.

 

Nonsense. Schools of thought refer to neoclassical, institutionalist, marxist, green etc etc etc. Capitalism is an economic paradigm.

This amused me, given you're the one abusing the term 'market'. It is neither a necessary or a sufficient criteria for capitalism.

 

You are stuck in a rut created for you by socialist educators. Capitalism is not an economic paradigm it is merely away to attempt to understand the paradigm that has existed since paleolithic tribe a, met up with paleolithic tribe b and decided that a swap meet was more likely to get them what they wanted than warfare and much less risky. Adam Smith wasn't trying to create something new but rather to understand what was and pretty much always had been.

And please anywhere human beings exist markets exist and they exist regardless of the type of government currently en vogue. What is available in those markets may be limited but they will exist.

 

I haven't actually referred to socialism. I've just given facts.

This is just repetition of nonsense. Also its a very bad idea to refer to Adam Smith. His moral sentiments is full of egalitarian comment that certainly makes him more friendly to the liberals that you whinge about.

Yep, markets are neither a sufficient or necessary condition for capitalism. They'd exist in anarchist paradigm. They'd exist in socialism.

 

You didn't have to. It has been clear to me where you get your info from the get go.

It is repetition of facts that you won't actually deal with those facts is your problem. I speak of Adam Smith for the same reason people who are discussing the history of the theory of evolution almost always mention Charles Darwin, Smith was the first one to attempt a systematic study of economics, that he, himself, didn't fully understand everything he saw goes without saying.

All economist are hell bent on understanding how things work within markets and between markets, Adam Smith was no different, I never made the claim that markets were unique to capitalism nor would I.

The argument in any case isn't about whether markets exist or not or even which economic school best understands them, it is about under what governing system they work most efficiently for the greatest number of people.

 

Through reading. For example, I've read Smith. I see no indication that you have.

No he wasn't. Economics has a longer history than that. Smith is seen as the daddy of capitalism for one reason: the invisible hand. Its an amusing aspect, given the concept wasn't particularly important to his work.

As I said, the funny aspect here is that- despite coming across like a fanatic- Smith's egalitarianism is alien to your ideology

That debate isn't difficult. It works best under socialism. Worker ownership ensures the protection of property rights, plus avoids issues such as the distributed knowledge problems associated with inefficient hierarchy.

 

Only government can create legal systems?

 

Paper was used in place of gold and silver because it was very impractical to use the latter, as merchants who had to bring heavy bags of precious metals with hired, armed men realized. It was more practical to put all of the metals in banks, and then just use bank notes for trade. Gold and silver, in turn, were used because barter was impractical. I'll let you figure out why.

Later, more paper money was created than metals available because banks were not audited and because more credit was created. How much gold and silver is available worldwide? Maybe $4 trillion? In contrast, what's the notional value of credit? $1.2 quadrillion for "shadow" derivatives alone?

Thus, your fantasy of resorting to barter, if not using precious metals, works only in more primitive circumstances.

 

Actually, that's only one part of the definition of capitalism. I'll let you figure out the others.

 

In reality, capitalist systems rely on the same socialist principles.

 

Yes.

 

there is no public justice under true capitalism.

 

Why is that? Do laws only exist if there are legislators, executives, dictators or monarchs to cast the property ritual?

You might look up the Lex Mercatoria. It's not the only legal system created sans government (common law has deep roots as a legal code that came about despite the governments of the time), but it's one of the best examples.

 

Capitalism is an economic system. It's not a moral system.

Anyway, describe your reasons, logically, why that's the case. If you can.