About Socialism

The oil cartels are foreign, and staffed by billionaires who've never experienced struggling to afford a single meal. They are incapable of imagining how their dictums on oil prices affect the lower classes dependent upon that oil. Nor do they care. Most of us don't "value" the fossilized liquid remains of dead dinosaurs, but all of us need it to function in today's totally fossil fuel dependent world--thus making us dependent on the work of that cartel. Most of us don't have a choice on whether or not we "buy it." I don't think your argument works very well here.

 

Do you not see the diametric contradiction in these two statements?

 

I'd say that the most energy dense and most portable energy source that currently exists on the planet has a massive amount of value.

But hey, maybe you're Amish. They seem to do okay placing a low value on it.

 

Oh I’m quite aware of what you think the consequences of capitalist labor markets are. And I’m not currently defending anything. Our entire exchange has been me trying to get you to flesh out your theories so people like me may see the practical value in them.

I’m all for voluntary redistribution.

Oh no. I’m not at all anti choice. I believe everyone has the right to voluntarily enter into any kind of economic relationship they want. Anything from a commune to working for the man. It seems obvious to me not everyone is terribly enthusiastic about what you propose. But if some are and want to have a go at it I support that 100%. But convincing me that giving a wad of cash to someone is the answer to all economic woes isn’t going to be easy!

Again, I just don’t see the barriers to choice you do. I guess some people always want assistance with everything. Perhaps me being the opposite personality makes me skeptical. That brings us back to choice. I’m glad in my country anyway I could choose my own way without someone trying to grease the skids for me all the time.

Thanks. That’s helpful. I understand profit related pay, I’ve used a crude form in the past. But how do you make sure you aren’t taking more than your fair share? How do you value your inputs compared to employees? Do you just split profits evenly?

I support everyone choosing for themselves how they want to earn a living.

Yes, I know your opinions on pay productivity gaps. We’ve been through that enough before. It’s irrelevant to my question of why doling out money isn’t important enough to care how effective it is. We agree choice is a great outcome, but you have no data on cash to teenagers facilitating such. That is not a bureaucratic detail.

Interesting. My only experience with welfare is watching it destroy lives or allow the individual to destroy their life. When you reference pareto efficiency who are you trying to affect negatively?

This is amusing. Because I don’t think doling out cash is a great way to solve much of anything in life, I’m an authoritarian. Are you a fan of Saul Alinsky by chance?

Come on man. You really don’t care how giving large sums of money to teenagers affects them or what the poor shmuck who funded the largesse gets for his violated property rights? I think this argument pretty much clinches things for me. I could never sign on to something like that. But it’s fine with me if others want to set up something like it voluntarily.

If a degree results in joblessness while a trade school grad goes to work making $70,000 I think it’s pretty obvious what degrees are worthless. And if you are interested in individualism, you don’t get much of that out of graduates anymore.

Sure, some degrees have value but many don’t. In short, I just don’t think anyone can make the claim all higher education is beneficial to every individual.

Apparently you are frustrated that you haven’t an answer to my questioning of the intelligence of handing kids money. Who has the superior decision making skills? You? Questioning unfounded assertions is authoritarianism? That’s a little bass ackwards I’d say...

I place high value on individualism. Clearly you are out of your depth on practical application of socialism to have to resort to thinly veiled ad hominem. No worries.

I’m disappointed you can’t answer my questions. They are sincere.

It’s sad you glorify a system here daily that you can’t discuss the realities and details of without resorting to blatant misrepresentation and ad hominem. Cheerio.

 

You've made crass error (e.g. invalid comment over lump sum payments and efficiency) to sneer at providing economic choice. I appreciate that creates dissonance for you, but I can only refer to the reality: your position is standard right wing authoritarianism.

Charity typically works like a regressive tax. There's a reason that capitalism requires compulsion. If inequalities continue to grow, then the economy will suffer. That is even recognised by conservative organisations such as the IMF.

Dissonance at play again! You won't recognise the authoritarianism. However, its the same outcome. You're arguing against the importance of the individual and, through economic choice, how they can 'exploit' their tacit knowledge.

Repetition of the snake-oil. The economic reality (low social mobility; low self employment rates; pay productivity gaps) already shows that choice is largely illusionary.

I employ democracy within the company. Works well. I minimise my workload and maximise productivity.

No, you think you do. Its really just soundbite and propaganda. The idea of a free market, for example, was just used to peddle neoliberalism. End result? Intensified inequalities and greater underpayment.

You still offer zero content. Where, for example, is your explanation for the pay productivity gap? In addition, there is no critique. You're merely repeating your contempt for offering people choice. Its not for me to decide whether someone should invest in education or a company. Nor is it for me to whine if they choose to pish it up the wall. I respect individualism.

Another irrelevant question? Who'd have thought! Pareto Efficiency is used to understand economic efficiency. You have to show that, through a lump sum transfer, it is impossible to return to a Pareto Efficient outcome (i.e. back to the contract curve in neoclassical analysis). You can't do that. You can't do that as your reference to inefficiency was completely wrong. You should be apologising for making such crass error!

Don't you find it amusing that I'm referring to individualism (its essentially Austrian economics after all) and you're rejecting that individualism? As I said, I appreciate you're restricted somewhat by dissonance. However, it has made me smile.

Red herring. As already mentioned, capitalism requires compulsion. What good, for example, is a 'reserve army' too starved to work? What good are income inequalities that hinder economic growth? Redistribution (and the inefficient form, given the impact of tax on markets) is needed to maintain rent-seeking. That redistribution is required to ensure the reproduction of theft of labour value. And the redistribution based on Austrian economic criteria? To allow greater economic opportunity and to enable economic choice.

Look at you just repeating your error and advertising your authoritarianism! It is not for me to decide whether a degree is worth it. It is up to the individual. And, as I have already said, you can't refer to rate of return analysis as human capital is corrupted by the requirements of capitalism (and further inflamed by issues such as social capital)

Frustrated? Nope, more disappointed. I predicted the lack of content and you've obliged.

Any attempt to break through the dissonance will be treated harshly. Nature of the beast!

Answered them all! And, as already said, I went further to show why they were inane. This provides the framework for you to break through the dissonance.

Everything mentioned has focused on economic reality. It just happens that feasible socialism is able to build on Austrian concepts of individualism. It also just happens that you haven't got a valid critique. A shame really, given continued authoritarianism is never a cunning conclusion.

 

Don't like it? Don't do it. Easy.

 

That's CAPITALISM! Only capitalism creates sufficient profits to be 'stolen' by those who don't care to participate in the generation of those profits. The quintessential master/slave arrangement. Some do all the work, others do none of it.

 

And yet look how well it works. The First World capitalist democracies have the highest standard of living on earth, and in human history. EVERYONE has access to peace, reliable food sources, clean water, welfare, and free education.

Our societies are the least extreme. Don't believe me? Go live in a corrupt Third World dictatorship for a year or two. Try one of these SE Asian Sultanates or similar .. where the richest are as rich as our richest, but the poor are some of the poorest on earth.

Your idea of 'extreme' appears to be - again - some people not being able to afford the rent in LA, while others can.

 

Yeh, it seems so simple. Odd so many can’t either figure it out or live with the freedom of others.

 

What you forgot to say is that Capitalism rewards risk. Socialism steals to benefit those that won't take risks.

 

Sure. I have no argument with that at all. But socialism isn't seeking the big gains, it's seeking security. That may seem like a total downer when times are good, but when times aren't good, it's a far better option.

I would argue that even in the good times, it's still better. Consider the average young adult of 25. The one who's remained at home - reaping the benefits of owned property, therefore able to stockpile wages - is going to be light years ahead of the kid who moved out at 18 and has paid thousands and thousands of money (all dead and gone money) on rent over those 7 years.

 

The vast majority of humanity practices collectivism. It's only the ultra safe First Worlder who has abandoned the practice. And of course, in so doing we've also lost a very important social skill. We became 'isolationists' in our insatiable lust for individualism in every facet of our existence. And we did that because we COULD. We could abandon the fundamental structure of all social mammals (the 'pack'), and still survive.

The problem with this model is that it only works when times are outrageously good. The slightest impost upon a carefully balanced wealth, and vast swathes of First Worlders will be incapable of supporting themselves. And it won't be the fault of the economy, because the rich will survive and even thrive. But mere mortals will fall victim to their own hubris - having told themselves the lie that they could indulge themselves as the rich do, and get away with it forever.

 

Looking to "government" for security is the big problem. History has shown that. Maybe you have a problem with our motto "In God We Trust", but that has been the creed that has permitted individuals to make this the greatest Nation on earth. Perhaps you believe in changing it to " In Government We Trust". Our Founders understand what human nature does when the collective becomes supreme. Please......not in America!

 

I have no clue how you extracted that from my post. I said literally nothing about govt. I referred to family life.

 

Doesn't socialism involve government? I moved out of my family home at 18 and am not at all envious of those that stayed home or even went to a University to stockpile a "nest egg". I achieved a valuable nest egg of experience and hit the road running.

 

Not at all. Some govts have tried it, but it doesn't work (and then only works very badly, for a short period before collapsing) unless the govt is totalitarian. Unless you have 100% voluntary participation, it will never work.

You're very lucky, if moving out at the tender age of 18 gave you a better start to financial security. That doesn't always happen .. given most 18 year olds don't own property, and so are compelled to pay a small fortune in dead rent money.

 

My parents taught me some values they don't teach in school, namely how to go beyond survival and prosper. While I did that, a lot of my peers spent years in college to get a sociology teaching degree.....useless.

 

Ah well, a Sociology is a license to stay poor. Opting for such a degree in the first place should disqualy you from college on IQ grounds.

 

My idea of "extreme" is having to work two, three or four part-time jobs just to survive, & often without any benefits or healthcare. American capitalism gave that to a large portion of our population, & that's an economic system that needs fixing.

 

Folks differ on what constitutes socialism but one facet of socialism is wealth redistribution. This is accomplished by the State either directly owning the means of production or indirectly through taxation ( taxation constitutes a form of partial state ownership).

The question is how the State exercises ownership and what it does with the funds. We have some more successful examples -and some less successful ones.

Often we hear people discuss this issue as if it was black and white "Socialism is bad" bla bla bla... yet they love some of the things that wealth redistribution brings. This is silliness.

In extreme cases - such as communism - the ownership and wealth redistribution equation produced fairly negative results.

On the other side Extreme Capitalism with no regulation also produced negative results. At the end of the day - both extremes lead to a similar place - you end up with a few elite owning most resources and means of production.

Our system has managed to take some of the worse elements of both and combine it into what I call an "Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster"

We have a largely inefficient and disfunctional bureaucracy that mainly serves the Oligopolies - big money interests. These interests - largely composed of international financiers - effectively control what is known as the Establishment - elected leaders and elite bureaucrats.

Decisions are then made on the basis of what is in the best interest of the big money interests - decisions that are often (but not always) in the best interests of the people.

The problem with the publicly traded corporation is that it has no soul for the most part. There is no Owner - to be held accountable. Decisions are made mostly on the basis of "what is good for the shareholders" = what will increase the stock price and/or increase profits

The other problem is that you can have what are effectively Oligopolies/Monopolies - without the appearance of such. In this way laws that are supposed to prevent these entities are skirted.

 

You are correct about public libraries. They are socialist. A private sector one would have to have direct revenue either from sales or donations. Single payer is socialism because of the single payer part. It is a government run health insurance industry. Socialist without a doubt.

 

And yet a working class person with ONE job can move ahead to the middle classes if they play the game right.

 

Nope. They're funded via the profits of capitalism.

 

Yes, if they are paid a living wage.

 

It's not what you earn, it's what you spend. The minimum wage can move you out of poverty if you do it right.