Debunked, "Socialism has never worked"

I'm not a fan of miserable living conditions, but this article touts the fact that the citizens voted for free stuff.

"A network of state-run, heavily subsided food stores ensures people no longer eat dog food, as many were forced to in the past. They no longer have to beg to survive.

Today, the poor living in shanty towns, barrios, are steadily being allocated new apartments: hundreds of thousands of which are being built as part of Mision Vivienda."

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/eyewitness-venezuelans-vote-socialism

 

One of the best commentaries on socialism I’ve seen in a long time.

 

And thus, you admit....
My definition of socialism is simply a government with robust and effective social programs.
... is invalid.

 

You do realize that that is whine, not substance. In fact, it's rather meaningless. Who, among us, is not slanted nor biased? There is no obligation by anyone on a debate forum to do anything other than follow the rules. I'd say most of the posts on any debate forum are biased, I expect it, and why in hell are you complaining about such a thing? I mean, get over it. If you don't like a particular post, you are entitled to your opinion, but it's really your problem, not mine. If it's in violation of the rules, then I'll hear from the moderator, but most of time, I'd say of the 1300 posts I've made thus far, I've heard from the moderator, what, twice?

What I mean by 'courteous' is no mudslinging. To spam it usually means there is some kind of commerical intent, clickbaiting, some kind of malicious intent, and I don't believe I'm doing that, so, I think you need to do a dictionary check on that one. I did once, link to a film, which I got the moderator's okay because I posted the fact, in advance, that it was free to amazon prime video users.

And how is this a fault? I'm not trying to fool anyone, so the accusation is without merit. I make it transparently clear where my loyalties lie, and anyone who doesn't, those are the people I would suspect as being hypocrites. There is a breed who are so afraid to take a clear position on anything, well, those I classify is wishy washy.
I am a member of another forum for several years, and I would have joined this one long ago, but I didn't become aware of it until a few months ago.

That opinion is an ignorant one, no reasonable person of any intellect, or education, even his detractors, would characterize Chomsky as a moron.

Of for ****'s sakes, wiki is just a place, like any other. This ideal you seem to yearn for just does not exist. I take all articles form all sources, on a case by case basis.
Some are not worth considering, such as those by National Enquirer, but I'll consider most sources, on a case by case basis.

Feel free to challenge anything I post. But your complaint feels a lot like whine not much substance. I prefer to debate specifics. and I've explained my view on this above.

I don't 'love' Chomsky, but I respect his education, knowledge, and always seek his opinion. Much of the time, especially on the workaday world, I disagree with his characterization that to work for a big business, a corporation, is 'temporary slavery'. That's nonsense. But, he has a vast knowledge of current events. Now, I don't accept anything he says, off hand, but I do consider it, and there are times I agree. I don't agree with everyone on everything, either, I'll consider viewpoints from Richard Wolff, to Jordan Peterson, and after studying a particular issue, I'll formulate my own opinion.

If you can challenge any premise I offer, feel free to do so, that is why I'm here. I really want to find out if I'm wrong, that is why i post anonymously, because I'f I'm wrong, I'll modify my point of view to the correct one, which I will use to those in my personal contacts in daily life. I might take a position that I personally am not certain of, to see what the reaction will be, so that I can better find the truth to use in my daily life.

But, I'll be honest, much of what I find here is pure mediocrity. Many comments are ad hominems, weasel words, loaded phrases, mockery, off topic, off point, irrelevant, and tons of logical fallacies of kind or another, and I don't even know why I respond to those, as they are a waste of time.

As for Chomsky's "gibberish', that's a typical criticism by someone whose intellectual capacity is below the peer level of Chomsky, and thing is, that person would never know it, if he or she were.

Let's do an analogy, to someone weaned on plain hamburger, they might miss the delicate complexities of a gourmet prepared meal, might miss that a particular morsel has three peppers, In music, I've performed a jazz song, such as 'sophisticated lady' to someone who was weaned on Little Richard, and the lush chords I would play sound like pink noise to such a person, they lack the capacity to hear the complex harmonies.

Therefore, no doubt there are those, when they hear Chomsky, they hear noise, and miss the more nuance and complexities of some of his ideas.

I can hear a complex jazz song, and still not like it, but I can still hear it. I don't like something just because it's layered, but I can sense it. Same goes with Chomsky. No one bats 1000 in the market place of ideas, but if I use the word 'moron', I reserve that for someone like Donald Trump, who is, in fact, a moron (not in the clinical sense, but, indeed, in the rhetorical sense). And, if you think Chomsky's a moron, and Trump is not, you need to have your proverbial head examined.

 

"Market socialism, for example, actually reduces the need for government interventionism."

How does stealing businesses, from the owners, reduce government intervention?

"Anti-socialists are, by definition, pro-rent seeking."

As are socialists, by definition.

"They ignore that workers do not receive the value of their labour."

You know better than the workers, who establish the value of their labor?

 

There's no stealing. Please stop with the drivel. There is reduction in rent as labour receives the value of their labour. Ask yourself, for example, the value of a company without labour.

Now government intervention is crucial in capitalism. That reflects, for example, the impact of market concentration. As shown by the post-Keynesians, that ensures economic crisis is a constant risk.

Nothing you say makes sense. As market socialism protects property rights, it reduces rent seeking.

Nobody does. Value here is an objective productivity measure. You could refer to complex manufacturing and the difficulties in disaggregating productivity effects. However, democracy in the company (rather than rent-seeking hierarchy) determines how that works out.

 

"There's no stealing."

There's some manner of separating a business, from an unwilling seller, which doesn't involve stealing?

"There is reduction in rent as labour receives the value of their labour."

What group of bureaucrats know the value of labor, better than the workers who set it?

 

True - but if you want to be taken seriously, you are expected to demonstrate your claims to be true.
When -you- are asked to do this, you balk.

 

There's no need to separate the business from an unwilling seller. They are simply informed that they have no right to steal value of labour. Property rights are protected. Of course if they choose not to be compensated for any entrepreneurial activity, they might find that they actually owe money. Sunk costs for you

Why on earth are you referring to bureaucrats? Value of labour is an objective measure, not a subjective one. Within the worker-owned enterprise, the nature of compensation is the worker's decision. We'd expect, for example, to see narrowing of wage differentials. But that's a mere expectation.

 

So you finally provide "evidence" for one of your posts.

But I guess you aren't a fan of the USA then with it's SNAP program and other supports, and it's public housing programs under HUD (HOPE, RAD, etc) including Nixon's programs, HAP, Community Development Block Grant, Section 8, and HOPE VI.

Capitalism hasn't eradicated poverty. At least socialism tries and its nature is to solve it.

 

Thank you. I haven't studied it for over 50 years for nothing. Please feel free to take any of it for your own use.

 

Capitalism is legalized theft. No employer would hire any worker unless he was reasonably confident he could get more value out of the employee that what he is paid.

 

I’m a big fan of voluntary socialism. Always have been. And I practice it to an extent greater than all but one other member here I’m aware of. Now, add any amount of force or authoritarianism and I’m out...

 

"There's no need to separate the business from an unwilling seller. They are simply informed that they have no right to steal value of labour. Property rights are protected. Of course if they choose not to be compensated for any entrepreneurial activity, they might find that they actually owe money. Sunk costs for you "

Like I said; stealing.

"Why on earth are you referring to bureaucrats? Value of labour is an objective measure, not a subjective one. Within the worker-owned enterprise, the nature of compensation is the worker's decision. We'd expect, for example, to see narrowing of wage differentials. But that's a mere expectation."

The workers already set the level of their compensation. If they are to receive some other degree of compensation, there would have to be intervention by some entity.

 

You haven't said anything. There's no theft. There is only protection of property rights. If you wanted to have a firm with zero workers, you're quite free to do that. You're just not free to steal other people's property.

So the workers freely choose to be underpaid? Chortle, chortle, have a think before you type.

The only issue here is the extent that we can use supply and demand to understand underpayment. We know that job search modelling predicts that underpayment is the norm (and also increases equilibrium unemployment rates). However, we also know that its based on an over-simplified understanding of the labour contract. Internal labour market analysis, for example, informs how hierarchies are deliberately used to further inflame rent. Indeed, it has similar ground to the Marxist analysis into discrimination (where socio-economic groups are overrepresented lower down the hierarchy as a means to eliminate threats of solidarity).

 

The value of any good, or service, is established by an agreement between buyers and sellers. That includes labor. Any other method is artificial and requires intervention; in one form, or another.

 

Capitalism rests on the freedom of association - that is, you are free to make whatever economic agreement you want with other people, so long as they are willing to agree to it was well.
The price of everything is determined by those agreements.

 

In general, I'm not a fan of big government giveaway programs. Private charities should be doing almost all of such work, as needed.

The only place, where I might be persuaded to accept government involvement, is for those who are without family and are truly physically or mentally unable to care for themselves.

 

"You haven't said anything. There's no theft. There is only protection of property rights. If you wanted to have a firm with zero workers, you're quite free to do that. You're just not free to steal other people's property."

I honestly don't know what to say to that. It's pretty 'out there'.

"So the workers freely choose to be underpaid? Chortle, chortle, have a think before you type."

What evidence, that you can provide, proves that workers are being underpaid? Your premise is flawed.

My premise is that workers would not agree to be underpaid. Therefore, they are not being underpaid.

 

The problem is that you neither understand capitalism or socialism. You've essentially taken an oversimplified understanding of perfect competition from Econ 101 and pretended comment.

My premise? Chortle, chortle! Its supply and demand analysis. If firms have any labour supply elasticity (i.e. they are wage makers, rather than takers) then there will be monopsonistic power and underpayment. Its easy to prove. Economists, for example, control for human capital and still find wage differentials exist (i.e. there is no 'law of one wage', as needed if underpayment didn't occur). They also measure underpayment directly through empirical methods such as stochastic frontier analysis.

Essentially, to deny that wage underpayment is the norm, you have to reject supply and demand. Good luck!

There is no choice. Labour contracts are built on both exchange and coercion. Crikey, Adam Smith realised that; why don't you? Workers, through on-the-job search, can only reduce their underpayment. Of course, once we factor in labour market hierarchy, then that on-the-job search will generate limited returns.

 

Comparisons between what exists and what might be hypothesized, are difficult at best. One can hypothesize anything, then claim that the hypothetical results would be better.

Yes, the workers establish their level of compensation. If they don't agree, the employer must either agree to pay more, or he won't have employees.

 

Sure. That's what makes it "legalized". Thanks for validating my comment.

 

Again this is nonsense. If you believe in supply and demand then underpayment is an objective measure. And of course, we already know that supply and demand predicts that underpayment is the norm. Are you rejecting supply and demand?

Job search refers to how the worker has the right to accept or reject an offer. It is also the underpinning of why supply and demand predicts underpayment. As I said, you're attempting to refer to an oversimplified understanding of perfect competition. It guarantees error.

 

I seriously doubt that I validated any of your comments.

 

Comprehend it then. You showed I was right that it's legal.