Democracy is Socialism

They just forgot the economic development bit...

 

And the same thing has happened like clock work in every communist revolution The names of the players change but the result is always the same.

 

And conspiracy theorist and philosopher and wasn't really very good at any of them.

 

Difficult to actually understand economic outcome without reference to Marxism.

 

Not at all, economic development comes from capitalism

 

Yep, USSR missed out on all the historical periods expected in Marxist analysis.

 

State capitalism, as though a government planned economy has competition. Or didn't they teach you anything about business competition? Economic spectrum, sounds like something an economist would dream up. Worker ownership of a business is rarely successful. Economics is about social analysis. People aren't easily analyzed. It has little to do with the real world. That is why I generally ignore what economists say.

 

Yes he was (among other things) but what you are saying is that Communism and Socialism are the same thing. They are not.

 

Capitalism is defined as an economic system in which "surplus value is extracted in the production process by using wage labour and utilized in the circulation process to sustain capital accumulation". The idea that competition is needed is nonsense.

You've essentially gone from command economy equals socialism to laissez faire equals capitalism. You're still maintaining a very basic misrepresentation of the economic spectrum.

Economics is needed to understand economic outcome. Bit obvious really.

 

Competition is needed to avoid the sins of monopoly.

I am maintaining a practical one.

That is opinion. If it were even normally true economists would be able predict economic outcomes with accuracy. You've done too much reading and not enough living.

 

Market socialism delivers that.

There's nothing practical about abusing the economic spectrum. It just guarantees erroneous comment.

Economics is a pluralist discipline. There is no single truth. That's a good thing. To craft understanding of phenomena its important to delve between schools of thought. We can't understand, for example, discrimination without reference to Institutionalism and Marxism. Neoclassical analysis isn't up to the task.

Your stance is based on ignoring economics. I don't think you're even consistent in that endeavour, as shown by your abuse (without admittedly realising it) of the economic spectrum.

 

Yes, they did skip capitalism...Venezula didn't...Cuba didn't....

 

No, that's not at all what I am saying. Communism, at least under Marx's theory, is a state that follows Socialism

 

None of those countries are advanced economies which have gone through the necessary economic evolution. Take Venezuela. Its too reliant on oil and of course has had its economy further crushed through economic sanctions.

Ironically the US is more pertinent for Marxist analysis. That also includes its links between economic imperialism and militarism.

 

So what you ACTUALLY meant is: No you can’t point to any real word long-term sustainable examples of what you propose.

Further the “research” you’re sourcing is nothing more than theoretical nonsense of a utopian ideal supported by what can, AT BEST, be desribed as anecdotal evidence and pushing it forth as truth.

The problem with your ideology is the exact same problem that EVERY socialist ideology has. That being that they believe a class of elitists (in your example the government through regulation) is better capable of determining winners and losers and what the country needs as opposed to the market itself and the aggregate of ALL participants in said market.

As long your ideology is predicated on that it will fail. It. Will. Fail. Every. Time. And usually in spectacular fashion that devolves into fascism.

 

I work 45 hours per week. I earn my paycheck. I work my butt off.

Taking my money and giving it to someone else is what socialism is all about. And it sucks.

 

I do think Marx would have thought that at the time he wrote the Communist Manifesto. The major problem with it though, is that people enjoy private property rights. Without that, markets will fail. It goes against basic human nature, which is that people, depend first on their own self-interest.

 

Please don't deliberately misrepresent. I've told you why its important to refer to a review of the evidence, rather than being restricted to one firm. Their report for the ILO is rather extensive. Here's an example of the comment, chosen randomly, which advertises how many firms are included in just one empirical analysis: "For example, a matched sample study of 35 Italian private firms and 49 worker cooperatives in Emilia Romagna and Toscana found that the cooperatives had higher productivity, measured as value added per employee, value added per hours worked or value added per unit of fixed assets".

This isn't a credible response. Theoretical analysis is included in the study, but its focus is on reviewing the empirical evidence. That evidence necessarily uses a wide range of econometric methods to isolate value added effects.

You are consistently wrong. I've referred to the obvious: markets fail and there is always a need for some regulatory framework. However, I adopt a market socialist analysis where the invisible hand is improved by the visible hand of management.

You have no understanding of socialism. Isn't that the norm with anti-socialists?

 

You missed the point again! My focus wasn't on the US becoming a communist society. It was on how Marxism understands the reliance of militarism and economic imperialism.

 

Is this a serious comment? Of course it works for the poor. Capitalism has created an exponentially better standard of living than socialism ever has.

For Gods sake man, our poor people in the US are considered in the top 75% of the worlds income.

If you make more than $35,000 a year you are in the top 1% of the worlds earners. It only takes $1,800 PER YEAR to be considered middle class in the world. The poor in the USA live incredibly good lives for being the poorest in their country when compared to the rest of the world.

 

Marx when discussing the United States, did not at all consider militarism and economic imperialism. His thoughts on the United States were about our economic development, our Revolutionary War, in comparison to in France, and of course the Civil War.

Here's a letter he wrote, well included his name to, to Lincoln...https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm#ab

 

The leading model of Market Socialism is The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia...how'd that work out for them?

 

I'm referring to the US now, obviously. He'd have difficulty to refer to it as he's dead. The analysis actually comes more from Engels. However, the actions of the US in areas such as Iraq (together with how global expenditures are dominated by the US) is standard analysis into militarism and imperialism.

 

No see there’s your problem. You cannot improve the market by the “visible hand of management”. You can only do IN THEORY. Because it only works when you make the right decisions for the market. And that can ONLY be done through hindsight. Unfortunately hindsight is not a luxury one has when they’re attempting to predict market forces.

So what happens? They make the WRONG decision and artificially corrects the market in the wrong direction causing whatever issues that were occurring to be FAR worse than they would have been if they had just allowed the market to operate free and fair.

You know why socialist economies fail time and again? Because it only works in theory. Not in practice.

 

Read Burczak's Socialism after Hayek.