Howdy Is Soviet style Socialism possible in the USA? How would America function under Command Economy? How would an eventual Marshal Law be different from Socialism? War time economy? What if Walmart, Amazon, the Military Industrial Complex, Boeing, Apple, Microsoft, JP Morgan, Goldman & Sacks, CNN, CNBC, etc, etc, etc, are confiscated and nationalized for the benefit of the state and ordinary people? Wanna try your imagination?
The soviet style of socialism is inadequate because it keeps key features of capitalism like wage labor, the commodity form, and the law of value.
Personally, I don't think socialism works well in the vast majority of places where it currently is implemented. But it would definately fail for a nation with a population as large as the United States has. Resources would get spread too thin, and it would likely have for example, the same food issues as the Soviet Union did. I isn't that I'm completely against the idea of a totalitarian state, but I don't see Marxist-based economies as something favorable.
The current state of our government and population as far as the ability to agree or implement virtually ANYTHING makes any socialist model impossible. A state that cannot function cannot run a business...we would end up like Trump University or Casinos.
Wallmart nationalised... snort...so Wallmart shoppers can also frequent JP Morgan and Goldman & Sacks.... I'd really like to see that (I was going to insert some wallmart people pics but I just don't hate anyone on here enough.)
Is has not been effective anywhere I do not see how it could be effective here. Is there any reason you think it would be effective here? A no from me is all well and good but a yes from you with some reasoning may make for a discussion.
Well, the US of A have not seen a real war since the Civil war. Not a war on own territory at least. Think in that direction.
I am sorry perhaps I am being a tad dense but what does that mean? If we have a civil war it would work? Or if we would try it we would have a civil war? Or are we talking about some one invading us if we do or do not do it?
Lol, that would be a sight - a Socialist revolution in the US, followed by UN invasion to restore Capitalism. No, more like how would the US economy operate in a civil war mode.
Well it would depend upon who succeeded or what parts of the country left us. For the most part trade would continue unhindered in areas not directly in the conflict other then rationing and such. If trade did go belly up entirely (like if a large portion of our navy got appropriated by the rebels then do not be surprised if the UN does step in. We are quite literally to big to fail. If our economy disappears the world enters a depression the likes of which has never been seen. Imagine if China, India, and the EU all lost about 20% of their trade economy in under a year. The great Depression would look like a failed yard sale.
The US does not have a history of authoritarian rule or a largely uneducated peasant population as was the case in every country where Soviet style rule and economics took hold through revolution (the imposition of Soviet style government and economics on Eastern Europe post-WW2 is a different matter). I think a socialist USA would look a lot more like syndicalism state focused on unions and granges than anything like the Soviet Union.
It is not inadequate it is an abomination and evil at it;s core. The only law of value s that value is subjective and cannot be determined by any objective standard.
The law of value (German: Wertgesetz) is a central concept in Karl Marx's critique of political economy, first expounded in his polemic The Poverty of Philosophy (1847) against Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, with reference to David Ricardo's economics.[1][note 1] Most generally, it refers to a regulative principle of the economic exchange of the products of human work: the relative exchange-values of those products in trade, usually expressed by money-prices, are proportional to the average amounts of human labor-time which are currently socially necessary to produce them.[2][note 2]
And it is also one of the many reasons Marx's theory is abominable garbage. Value has no such law and it is nothing more than a piece of propaganda to justify marxist tyranny. Objective value does not exist and value cannot be placed on the labor of another.
Marx wasn't a prescriptivist, he was a descriptivist. His definition of value was derived as a description of the observable functioning of capitalist systems.
No it was not derived from any observable functioning. Marx never observed any capitalist system functioning. He merely read selective ideas and never worked a day in his life. His definition of value is false and meaningless like nearly all of the **** he spewed.
You said it yourself. I do not deny it is what he said and believed he was just a complete fool and was full of of ****.
I don't think you can hear Marx mentioned without getting too mad to think. I think that your understanding of Marx is formed entirely from lazy polemics against Marx's intellectual heirs
I stated no polemics nor did I get mad I stated fact. Value is strictly subjective. That is fact which destroys his idiotic belief in a law of value. Marx has brainwashed heirs not intellectual heirs as he was no intellectual. His heirs are just dupes and losers
Marx does not assert an objective value, he describes how the subjectivity of value functions in capitalist societies
If you call it a law it is not subjective. Nor did he or his heirs have any idea how value functions in capitalism. He was massively ignorant of capitalism. He was wrong as he was about most things and easily proven so. He was evil and a complete fool.