Socialismphobia

[Souseiseki]

in other words charity charity charity. send cancer patients to the churches.

Charity, welfare, government issued health care - it's all something given to you because -for whatever reasson - you couldn't provide for yourself.

i dunno

maybe i just consider "everyone has health insurance, you don't even need to think about it for a second" to be a preferable option to "what? too poor? go beg in the churches and on the streets and hope they're nice enough and have had enough donations recently"

the whatever reason being it may or may not cost several hundred thousand dollars

[Renegade Island]

in other words charity charity charity. send cancer patients to the churches.

Charity, welfare, government issued health care - it's all something given to you because -for whatever reasson - you couldn't provide for yourself.

The failure of capitalism is the assumption that humans are self reliant. They aren't. The richest people rely on the work of others just as much as those receiving welfare.

[Rudie]

You'll have to forgive my use of pronouns. The indefinite pronoun "someone" would apply to parents. The personal pronoun "it" would apply to government.

Your initial quiery, then, asked, "Do you REALLY want parents having that much potential personal power over you?" My response to that, naturally, is no.

So, you would have no problem with the government telling you what you can and cannot do based solely on its belief of what is good for you?

I distrust authority figures, so thereby we have common cause in distrusting the state.

Earlier, I asked for someone to explain to me what socialism has to offer, to convince me. Rudie responded, and I think you might have missed the post by Rudie, in which (s)he stated that socialism allows the government to take take of the individual when he is unable to care for himself. Are you disagreeing with Rudie's definition? If so, I'd like to hear your explanation of why socialism is good, sans the profanity.

Here are my posts in this thread:

Interesting to see capitalists revert to childish appeals to authority.

Thank you so much for your explanation of what socialism means.

One can observe a discussion rather than participate. Quoting Thatcher and Churchill is on the same level, in my opinion, as Christians arguing with atheists manipulating Einstein's thoughts to imply he was a monotheist.

Yet you did choose to participate with a rather snotty, unhelpful comment.

I expressed interest in capitalists using appeal to authority arguments as do Christians in regards to Einstein: a debate tactic I regard as childish, as with all appeal to authority in my opinion. It may encourage another poster's thoughts, as it has; its 'snottiness' is, of course, subjective. I was not expressing an opinion relevant to the OP and thereby I am non-participatory in the general discussion.

We revert because your argument is futile, history has taught us capitalism works the best.

You're firstly assuming I'm a socialist. Secondly, you're also assuming that there is any universal consensus on the benevolence of capitalism.

"People partially submit to the state's authority, and in return it looks after them when they can't look after themselves."

This is an ascension of a basic social contract.

recently the city of New York has banned large soft drinks because they were "looking after" the people's health.

Only if the soft drink is 16oz+ and served at "restaurants, mobile food carts, sports arenas and movie theaters."

Have you ever had an argument with you parents as to what you wanted to do as opposed to what THEY thought was best for you? It's the same situation, only worse, because one's parents (with some exceptions) DO care about you. An impersonal government hundreds/thousands of miles away from you do not have the same level of care. Do you REALLY want someone having that much potential personal power over you?

You describe government as impersonal but refer to it as 'someone' and describe the operation of its authority as parental. Assuming one wants parents [based solely on your positive description of parental authority, as in " because one's parents (with some exceptions) DO care about you."], then there is seemingly nothing immoral about "someone having that much potential personal power over you."

EDIT: I apologise for the pop-up ad in the link, but that's capitalism.
snigger snigger snigger snort snort chortle

None of these elaborate on my 'definition of socialism'. You are desperately applying an interpretation to my arguments that is rationally invalid.

[Dinahia]

Says the advocator of centralised economy.

State Socialism is not imperialistic monopoly....
What?

Centrally planned economy is the ultimate monopoly, a system in which a single organisation which has monopolised not only the creation of law, policy, and the other things states typically do, but also all industries and economic sectors with it's borders.

[Zweite Alaje]

If you actively refuse work, i.e. if you're on welfare and you refuse to go for jobs offered to you, then you don't get stuff and are counselled.

That's essentially capitalism.

No just, morally defensible social order makes its guarantee of equal access to resources contingent on whether one works or not, regardless of what one's reasons for not working are.

I'm am beginning to seriously question what type of Socialist you think you are. Socialism is for those that work, a workers society, if you don't contribute to the community you should be left out to starve if you don't have a damn good reason for not being able to work.

I think the only justifible reasons not to work would be illness/injury, college, pregnancy. Other than those, I don't see any other good excuses.

Socialism is not for the lazy, Bluth.

[Zaras]

First, neither profanity nor personal insults can convince anyone to accept your reasoning.

>implying I care

In America, all people are considered - under the law - to be equal, and they all are given equal access to education.

In theory. Not in practice.

It does not grant you the right to universal health care or financial independence.

Which means that by my standards, the USA isn't a civilized country since it doesn't give enough of a shit about its citizens.

I give you Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

UDHR > US constitution.

I believe that families, friends, and your spiritual community should help support and sustain you during hard times.

The government is better at supporting citizens than families. Charity and family help don't mean shit compared to efficient public serivces and a well-funded social safety net.

If so, I'd like to hear your explanation of why socialism is good, sans the profanity.

I like profanity, so there.

Socialism is a transitional stage to a communist society, which involves social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. Not exactly communism, but still a gigantic improvement over capitalism in terms of workers' rights and progress in fighting inequality and exploitation.

[Souseiseki]

That's essentially capitalism.

No just, morally defensible social order makes its guarantee of equal access to resources contingent on whether one works or not, regardless of what one's reasons for not working are.

I'm am beginning to seriously question what type of Socialist you think you are. Socialism is for those that work, a workers society, if you don't contribute to the community you should be left out to starve if you don't have a damn good reason for not being able to work.

I think the only justifible reasons not to work would be illness/injury, college, pregnancy. Other than those, I don't see any other good excuses.

Socialism is not for the lazy, Bluth.

man i thought we were gonna get rid of the whole starvation thing

[Mike the Progressive]

It certainly is more efficient but it is equally unrealistic to expect any state to be purely capitalist in its policies. The state will intervene and grow and grow over time till it does kill the goose that lays the golden egg and has to "restart" again.

Capitalism is efficient?

As efficient as it will get, sure. I mean can you name a centralized economy that created wealth more quickly? China hasn't been "socialist" or even remotely close to it since the 60s, 70s? India tried to have some centralized policies in the 80s and 90s, but they failed miserably. Even Cuba, which most people cite as the example of how socialism has worked has failed. They are opening up their markets, they have laid public workers off, and they want capital investment.

I'll admit, capitalism isn't 100% efficient. Nothing is. But unlike a state funded institution, if a corporation becomes increasingly inefficient, it will go bankrupt (keep in mind bailouts makes a "true" capitalist cringe). Of course, competition in the free market can also have problems. In order to compete, some make better products, many will cut wages for their employees and or lay them off, or decrease the quality of their product. Either option will lead to their eventual demise.

[Zaras]

[quote="Mike the Progressive";p="1157595]Even Cuba, which most people cite as the example of how socialism has worked[/quote]

Those people are wrong and clueless.

I'll admit, capitalism isn't 100% efficient. Nothing is. But unlike a state funded institution, if a corporation becomes increasingly inefficient, it will go bankrupt (keep in mind bailouts makes a "true" capitalist cringe). Of course, competition in the free market can also have problems. In order to compete, some make better products, many will cut wages for their employees and or lay them off, or decrease the quality of their product. Either option will lead to their eventual demise.

Or they could, y'know, pull a Ford and try to make the best goods possible at the lowest cost possible paying the highest wages possible.

It's easier to do with a combination of strong labour unions and the kind of general prosperity that saw the USA become a middle-class nation between 1945-1980.

[Selsada]

[quote="Mike the Progressive";p="1157595Even Cuba, which most people cite as the example of how socialism has worked

Those people are wrong and clueless.

I'll admit, capitalism isn't 100% efficient. Nothing is. But unlike a state funded institution, if a corporation becomes increasingly inefficient, it will go bankrupt (keep in mind bailouts makes a "true" capitalist cringe). Of course, competition in the free market can also have problems. In order to compete, some make better products, many will cut wages for their employees and or lay them off, or decrease the quality of their product. Either option will lead to their eventual demise.

Or they could, y'know, pull a Ford and try to make the best goods possible at the lowest cost possible paying the highest wages possible.

It's easier to do with a combination of strong labour unions and the kind of general prosperity that saw the USA become a middle-class nation between 1945-1980.[/quote]

Strong labor unions are fine until they decide to side with the government instead of siding with the workers.
Like in most of europe, and recently South Africa.

[Mike the Progressive]

[quote="Mike the Progressive";p="1157595Even Cuba, which most people cite as the example of how socialism has worked

Those people are wrong and clueless.

I'll admit, capitalism isn't 100% efficient. Nothing is. But unlike a state funded institution, if a corporation becomes increasingly inefficient, it will go bankrupt (keep in mind bailouts makes a "true" capitalist cringe). Of course, competition in the free market can also have problems. In order to compete, some make better products, many will cut wages for their employees and or lay them off, or decrease the quality of their product. Either option will lead to their eventual demise.

Or they could, y'know, pull a Ford and try to make the best goods possible at the lowest cost possible paying the highest wages possible.

It's easier to do with a combination of strong labour unions and the kind of general prosperity that saw the USA become a middle-class nation between 1945-1980.

I never said otherwise. Ford is a great example of a corporation that knows how to produce a product at a cheap cost, sell it cheaply and pay their employees well. They aren't the only company to do this, but the best known one.

That said, 1945 was a weird time in the world. I don't know know if the economic situation is quite the same today. Keep in mind that in '45 we had a third of the entire world's share of manufacturing. Our economy, infrastructure and country was one of the few that wasn't totally destroyed and devastated by war. We don't have that today. In fact, emerging markets are decreasing our share in the world. I don't think the fiscal policy of that era would be as applicable today.

[Zaras]

I don't think the fiscal policy of that era would be as applicable today.

I'm not sure either, but I'd rather try to figure out how to maintain a social democratic welfare state functioning instead of dismantling it to make a plutocracy.

[Vetalia]

That said, 1945 was a weird time in the world. I don't know know if the economic situation is quite the same today. Keep in mind that in '45 we had a third of the entire world's share of manufacturing. Our economy, infrastructure and country was one of the few that wasn't totally destroyed and devastated by war. We don't have that today. In fact, emerging markets are decreasing our share in the world. I don't think the fiscal policy of that era would be as applicable today.

I don't think it's applicable at all; that period where it was applicable lasted for a very brief time from 1945 to the early 60's, ending completely with the oil embargo of 1973.

[Jassysworth 1]

But you can't call a system that demonizes free enterprise and is against individual entrepreneurship to be ultra-capitalism... Capitalism is about freedom, free market, and individualism.

Wrong. Capitalism hates freedom, the free market and individualism. Capitalism only cares about profits and exploitation.

USSR wasn't communist because it didn't fit the idealized theoretical version for the label of communism?

Yes. The USSR has nothing to do with communism. It was a state with classes and no worker ownership of the means of production.

Then it's not capitalist in any way either because it doesn't fit the idealized theoretical version of capitalism.

It fits the actual reality of capitalism: workers being told what to do, blatant power imbalances between the ruling class and workers, inequality, etc.

So nyeah.

Wrong. Capitalism hates freedom, the free market and individualism. Capitalism only cares about profits and exploitation.

Nope, that's communists' very biased account of what capitalism supposedly is. Since you won't accept anything to be communist unless it perfectly fits your idealized, rainbow and butterfly theoretical version of it being a stateless, moneyless, classless (I'll add a fourth qualifier) AND desirable society... capitalism should be judged by its most favorable theoretical formulation too then. =)

Capitalism is all about maximizing individual freedom, the free market, entrepreneurship, fair competition and individualism. Capitalism does care about profits but only because most of the time, having most individuals maximizing their own profits tends to maximize the best interests of society through the production of the most efficient and cheap goods and services. Capitalism is not about exploitation, it is about voluntary cooperation and favorable economic exchanges; it is about letting individuals enter into mutually beneficial economic contracts and relationships. Government is to be kept as small as possible and its existence is to control what's called externalities (where the market does not operate perfectly). Individuals are to be allowed to invent, work hard and in the process profit themselves and their families. Meanwhile, competition keeps making sure that relatively efficient economic process dominate society as opposed to one pattern of inefficient economic production. Capitalism is also all about the decentralization of political and economic power through economic competition and tends to go hand in hand with democracy (in the ideal capitalist system, monopolies are few to non-existent).

Hey you know... this doesn't sound so bad now does it?

By the way, I do know that capitalism is not perfect but my point here is this...

You know... you commies are not the only ones who can do this. If you won't talk about communism realistically, then don't expect others to talk about capitalism on YOUR biased terms.

It's childish when you insist the whole world talk about communism in only its most positive formulations (that have never existed in the real world at the national level) as a stateless, moneyless, classless, AND desirable society and then change the rules and demonize capitalism on your own terms.

How come you get to label imperfect societies that use capitalist rhetoric as capitalist when we don't get to label imperfect societies that use communist rhetoric as communist?

It fits the actual reality of capitalism: workers being told what to do, blatant power imbalances between the ruling class and workers, inequality, etc.

It is clear you don't understand what capitalism really is (copying a favorite communist strategy here wink wink).

And no the USSR was not capitalist in any way period. Tell me how it encouraged free enterprise, entrepreneurship, individualism, and freedom on a large scale that exceeds what was being done in the USA (and hence why you called it ''ultra'' capitalist rather than just capitalist).

And state capitalism is a contradiction as capitalism is all about maximizing individual freedoms... not the state's...

[Mavorpen]

And no the USSR was not capitalist in any way period. Tell me how it encouraged free enterprise, entrepreneurship, individualism, and freedom on a large scale that exceeds what was being done in the USA (and hence why you called it ''ultra'' capitalist rather than just capitalist).

And state capitalism is a contradiction as capitalism is all about maximizing individual freedoms... not the state's...

Capitalism has jack shit to do with individual freedoms, free Enterprise, entrepreneurship, etc.

[Jassysworth 1]

And no the USSR was not capitalist in any way period. Tell me how it encouraged free enterprise, entrepreneurship, individualism, and freedom on a large scale that exceeds what was being done in the USA (and hence why you called it ''ultra'' capitalist rather than just capitalist).

And state capitalism is a contradiction as capitalism is all about maximizing individual freedoms... not the state's...

Capitalism has jack shit to do with individual freedoms, free Enterprise, entrepreneurship, etc.

Now you are just way overstretching it...

In its most idealized theoretical formulation, that's what it is ALL ABOUT. And even if we are talking about in practice... those things do at least have something to do with it as they are strongly correlated with the prevalence of capitalism.

In actuality I believe in a mixed capitalist economic system and am aware that capitalism has its flaws in practice.

But that wasn't really the main point of my post... I'm just pointing out a communist double-standard of debate.

[Threlizdun]

I'm am beginning to seriously question what type of Socialist you think you are. Socialism is for those that work, a workers society, if you don't contribute to the community you should be left out to starve if you don't have a damn good reason for not being able to work.

I think the only justifible reasons not to work would be illness/injury, college, pregnancy. Other than those, I don't see any other good excuses.

Socialism is not for the lazy, Bluth.

Bluth is opposed to violence in all forms, thus is naturally opposed to the belief that one must either work or die. A society based on slavery is one that does not deserve to exist.

[Mavorpen]

But that wasn't really the main point of my post... I'm just pointing out a communist double-standard of debate.

Which is?

[Mike the Progressive]

And no the USSR was not capitalist in any way period. Tell me how it encouraged free enterprise, entrepreneurship, individualism, and freedom on a large scale that exceeds what was being done in the USA (and hence why you called it ''ultra'' capitalist rather than just capitalist).

And state capitalism is a contradiction as capitalism is all about maximizing individual freedoms... not the state's...

Capitalism has jack shit to do with individual freedoms, free Enterprise, entrepreneurship, etc.

I do agree with you that capitalism's goal is to not maximize individual freedoms, however in a capitalist (not corporatist/neo-mercantilist) society, free enterprise and entrepreneurship most certain does exist.

[Zaras]

Nope, that's communists' very biased account of what capitalism supposedly is.

No, it's the reality of capitalism. I have the feeling you don't know much about capitalism, or living in it.

Since you won't accept anything to be communist unless it perfectly fits your idealized, rainbow and butterfly theoretical version of it being a stateless, moneyless, classless (I'll add a fourth qualifier) AND desirable society... Marx's theories, capitalism should be judged by its most favorable theoretical formulation too then. =)

Fix'd for ya. Communists gotta have standards, at least sticking to Marx's basic vision and kicking out the authoritarian dicks. Capitalism doesn't have as strong a theoretical formulation, considering that the transition to it involved the upper class depriving the lower classes of whatever access they had to means of production (see the Enclosure Acts for the UK) in order to force them to work for wages and transform them into a proletariat.

Capitalism is all about maximizing individual freedom

Without equal access to the means of production, this is impossible. You can have as much freedom as you want in theory but if somebody can force you to work so they can make profits and pay you wages that are still less than the actual value of your work in order to profits and your other option is basically starving to death because you don't have money, that's not a very free or fair system.

the free market

Is not a fucking magic cure-all that fixes everything.

entrepreneurship, fair competition

Monopolies during the Gilded Age of capitalism and today suggest otherwise.

Capitalism does care about profits but only because most of the time, having most individuals maximizing their own profits tends to maximize the best interests of society through the production of the most efficient and cheap goods and services.

Wrong, capitalism cares about profits because that's the only thing that drives it. And it's not even most of the time that it maximizes society's best interests! The tragedy of the commons, pollution, en-masse firing and offshoring certainly don't help society at all. Capitalism needs strong regulations to shackle it and at least reduce the damage it causes.

Capitalism is not about exploitation,

Paying workers less than the actual value of their labour in order to make profits isn't exploitation? Seriously?

it is about voluntary cooperation and favorable economic exchanges

Favourable to the already rich and privileged elite and too often fucking over everybody else? Yeah, no thanks. Don't want that.

it is about letting individuals enter into mutually beneficial economic contracts and relationships.

Based on power imbalances.

Government is to be kept as small as possible

This is a cosmically fucking stupid idea. Government is necessary to provide a safety net to look after its citizens, provide great public services, and minimise the vicious parts of capitalism through regulation. "Small government" is just gonna mean that more people get fucked over by the elites and the government, by doing nothing, is acting as a tool of elite interests just like Marxists accuse it of being.

Individuals are to be allowed to invent,

Failing to see how non-capitalist systems ban inventions.

work hard

Work isn't a virtue.

and in the process profit themselves and their families

Me me me me me me me me me... what about society? How does society benefit? Individuals' self-interest is a terrible foundation for an economic system.

Meanwhile, competition keeps making sure that relatively efficient economic process dominate society as opposed to one pattern of inefficient economic production.

Shame that competition is often stifled and reduced by the fact that big companies hate it.

Capitalism is also all about the decentralization of political and economic power through economic competition and tends to go hand in hand with democracy (in the ideal capitalist system, monopolies are few to non-existent).

Oh, don't be going all early Dahl on me with the pluralism. Capitalism in no way decentralizes power. It actually concentrates it in the hands of the classes who own the means of production.

Hey you know... this doesn't sound so bad now does it?

To you. Not to me.

You know... you commies are not the only ones who can do this. If you won't talk about communism realistically, then don't expect others to talk about capitalism on YOUR biased terms.

You're the one who doesn't want to discuss communism realistically. Stop projecting.

It's childish when you insist the whole world talk about communism in only its most positive formulations (that have never existed in the real world at the national level) as a stateless, moneyless, classless, AND desirable society and then change the rules and demonize capitalism on your own terms.

Oh, quit projecting childishness on me when you've made posts that refuse to acknowledge the fact that capitalism doesn't need Marxism to be demonised. It's already plenty fucking horrible. And nice ignoring of anarchist Catalonia, the Free Territory and the Paris Commune you got there when you said that communism has never existed.

I insist on talking about communism using Marx and Engels' definition because I'm sick of people perverting, misinterpreting, being misinformed and misunderstanding it. Especially Lenin and Stalin's fanboys. We don't need more people too ignorant to tell the difference between Stalinism and communism.

How come you get to label imperfect societies that use capitalist rhetoric as capitalist when we don't get to label imperfect societies that use communist rhetoric as communist?

Because the Soviet Union and every state that followed in its path during the Cold War was not communist. Saying otherwise is a clear sign you don't have a clue about communism.

North Korea is officially a Democratic People's Republic. Is it ludicrous to refuse to call it a "democratic people's republic" when to any observer it's clear that it is absolutely nothing of the sort?

It is clear you don't understand what capitalism really is (copying a favorite communist strategy here wink wink).

You're one to talk given how you don't understand what communism is.

And no the USSR was not capitalist in any way period.

It wasn't communist in any way period either.

Tell me how it encouraged free enterprise, entrepreneurship, individualism, and freedom on a large scale that exceeds what was being done in the USA (and hence why you called it ''ultra'' capitalist rather than just capitalist).

Terrible fucking argument and strawman view of capitalism. I'll quote Pannekoek here:

On the other hand, if by state capitalism one means the strict control and regulation of private capital by the state, the answer is Yes, the degree of state control varying within a country according to time and conditions, the preservation and increase of profits brought about in different ways, depending upon the historical and political conditions and the relationship of the classes.

The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting the bourgeoisie. It can only be realised by the workers themselves being master over production.

Strict control and regulation by the state instead of workers owning the means of production? Check for the Soviet Union and every shithole that followed in its wake.

And state capitalism is a contradiction as capitalism is all about maximizing individual freedoms... not the state's...

Capitalism isn't about maximising freedoms, it's about maximising profit. Capitalism doesn't give two shits about freedom.

But that wasn't really the main point of my post... I'm just pointing out a communist double-standard of debate.

Which is?

Presumably the same double standard he's been using in his posts.

[CTALNH]

Zaras sorry to wake you from your dream but us I already said Engels is on our side....
Take your utopian drivel and go away please.

[Zaras]

Zaras sorry to wake you from your dream but us I already said Engels is on our side....

No, he isn't.

Take your utopian drivel and go away please.

Take your Stalinist fanboy bullshit and go away. I don't want people like you on my side.

[CTALNH]

Zaras sorry to wake you from your dream but us I already said Engels is on our side....

No, he isn't.

Take your utopian drivel and go away please.

Take your Stalinist fanboy bullshit and go away. I don't want people like you on my side.

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/ ... hority.htm
I will post it every time and tell you that comrade Engels was in our side.
We are gonna be bad whether you like it or not!

[Zaras]

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
I will post it every time and tell you that comrade Engels was in our side.

Where exactly? I don't see anything in there that says that gulags and totalitarian dictatorships by a class of bureaucrats are good ideas. Just that the state can't be abolished in one stroke, which is a pretty obvious thing.

[CTALNH]

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
I will post it every time and tell you that comrade Engels was in our side.

Where exactly? I don't see anything in there that says that gulags and totalitarian dictatorships by a class of bureaucrats are good ideas. Just that the state can't be abolished in one stroke, which is a pretty obvious thing.

Yes it also says "The revolution must get established in a sea of blood so that the bourgeois get afraid of us."