Socialismphobia

[Zweite Alaje]

We Socialists have disagreements amongst ourselves, yes, so do Capitalists. What's your point?

I've never understood this.

Capitalists just LOVE to clump us all together. Immediately when discussing socialism, it's "LOOK AT WHUT MAO AND STALIN DID!" as though we're all Stalinists and Maoists. When I tell them I'm not a Stalinist or Maoist, they flip out, screaming that it's impossible, because socialism is socialism. I think from now on, I'm going to make sweeping generalizations about capitalism. From now on, all capitalists believe in Keynesian economics. Let's see how annoyed the libertarians get when I keep insisting all capitalism is created equally.

Yeah, I never understand their insistence of "Teh Socializmz iz uhbout STALIN, hurp!!!" either. I don't think Capitalists understand exactly how vast of a spectrum Socialism covers. Saying someone is "socialist" is incredibly vague, they don't seem to be capable of appreciating that.


It'd be fun to see the Libertarians foam at the mouth at being equated with Keynesianists.

[Camelza]

Dude.

The OP just said George Orwell advocate socialism. The George that fucking wrote 1984, for Christ's sakes.

$10 says he has to Google who George Orwell is, as well as 1984.

Having read both 1984 and Animal Farm I believe Orwell is pretty much a really pesimistic,anti-authoritarian,libertarian,slightly traditionalist,anarchist,so,the thing is Orwell being an advocate of something of a rare form of libertarian socialism might be true but not in a sense most people would understand.

...he's most certainly not a socialist by the marxist definition.

[Mavorpen]

Having read both 1984 and Animal Farm I believe Orwell is pretty much a really pesimistic,anti-authoritarian,libertarian,slightly traditionalist,anarchist,so,the thing is Orwell being an advocate of something of a rare form of libertarian socialism might be true but not in a sense most people would understand.

...he's most certainly not a socialist by the marxist definition.

He's a democratic socialist, like me. I AM SPECIAL. BOW BEFORE ME!

[Norsklow]

Yeah, I never understand their insistence of "Teh Socializmz iz uhbout STALIN, hurp!!!" either. I don't think Capitalists understand exactly how vast of a spectrum Socialism covers. Saying someone is "socialist" is incredibly vague, they don't seem to be capable of appreciating that.


It'd be fun to see the Libertarians foam at the mouth at being equated with Keynesianists.

But how is the vast spectrum relevant?
Individuals on that spectrum are either 100% a-ok with with the whole kit and kaboodle of Markets+State,or they are disloyal.

Whether or not a heretic is a Bogomile or an Arianist is a matter of no consequence. The only matter of consequence is that he is a heretic.

[New Rogernomics]

Fear of government control, that ignores the march of corporatism in everyday society.

[Norsklow]

Fear of government control, that ignores the march of corporatism in everyday society.

Any dunce who believes that markets can work in the absence of government control is welcome to study the recent history of Somalia.

[New Rogernomics]

Fear of government control, that ignores the march of corporatism in everyday society.

Any dunce who believes that markets can work in the absence of government control is welcome to study the recent history of Somalia.

Somalians are largely un-educated, tribalists that hold radical religious views. The free market is a myth as long as there are corporations and government, but left or right libertarians believe in the existence of either corporations or government. If there was a true free market, then it would still have natural monopolies; so it likely wouldn't be any more/less effective than a mixed economy.

[Camelza]

Having read both 1984 and Animal Farm I believe Orwell is pretty much a really pesimistic,anti-authoritarian,libertarian,slightly traditionalist,anarchist,so,the thing is Orwell being an advocate of something of a rare form of libertarian socialism might be true but not in a sense most people would understand.

...he's most certainly not a socialist by the marxist definition.

He's a democratic socialist, like me. I AM SPECIAL. BOW BEFORE ME!

I don't even... well,whatever *bows to Mav*

[Zweite Alaje]

Yeah, I never understand their insistence of "Teh Socializmz iz uhbout STALIN, hurp!!!" either. I don't think Capitalists understand exactly how vast of a spectrum Socialism covers. Saying someone is "socialist" is incredibly vague, they don't seem to be capable of appreciating that.


It'd be fun to see the Libertarians foam at the mouth at being equated with Keynesianists.

But how is the vast spectrum relevant?
Individuals on that spectrum are either 100% a-ok with with the whole kit and kaboodle of Markets+State,or they are disloyal.

Whether or not a heretic is a Bogomile or an Arianist is a matter of no consequence. The only matter of consequence is that he is a heretic.

Look it's this simple bro.

It's pretty much like talking to a Christian, unless you ask them about which specific sect they adhere to, all you know is that they believe in Jehovah and that Jesus is his son and mankind's savior.

If you're holding a conversation with a Socialist you come in knowing only these facts about their position: they support collective ownership of the means of production, workplace democracy, and democratic, or at least non-autocratic governance (assuming the individual is actually socialist, not a "label socialist"). All Socialists will affirm that they advocate those if you ask them, the differences in the sub-branches derive from many aspects including but not limited to: what manner is the appropriate means of eliminating Capitalism, whether a market and currency should exist, whether or not the state should exist, nationalism vs internationalism, authoritarianism vs libertarianism.

[Camelza]

But how is the vast spectrum relevant?
Individuals on that spectrum are either 100% a-ok with with the whole kit and kaboodle of Markets+State,or they are disloyal.

Whether or not a heretic is a Bogomile or an Arianist is a matter of no consequence. The only matter of consequence is that he is a heretic.

Look it's this simple bro.

It's pretty much like talking to a Christian, unless you ask them about which specific sect they adhere to, all you know is that they believe in Jehovah and that Jesus is his son and mankind's savior.

If you're holding a conversation with a Socialist you come in knowing only these facts about their position: they support collective ownership of the means of production, workplace democracy, and democratic, or at least non-autocratic governance (assuming the individual is actually socialist, not a "label socialist"). All Socialists will affirm that they advocate those if you ask them, the differences in the sub-branches derive from many aspects including but not limited to: what manner is the appropriate means of eliminating Capitalism, whether a market and currency should exist, whether or not the state should exist, nationalism vs internationalism, authoritarianism vs libertarianism.

Not percicely,but,you could say it is like that in some cases,yes.

What happened to the Erste Alaje?

[Dinahia]

What happened to the Erste Alaje?

Deleted by moderators.

[Norsklow]

Any dunce who believes that markets can work in the absence of government control is welcome to study the recent history of Somalia.

Somalians are largely un-educated, tribalists that hold radical religious views. The free market is a myth as long as there are corporations and government, but left or right libertarians believe in the existence of either corporations or government. If there was a true free market, then it would still have natural monopolies; so it likely wouldn't be any more/less effective than a mixed economy.

Go back to the English middle ages.
A]Do markets occur in the absence of Government?
B] Where Government institutes a Market in the absence of local exchange, does a thus-established Market prosper?
C] Can monopolies occur? What are the conditions necessary for a Monopoly?



Your observations of Somalia and the mindsets of left and right libertarians and the perils of corporations are all very nice but they miss the essential points:

a] Markets demand that good be exchanged.
b] this exchange becomes very impractical in the absence of Law and Order.

You are looking at things that can go wrong. Now do the same and decide what is needed to make things go right.

[Camelza]

What happened to the Erste Alaje?

Deleted by moderators.

Well,that's unfortunate.

[Norsklow]

Look it's this simple bro.

It's pretty much like talking to a Christian, unless you ask them about which specific sect they adhere to, all you know is that they believe in Jehovah and that Jesus is his son and mankind's savior.

If you're holding a conversation with a Socialist you come in knowing only these facts about their position: they support collective ownership of the means of production, workplace democracy, and democratic, or at least non-autocratic governance (assuming the individual is actually socialist, not a "label socialist"). All Socialists will affirm that they advocate those if you ask them, the differences in the sub-branches derive from many aspects including but not limited to: what manner is the appropriate means of eliminating Capitalism, whether a market and currency should exist, whether or not the state should exist, nationalism vs internationalism, authoritarianism vs libertarianism.

Not percicely,but,you could say it is like that in some cases,yes.

What happened to the Erste Alaje?

Now look at the same questions through the eyes of a capitalist.
What are the differences in branches from his point of view?

[Zweite Alaje]

Look it's this simple bro.

It's pretty much like talking to a Christian, unless you ask them about which specific sect they adhere to, all you know is that they believe in Jehovah and that Jesus is his son and mankind's savior.

If you're holding a conversation with a Socialist you come in knowing only these facts about their position: they support collective ownership of the means of production, workplace democracy, and democratic, or at least non-autocratic governance (assuming the individual is actually socialist, not a "label socialist"). All Socialists will affirm that they advocate those if you ask them, the differences in the sub-branches derive from many aspects including but not limited to: what manner is the appropriate means of eliminating Capitalism, whether a market and currency should exist, whether or not the state should exist, nationalism vs internationalism, authoritarianism vs libertarianism.

Not percicely,but,you could say it is like that in some cases,yes.

What happened to the Erste Alaje?

Yes, my original account was DEATed for "flaming". I'm still quite salty about it to be honest.

[Camelza]

Not percicely,but,you could say it is like that in some cases,yes.

What happened to the Erste Alaje?

Yes, my original account was DEATed for "flaming". I'm still quite salty about it to be honest.

Mods can be harsh sometimes but you'll forget about it eventualy,I'm sure.

What are the differences in branches from his point of view?

Socialism is a form of capitalism,and I can't answer to your question.

[Norsklow]

Yes, my original account was DEATed for "flaming". I'm still quite salty about it to be honest.

Mods can be harsh sometimes but you'll forget about it eventualy,I'm sure.

What are the differences in branches from his point of view?

Socialism is a form of capitalism,and I can't answer to your question.

*bounces question back at Alaje*

[New Rogernomics]

Somalians are largely un-educated, tribalists that hold radical religious views. The free market is a myth as long as there are corporations and government, but left or right libertarians believe in the existence of either corporations or government. If there was a true free market, then it would still have natural monopolies; so it likely wouldn't be any more/less effective than a mixed economy.

Go back to the English middle ages.
A]Do markets occur in the absence of Government?
B] Where Government institutes a Market in the absence of local exchange, does a thus-established Market prosper?
C] Can monopolies occur? What are the conditions necessary for a Monopoly?



Your observations of Somalia and the mindsets of left and right libertarians and the perils of corporations are all very nice but they miss the essential points:

a] Markets demand that good be exchanged.
b] this exchange becomes very impractical in the absence of Law and Order.

You are looking at things that can go wrong. Now do the same and decide what is needed to make things go right.

1.
a) England followed Mercantilism and protectionism; and it is still protectionist to an extent, and markets do occur in absence of government, go back to prehistory as England is just one nation-state as opposed to the global economic system.
b) Government has not instituted markets, unless you are referring to the USSR economy or command economies; which are not free market systems.
c) I said natural monopolies can occur, government itself is a monopoly (of law and order, social services,etc); corporations form monopolies through acquisition of a resource (BP, Mobil,etc) or patents (Apple, Microsoft,etc) and through getting a dominant share of the market (Nestle, Monsanto,etc). There are plenty of cases where government has supported and propped up monopolies, especially in case of state controlled enterprises.

2.
a) Not always, they often are exchanged and expropriated by forced agreements; bribes are common.
b) There is law and order in Somalia, usually under tribal warlords and religious leaders.

[Zweite Alaje]

Yes, my original account was DEATed for "flaming". I'm still quite salty about it to be honest.

Mods can be harsh sometimes but you'll forget about it eventualy,I'm sure.

What are the differences in branches from his point of view?

Socialism is a form of capitalism,and I can't answer to your question.

Socialism is a form of Capitalism? What?

Mods can be harsh sometimes but you'll forget about it eventualy,I'm sure.


Socialism is a form of capitalism,and I can't answer to your question.

*bounces question back at Alaje*

Well to me it would seem that a Capitalist would see Socialism as anti-individual or promoting a hive mentality. True, Socialism is collectivist in the sense that in encourages that the members of a community should be responsible to eachother, but that isn't to the extent most Capitalists imagine.

[Dinahia]

1.
a) England followed Mercantilism and protectionism

Not in the Middle Ages.

[Camelza]

Somalians are largely un-educated, tribalists that hold radical religious views. The free market is a myth as long as there are corporations and government, but left or right libertarians believe in the existence of either corporations or government. If there was a true free market, then it would still have natural monopolies; so it likely wouldn't be any more/less effective than a mixed economy.

Go back to the English middle ages.
A]Do markets occur in the absence of Government?
B] Where Government institutes a Market in the absence of local exchange, does a thus-established Market prosper?
C] Can monopolies occur? What are the conditions necessary for a Monopoly?



Your observations of Somalia and the mindsets of left and right libertarians and the perils of corporations are all very nice but they miss the essential points:

a] Markets demand that good be exchanged.
b] this exchange becomes very impractical in the absence of Law and Order.

You are looking at things that can go wrong. Now do the same and decide what is needed to make things go right.

The only thing I know about Somalia is that it was far better under the "socialist" dictatorship of Siad Barre than it is now
...at least women could become pilots under his regime.

[Norsklow]

Well to me it would seem that a Capitalist would see Socialism as anti-individual or promoting a hive mentality. True, Socialism is collectivist in the sense that in encourages that the members of a community should be responsible to eachother, but that isn't to the extent most Capitalists imagine.

I put it to you that a Capitalist, at the very least would consider a Socialist as someone opposed to his ideology. The exact nature of the form of Socialism believed in by the Socialist is completely beside the point.

[Dinahia]

b) There is law and order in Somalia, usually under tribal warlords and religious leaders.

Or from their government...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Government_of_Somalia

[Norsklow]

Go back to the English middle ages.
A]Do markets occur in the absence of Government?
B] Where Government institutes a Market in the absence of local exchange, does a thus-established Market prosper?
C] Can monopolies occur? What are the conditions necessary for a Monopoly?



Your observations of Somalia and the mindsets of left and right libertarians and the perils of corporations are all very nice but they miss the essential points:

a] Markets demand that good be exchanged.
b] this exchange becomes very impractical in the absence of Law and Order.

You are looking at things that can go wrong. Now do the same and decide what is needed to make things go right.

1.
a) England followed Mercantilism and protectionism; and it is still protectionist to an extent, and markets do occur in absence of government, go back to prehistory as England is just one nation-state as opposed to the global economic system.
b) Government has not instituted markets, unless you are referring to the USSR economy or command economies; which are not free market systems.
c) I said natural monopolies can occur, government itself is a monopoly (of law and order, social services,etc); corporations form monopolies through acquisition of a resource (BP, Mobil,etc) or patents (Apple, Microsoft,etc) and through getting a dominant share of the market (Nestle, Monsanto,etc). There are plenty of cases where government has supported and propped up monopolies, especially in case of state controlled enterprises.

2.

Try going back to 1066 and all that. Let's begin with the establishment of market towns... you may get the point that way.

Then also try and see if a monopoly can concur in 1066.

a) Not always, they often are exchanged and expropriated by forced agreements; bribes are common.
b) There is law and order in Somalia, usually under tribal warlords and religious leaders.

a] et alors? Does that alter the point?
b] likewise. Does that alter the point?

[Camelza]

Mods can be harsh sometimes but you'll forget about it eventualy,I'm sure.


Socialism is a form of capitalism,and I can't answer to your question.

Socialism is a form of Capitalism? What?

It theoretically is a benevolent form of capitalism that works as a vessel in order to reach communism,the classless society.

Some however might add that it's the trip that counts.