NationStates

Jakaragua wrote:

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
Equally juvenile to lay it on the feet of capitalism.

Most communists won't even consider that there could be capitalist solutions to protecting the environment (cap and trade), or reducing absoloute poverty. (Even though it has). Capitalism does not have to be completely laissez fare, unregulated libertarianism or big business mercantlisim; which is the essentially what most of them criticise.

Oh, and where a country develops they are accused of belonging to the sem-periphery.

If "blaming capitalism" for everything seems odd, turn it on its head. Why are politicians and think tanks and academics so adverse to blaming capitalism. I mean academics blame increased population for starvation and yet in most cases where people in the industrialized world are starving, it has to do with unemployment (which rises and falls independently of simple population rates) and crisis of overproduction where fields are neglected or grain is destroyed to keep the market from imploding. So really it's capitalism, not just population or poor choices of individuals.

The capitalist system has just gone through a bust due to internal mechanisms of the system itself: speculative bubbles which had to be invested in otherwise investors would loose ground to their competitors and be driven out of business, but participating in the bubbles means ultimately a bust at some point. What is the answer that the ruling class has to offer to solve this problem of capitalism? More capitalism, more whipping.

Also about that Liberian ism isn't the only type of Capitalism:

The Liberals/Social Democrats have the intention to make capitalism a little more tolerable for the people who have to suffer it while preserving the essential features of private ownership, wage labor and profit. I think it was FDR who said "Reform if you are to preserve!"

Inevitably, some reforms, like the eight-hour day, have the effect of encouraging workers to demand more concessions and better conditions within capitalism, but hardly ever do they lead workers to challenge capitalist ownership and control of the economy.

Hello Jakaragua, I am short for time and will respond to you tommorow. I am interested in having this discussion.

Though I would argue that there are many academics who would be aligned with your point of view; even if they are not the majority.

I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that socialism is not the sworn enemy of capitalism. That would be communism. I cannot stress this enough. Socialism =/= Communism. I, for one, completely condemn communism. Socialism, the way I see it, is actually a supplement to capitalism. It is strong where capitalism is weak, and vice-versa.

I think some people also fail to realize that virtually every country in the world has socialist elements that make them successful. For example, in my country, the US, some of our taxes go to pay for services that go right back to the people. Like education. We pay more taxes so that everybody can get a free education up until college. I think even the most die-hard free market right-wingers would say free education is a good thing, right? The education system is said to be 'socialized'.

Here's the thing. You should only stick with one ideology up until the point where it stops working at peak performance. Then you should bring in something different to take over.

Big government (i.e. tax-and-spend), is a very good thing, up until the point where it becomes inefficient and wasteful. Then, capitalism should kick in. Conversely, capitalism is also a good thing, up until the point where it becomes greedy, reckless, and oppressive. That's where the government should kick in.

Socialism cannot do everything on it's own. It cannot provide services quite as fast or cheap as capitalism can. But capitalism cannot do everything on it's own either. It cannot be trusted to look out for the poor, protect the environment, etc. But when you combine socialism and capitalism together in the right ratio, you end up getting as close to Utopia as humanly possible.

I don't know what socialism means any more. People refer to Denmark, an incredibly capitalist country, as 'socialist', simply because it has large amounts of welfare. I don't think mid twentieth century visions of socialism, where the government has a significant part to play in the allocation of capital, goods and factors of production, are realistic by any means, because of many good theoretical reasons. On the other hand, there is no reason to suggest the price mechanism will lead to a general equilibrium where absolutely nobody gets the short end of the stick. I don't want to live in a society where people can fall victim to homelessness or poverty because they have zero marginal productivity, so I support welfare for the poor and disabled as well as the provision of public goods everyone should have access to but where equilibrium does not allow for such. Some plebeians may call this 'socialism', I just call it not being completely heartless.

Hydesland wrote:I don't know what socialism means any more. People refer to Denmark, an incredibly capitalist country, as 'socialist', simply because it has large amounts of welfare. I don't think mid twentieth century visions of socialism, where the government has a significant part to play in the allocation of capital, goods and factors of production, are realistic by any means, because of many good theoretical reasons. On the other hand, there is no reason to suggest the price mechanism will lead to a general equilibrium where absolutely nobody gets the short end of the stick. I don't want to live in a society where people can fall victim to homelessness or poverty because they have zero marginal productivity, so I support welfare for the poor and disabled as well as the provision of public goods everyone should have access to but where equilibrium does not allow for such. Some plebeians may call this 'socialism', I just call it not being completely heartless.

How about capitalism with welfare programs?

Jakaragua wrote:

EnragedMaldivians wrote:
Equally juvenile to lay it on the feet of capitalism.

Most communists won't even consider that there could be capitalist solutions to protecting the environment (cap and trade), or reducing absoloute poverty. (Even though it has). Capitalism does not have to be completely laissez fare, unregulated libertarianism or big business mercantlisim; which is the essentially what most of them criticise.

Oh, and where a country develops they are accused of belonging to the sem-periphery.

If "blaming capitalism" for everything seems odd, turn it on its head. Why are politicians and think tanks and academics so adverse to blaming capitalism. I mean academics blame increased population for starvation and yet in most cases where people in the industrialized world are starving, it has to do with unemployment (which rises and falls independently of simple population rates) and crisis of overproduction where fields are neglected or grain is destroyed to keep the market from imploding. So really it's capitalism, not just population or poor choices of individuals.

The capitalist system has just gone through a bust due to internal mechanisms of the system itself: speculative bubbles which had to be invested in otherwise investors would loose ground to their competitors and be driven out of business, but participating in the bubbles means ultimately a bust at some point. What is the answer that the ruling class has to offer to solve this problem of capitalism? More capitalism, more whipping.

Also about that Liberian ism isn't the only type of Capitalism:

The Liberals/Social Democrats have the intention to make capitalism a little more tolerable for the people who have to suffer it while preserving the essential features of private ownership, wage labor and profit. I think it was FDR who said "Reform if you are to preserve!"

Inevitably, some reforms, like the eight-hour day, have the effect of encouraging workers to demand more concessions and better conditions within capitalism, but hardly ever do they lead workers to challenge capitalist ownership and control of the economy.

Capitalism is not the problem. Idiotic regulation of it is. The entire mess today is due to unintended consequences of bad regulation.

Sibirsky wrote:How about capitalism with welfare programs?

That's what I would call it, but I imagine some lolbs on here would rather call it "tyrannical authoritarian state sponsored Stalinist coercion of your fundamental liberties for the specific goal of destroying wealth, jobs and livelihood-ism".

Sibirsky wrote:Capitalism is not the problem. Idiotic regulation of it is. The entire mess today is due to unintended consequences of bad regulation.

The history of the United States for the past 30 years has been a history of deregulation. The systems that have been set up to protect us from capitalism have been weakened severely in this last generation. This shows stateless capitalists are indoctrinated in the belief that the opposite has happened in the same period.

Instead of telling the truth: “capitalism is fail”, instead you create a counter wave that says, “it didn’t fail, something caused it to fail.”

Hydesland wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:How about capitalism with welfare programs?

That's what I would call it, but I imagine some lolbs on here would rather call it "tyrannical authoritarian state sponsored Stalinist coercion of your fundamental liberties for the specific goal of destroying wealth, jobs and livelihood-ism".

Apparently the mass accumulation of wealth under the private ownership of production by individuals is socialism to them. Really socialism is all means of production owned and controlled by the worker's... nothing more, nothing less.

Innsmothe wrote:Socialist-libertarian here.

...ok isn't there a contradiction in terms somewhere in that sentance?

WA Delegation for Utah wrote:

Innsmothe wrote:Socialist-libertarian here.

...ok isn't there a contradiction in terms somewhere in that sentance?

Well, there is something called Libertarian Socialism which is basically 'anti-state' or 'ultra-left' socialism. It can be used interchangeably with Anarchism, as it, historically, has been. Libertarianism was first coined by an Anarcho-Communist anyway.

I'm not really aligned either way but I think a little bit of social ideas such as benefits and healthcare, as well as the regulation of corporations to ensure they don't get too powerful, can't hurt the reputation of a country.

It's good if used in tiny amounts, like with things like Public Transportation, Welfare, etc. Having a 100% tax rate with all money distributed by the Government is far too much. >..>

Saiwania wrote:I believe socialism is one of the scourges of mankind and the only thing worse is communism. Hitler's Nazi party was socialist. Socialism is supposed to be the step before the transition towards communism. I'd be better off dead than red.

Just because they called themselves the National Socialist Party doesn't mean they were actually socialists.

Sibirsky wrote:

SaintB wrote:I support the socialization of necessary services and defense (including the production of all weapons) but that's as far as I go.

Because Soviet weapons were better than American weapons?

Different doctrines produce different kinds of weapons. The Soviet Doctrine was mass numbers and the American Doctrine is and was quick offensives and technological superiority. The weapons are different because the nations are different; its also not very easy to call most Soviet weapons worse then American weapons.

I figured you'd understand something like that.

Sibirsky wrote:

Costa Fiero wrote:
Because one has to look at the shit state the global economy is in at the moment to see that Ensenda's statement does have some validity. Big economies need government poking in order to get working again, like someone using jumpercables to retstart a car. But somehow we have the idea that the market always works itself out.

So, how is the market working for you now? Still the same?

Governments have failed to do anything of value. An economy is not a fucking car and does not need starting. Governments have caused the current crisis. Governments prolonged the current crisis. Governments deepened the current crisis.

Only in the US. We largely have a laissez-faire system and we're still waiting. No government intervention here. Don't use the government bailouts of Greece and Ireland as examples because Greece was already poor and on the verge of bankruptcy many times and Ireland had a booming economy before this. I know this because my grandad had lived in Ireland right up until the year before the whole world went pop.

Hydesland wrote:I don't know what socialism means any more. People refer to Denmark, an incredibly capitalist country, as 'socialist', simply because it has large amounts of welfare

blame republicans/propertarians and their scare tactics

"yyy(insert social program) IS SOCIALISM11111"

...ok isn't there a contradiction in terms somewhere in that sentance?

actually Libertarian Socialist is a redundancy not a oxymoron(anarcho-capitalism is the ultimate oxymoron )...both individualistic(Proudhon,Stirner,Tucker,Spooner) and collectivistic ( Bakunin- Kropotkin-Goldman-Malatesta) Libertarian always called themself "socialist"

Rothbard and The libertarian party in the middle 70 used the term "Libertarian" ,mostly meaning a narrow far-right historical revisionist version of classical liberalism

Socialism= Noble idea, but it is not applicabel unless everyone likes each other and wants to share.

I prefer a mixed economy with socialist policies such as national healthcare.

My favorite quote on socialism "The problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other peoples money" i can't remember who said that though
having said that, socialism can work in some places, the U.S.? No. Asia? maybe.

Hydesland wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:How about capitalism with welfare programs?

That's what I would call it, but I imagine some lolbs on here would rather call it "tyrannical authoritarian state sponsored Stalinist coercion of your fundamental liberties for the specific goal of destroying wealth, jobs and livelihood-ism".

That extreme. Damn.

Jakaragua wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Capitalism is not the problem. Idiotic regulation of it is. The entire mess today is due to unintended consequences of bad regulation.

The history of the United States for the past 30 years has been a history of deregulation. The systems that have been set up to protect us from capitalism have been weakened severely in this last generation. This shows stateless capitalists are indoctrinated in the belief that the opposite has happened in the same period.

Instead of telling the truth: “capitalism is fail”, instead you create a counter wave that says, “it didn’t fail, something caused it to fail.”

You can't handle the truth. And the truth is, deregulation is a myth. Banking is one of the most regulated sectors in the US. Lending standards don't just drop for no reason. Fannie, Freddie, the FHA, the CRA, the Federal Reserve are all to blame. None of them have anything to do with capitalism. It did not fail. What failed is regulations, that may have had good intentions, but the unintended consequences make them pale by comparison.

The truth is, your ideology has failed, will continue to fail, and is made of fail.

SaintB wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:Because Soviet weapons were better than American weapons?

Different doctrines produce different kinds of weapons. The Soviet Doctrine was mass numbers and the American Doctrine is and was quick offensives and technological superiority. The weapons are different because the nations are different; its also not very easy to call most Soviet weapons worse then American weapons.

I figured you'd understand something like that.

I do, but I do not agree. Well, I agree on the types of weapons. Technologically advanced, versus sheer size and destruction power. As evidenced by their submarines. But that's just it. The Russians could not compete on stealth and technology and said fuck it. We'll just make ours bigger. That's the reason for their mass numbers doctrine.

Costa Fiero wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:
Governments have failed to do anything of value. An economy is not a fucking car and does not need starting. Governments have caused the current crisis. Governments prolonged the current crisis. Governments deepened the current crisis.

Only in the US. We largely have a laissez-faire system and we're still waiting. No government intervention here. Don't use the government bailouts of Greece and Ireland as examples because Greece was already poor and on the verge of bankruptcy many times and Ireland had a booming economy before this. I know this because my grandad had lived in Ireland right up until the year before the whole world went pop.

Where is here? There is no true laissez-faire approach anywhere. And Greece was not poor.

Doesn't work.

Well, in a nutshell, I think socialism is the next natural step in the evolution of human interaction. Preferably the libertarian kind.

Northwest Brazil wrote:What do you guys think about socialism? Does it work? Does it not? Is it better than capitalism? communism? Any opinion or view about this economical structure.

Another word for socialism is 'Envy'