UK GDP shrinks by 0.3%

[Divair]

Yes some are, some aren't, but many of the not stupid people argue that it is socialism. It is very clear but the point is that Socialism is not work place democracy, if you look at Marxist Theory Socialism is a transitional phase in which the distribution of wealth is used to benefit the worker. That is why I find the UK, Finland, Sweden, etc. Socialist. It is not work place democracy, it is the redistribution of wealth.

You realize wealth is used in terms of the means of production, right? As in, to democratize the workplace?



You're shooting yourself in the foot here.

[EnragedMaldivians]

You see but many consider the USSR socialist.

Argumentum ad populum. People are stupid and quite often wrong.

What is your definition of workplace democracy?

It's where the workplace is democratic. What isn't clear?

His definitions are definitely in the wrong but to his credit he does seem curious enough to be willing to learn; I don't think it would be a complete waste of time to elaborate what these terms mean to him.

[Euronion]

I did not say that was Socialism was, I said that is what I consider Socialism. Socialism takes a variety of forms and has a variety of forms just as there is no one type of communism there is no one type of Socialism. To me, I resort to the "I know it when I see it" argument.

What you "consider" socialism is irrelevant, because it's an objective thing. You can't just "consider" the Moon to be a marble floating outside your window when it's actually a celestial body.

I base my theory on what socialism is on what Marx wrote. Marx argues that socialism is where the government redistributes wealth from those who have more to those who have less after a while it is argued by Marx that those who have more will willingly give their wealth to the poor and the redistribution will not require a government. It depends on one's definition of Socialism, I use Marx's

[Divair]

What you "consider" socialism is irrelevant, because it's an objective thing. You can't just "consider" the Moon to be a marble floating outside your window when it's actually a celestial body.

I base my theory on what socialism is on what Marx wrote. Marx argues that socialism is where the government redistributes wealth from those who have more to those who have less after a while it is argued by Marx that those who have more will willingly give their wealth to the poor and the redistribution will not require a government. It depends on one's definition of Socialism, I use Marx's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism)


And I quote, "The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus would accrue to the working class or society as a whole."

[Mavorpen]

Argumentum ad populum. People are stupid.


It's where the workplace is democratic. What isn't clear?

Yes some are, some aren't, but many of the not stupid people argue that it is socialism. It is very clear but the point is that Socialism is not work place democracy, if you look at Marxist Theory Socialism is a transitional phase in which the distribution of wealth is used to benefit the worker. That is why I find the UK, Finland, Sweden, etc. Socialism is not work place democracy, it is the redistribution of wealth.

No. Socialism is the democratization of the workplace and is opposed to social welfare. Social welfare permits capitalism to remain and from a socialist standpoint prevents socialism from being implemented earlier.

[Euronion]

Yes some are, some aren't, but many of the not stupid people argue that it is socialism. It is very clear but the point is that Socialism is not work place democracy, if you look at Marxist Theory Socialism is a transitional phase in which the distribution of wealth is used to benefit the worker. That is why I find the UK, Finland, Sweden, etc. Socialist. It is not work place democracy, it is the redistribution of wealth.

You realize wealth is used in terms of the means of production, right? As in, to democratize the workplace?



You're shooting yourself in the foot here.

Every person that has explained it to me has said it was wealth as in money, objects, standard of living, not means of production. Socialism has nothing to do with the democratization of the workplace but the redistribution of wealth to make everyone economically equal. Marx got the idea of Communism from Monks in a Monastery, everyone worked and everyone was given equal treatment for equal work and everyone was happier for it.

[Mavorpen]

What you "consider" socialism is irrelevant, because it's an objective thing. You can't just "consider" the Moon to be a marble floating outside your window when it's actually a celestial body.

I base my theory on what socialism is on what Marx wrote. Marx argues that socialism is where the government redistributes wealth from those who have more to those who have less after a while it is argued by Marx that those who have more will willingly give their wealth to the poor and the redistribution will not require a government. It depends on one's definition of Socialism, I use Marx's

You haven't read Marx.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Argumentum ad populum. People are stupid.


It's where the workplace is democratic. What isn't clear?

Yes some are, some aren't, but many of the not stupid people argue that it is socialism. It is very clear but the point is that Socialism is not work place democracy, if you look at Marxist Theory Socialism is a transitional phase in which the distribution of wealth is used to benefit the worker. That is why I find the UK, Finland, Sweden, etc. Socialism is not work place democracy, it is the redistribution of wealth.

Many people see democracy as beneficial to the general population. If a country's citizens are mostly happy with their situation and are content with the government's policies but they have no vote, can that country be called a democracy? Would it matter if most people thought of it as a democracy?

[Divair]

You realize wealth is used in terms of the means of production, right? As in, to democratize the workplace?



You're shooting yourself in the foot here.

Every person that has explained it to me has said it was wealth as in money, objects, standard of living, not means of production. Socialism has nothing to do with the democratization of the workplace but the redistribution of wealth to make everyone economically equal. Marx got the idea of Communism from Monks in a Monastery, everyone worked and everyone was given equal treatment for equal work and everyone was happier for it.

Wealth is the means of production, not physical money. Redistributing money is pointless because Marxism removes currency.

[Souseiseki]

i took a short break but as far as i can tell euronion is calling one of the most unequal countries in the first world where childrens income is the most heavily tied to their parents income and is still quite staunchly capitalist and responsible for quite a lot of the development of capitalism throughout the ages socialist because we have free healthcare because we made the NHS because our poor were too sick to fight because capitalism was notably not treating well back during the wars?

[Euronion]

I base my theory on what socialism is on what Marx wrote. Marx argues that socialism is where the government redistributes wealth from those who have more to those who have less after a while it is argued by Marx that those who have more will willingly give their wealth to the poor and the redistribution will not require a government. It depends on one's definition of Socialism, I use Marx's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism)


And I quote, "The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus would accrue to the working class or society as a whole."

That is one way to implement Socialism but Socialism can also mean the government say has a very high tax rate and uses its funds to redistribute wealth. The Redistribution of Wealth is Socialism, not the democratization of the Workplace. That is what I got from Marx.

[Divair]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(Marxism)


And I quote, "The social relations of socialism are characterized by the working-class effectively controlling the means of production and the means of their livelihood either through cooperative enterprises or public ownership and self management, so that the social surplus would accrue to the working class or society as a whole."

That is one way to implement Socialism but Socialism can also mean the government say has a very high tax rate and uses its funds to redistribute wealth. The Redistribution of Wealth is Socialism, not the democratization of the Workplace. That is what I got from Marx.

What you got is wrong, for fuck's sake. It says it right there.

[Euronion]

i took a short break but as far as i can tell euronion is calling one of the most unequal countries in the first world where childrens income is the most heavily tied to their parents income and is still quite staunchly capitalist and responsible for quite a lot of the development of capitalism throughout the ages socialist because we have free healthcare because we made the NHS because our poor were too sick to fight because capitalism was notably not treating well back during the wars?

Okay . . .

[Zutroy]

What you "consider" socialism is irrelevant, because it's an objective thing. You can't just "consider" the Moon to be a marble floating outside your window when it's actually a celestial body.

I base my theory on what socialism is on what Marx wrote. Marx argues that socialism is where the government redistributes wealth from those who have more to those who have less after a while it is argued by Marx that those who have more will willingly give their wealth to the poor and the redistribution will not require a government. It depends on one's definition of Socialism, I use Marx's

Marx wrote that socialism was control of the means of production by the working class---a reversal of roles between workers and capitalists, if you will. Whatever Marx you read, you clearly didn't understand. Not surprising.

What it sounds like to me is that you've always had an axe to grind against welfare states (definitely not socialist), and went into Marxist literature intending to link the two together to satisfy a confirmation bias.

[Euronion]

That is one way to implement Socialism but Socialism can also mean the government say has a very high tax rate and uses its funds to redistribute wealth. The Redistribution of Wealth is Socialism, not the democratization of the Workplace. That is what I got from Marx.

What you got is wrong, for fuck's sake. It says it right there.

I understand what you are trying to show me, but I think that you are incorrect. Not to say that Democratization of the workplace and worker's control of production is not Socialism, I'm saying that redistribution of wealth is Socialism. Marx was looking at an unequal society and sought to make the rich become on the equal level as the poor and to elevate the poor to a good standard of living. He saw the means of doing this, by workers taking over production and by the government redistributing personal wealth.

[Divair]

What you got is wrong, for fuck's sake. It says it right there.

I understand what you are trying to show me, but I think that you are incorrect. Not to say that Democratization of the workplace and worker's control of production is not Socialism, I'm saying that redistribution of wealth is Socialism. Marx was looking at an unequal society and sought to make the rich become on the equal level as the poor and to elevate the poor to a good standard of living. He saw the means of doing this, by workers taking over production and by the government redistributing personal wealth.

Where does Marx say that? I just linked you what Marx believed and it shows you are wrong.

[Euronion]

I base my theory on what socialism is on what Marx wrote. Marx argues that socialism is where the government redistributes wealth from those who have more to those who have less after a while it is argued by Marx that those who have more will willingly give their wealth to the poor and the redistribution will not require a government. It depends on one's definition of Socialism, I use Marx's

Marx wrote that socialism was control of the means of production by the working class---a reversal of roles between workers and capitalists, if you will. Whatever Marx you read, you clearly didn't understand. Not surprising.

What it sounds like to me is that you've always had an axe to grind against welfare states (definitely not socialist), and went into Marxist literature intending to link the two together to satisfy a confirmation bias.

No actually, I tried to read Marx because my teacher gave me a watered down introduction to it as government redistribution of wealth, I was curious as to the best economic theory and went reading. I skimmed through Marx and plan to go back to it but what I read was a confirmation of what my teacher had taught me. I am currently in the process of reading several economic books as to get a broader spectrum of philosophy and economics.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Can we get back onto the topic of the state of the UK economy rather than this threadjack about socialism.

[Mavorpen]

Marx wrote that socialism was control of the means of production by the working class---a reversal of roles between workers and capitalists, if you will. Whatever Marx you read, you clearly didn't understand. Not surprising.

What it sounds like to me is that you've always had an axe to grind against welfare states (definitely not socialist), and went into Marxist literature intending to link the two together to satisfy a confirmation bias.

No actually, I tried to read Marx because my teacher gave me a watered down introduction to it as government redistribution of wealth, I was curious as to the best economic theory and went reading. I skimmed through Marx and plan to go back to it but what I read was a confirmation of what my teacher had taught me. I am currently in the process of reading several economic books as to get a broader spectrum of philosophy and economics.

Really? Really? You siimmed through it, saw he stated redistribution of wealth and progressive taxation, and now conclude that socialism means the redistribution of wealth? What? I just...what?

[Divair]

No actually, I tried to read Marx because my teacher gave me a watered down introduction to it as government redistribution of wealth, I was curious as to the best economic theory and went reading. I skimmed through Marx and plan to go back to it but what I read was a confirmation of what my teacher had taught me. I am currently in the process of reading several economic books as to get a broader spectrum of philosophy and economics.

Really? Really? You siimmed through it, saw he stated redistribution of wealth and progressive taxation, and now conclude that socialism means the redistribution of wealth? What? I just...what?

Cherry-picking.



Fuck this, I'm out. Can't deal with this crap.

[Zutroy]

Marx wrote that socialism was control of the means of production by the working class---a reversal of roles between workers and capitalists, if you will. Whatever Marx you read, you clearly didn't understand. Not surprising.

What it sounds like to me is that you've always had an axe to grind against welfare states (definitely not socialist), and went into Marxist literature intending to link the two together to satisfy a confirmation bias.

No actually, I tried to read Marx because my teacher gave me a watered down introduction to it as government redistribution of wealth, I was curious as to the best economic theory and went reading. I skimmed through Marx and plan to go back to it but what I read was a confirmation of what my teacher had taught me. I am currently in the process of reading several economic books as to get a broader spectrum of philosophy and economics.

You have an axe to grind against welfare state policies. That's abundantly clear from everything you've said up to now, so who assigned Marxist literature to you or why is irrelevant. Unless you've spawned the views you're espousing in this thread in a very short period of time, the notion that you went into Marxist literature with a neutral view is comically absurd.

Can we get back onto the topic of the state of the UK economy rather than this threadjack about socialism.

It's not necessarily a threadjack. Someone has felt the need to label anything welfare-like in UK economic policy as "socialism," and needs to be corrected. That's germane to the discussion.

[Ralkovia]

Economic collapse of UK will lead to the Norsefire Party!

[Tagmatium]

i took a short break but as far as i can tell euronion is calling one of the most unequal countries in the first world where childrens income is the most heavily tied to their parents income and is still quite staunchly capitalist and responsible for quite a lot of the development of capitalism throughout the ages socialist because we have free healthcare because we made the NHS because our poor were too sick to fight because capitalism was notably not treating well back during the wars?

Pretty much.

[Souseiseki]

Economic collapse of UK will lead to the Norsefire Party!

and you'd love it

[Tagmatium]

Economic collapse of UK will lead to the Norsefire Party!

Well, no.

There'd need to be a nuclear war in which the UK magically survived in order for Norsefire to spring up, according to the graphic novel.

Or... I forget what happens in the film.