Ryan,
Honest question: what ‘ism’ has done the most, for more people, than any other ‘ism’?
2nd honest question: Did you ever stop a moment and think that MAYBE the socialist paradises we have in history are the best that Man could do, in implementing Socialism?
3rd honest question: given human nature, is it wise to interconnect military power with economic power? In other words, is it wise to give ANY group both control of economic life AND the police/military? History says otherwise.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ryan,
Honest question: what ‘ism’ has done the most, for more people, than any other ‘ism’?[/quote]
I don’t know how you’d even begin to try to calculate this, or answer in any objective manner, and I suspect it would do more to provoke and inflame people’s tempers than advance our understandings.
I imagine this is sarcasm in reference to places like the USSR, but taking it literally, I don’t think it really matters much. In Spain for example, the situation was extremely difficult, reorganizing the economy during wartime, but the results were fantastic, though short-lived, due to their military loss. Cuba’s system has produced excellent results, and Venezuela, though it can’t really be said to be socialist yet, seems to hold some promise. So really, though your question implies an understood dissatisfaction with existing socialist experiments, I cannot agree with those premises.
Leaving aside the questionable use of the term “human nature” (which I shouldn’t have to tell you is a whole 'nother can of worms), it is a central conviction of mine that it is not wise to bestow ANY significant amount of power on a single person, or single body. Since history clearly shows, if anything at all, that people will use their power to their own advantage, it seems inescapable to me the power should be distributed in a way that makes it as difficult as possible for any one person or polity to derail proceedings to their own benefit. This is the pragmatic basis for democratic control, not only of government (which we don’t really have, but I digress), but of economic matters as wel. Furthermore, in my mind, it’s really only economic control that counts, as this really determines in large part the form and function of the government. If decisions can only be made as a group, decisions which benefit individuals to the detriment of the larger body are largely precluded. Furthermore, this is completely achievable without sacrificing any modern notions of liberty.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You’re missing the point. You’re calling the dog a cat. That’s my point.
Irrelevant, the Nazis bear no resemblance to socialists. They tried to eliminate communism.[/quote]
The Catholics tried to wipe out the Reformation even though both were Christians.
Shisms are the worst.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Leaving aside the questionable use of the term “human nature” (which I shouldn’t have to tell you is a whole 'nother can of worms), it is a central conviction of mine that it is not wise to bestow ANY significant amount of power on a single person, or single body. Since history clearly shows, if anything at all, that people will use their power to their own advantage, it seems inescapable to me the power should be distributed in a way that makes it as difficult as possible for any one person or polity to derail proceedings to their own benefit. This is the pragmatic basis for democratic control, not only of government (which we don’t really have, but I digress), but of economic matters as wel. Furthermore, in my mind, it’s really only economic control that counts, as this really determines in large part the form and function of the government. If decisions can only be made as a group, decisions which benefit individuals to the detriment of the larger body are largely precluded. Furthermore, this is completely achievable without sacrificing any modern notions of liberty.
[/quote]
So why not a free market where everyone controls his own wallet and votes with his feet?
If you have a democratically elected committee on top you have created yet another power center.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
No, but neither have you.
[/quote]
You are one to miss both the forest and the trees.
Ryan, with your comments about Cubas’s success, did you know that in June 2008, the average earnings there were about $20 a month? And that number was equal for a farmer and a doctor.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Ryan, with your comments about Cubas’s success, did you know that in June 2008, the average earnings there were about $20 a month? And that number was equal for a farmer and a doctor.
[/quote]
but both get free healthcare 
Great, if they get ill because of starvation, they can see a doctor for free.
Talked to an economist at a local university. He was from China. Having lived both there and in the US I asked him what he thinks of the system there vs in the US. He said in China, you are taken care of. You don’t have to worry about anything, but you are told where to work and how much you are going to make. In the US you can work anyhwere you want, make more money and pay for insurance ect. I asked him which system he prefered, and he said The US’s, of course.
I also attended a shareholders meeting of an local international company. Concerned people brought some indigenous workers from whatever South American country this company had a plant in. They told the shareholders “we have great benefits, great insurance, great health care, great pension…we need money to live on, we want to improve our standard of living…we need more money to buy food.” And the shareholders voted not to give these people a raise.
But that’s beside the point.
What’s so good about having all these benefits, company or state sponsored (in the case of socialism) if your standard of living is crap? Just look at the people on welfare in this country. You proud your tax money is going to pay for others to sit on their ass collecting a check?
That’s why socialism will not work, because it’s human nature to look after one’s self. Not everyone’s equal and not everyone’s going to do an equal share of the work. Which is why the Soviet Union used the Gulags and collective farms. They forced people to become communist by the barrel of a gun. And because of this, you deny they are Socialist. Great you can cherrypick which Socialists you can ascribe to.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Great, if they get ill because of starvation, they can see a doctor for free.
Talked to an economist at a local university. He was from China. Having lived both there and in the US I asked him what he thinks of the system there vs in the US. He said in China, you are taken care of. You don’t have to worry about anything, but you are told where to work and how much you are going to make. In the US you can work anyhwere you want, make more money and pay for insurance ect. I asked him which system he prefered, and he said The US’s, of course.
I also attended a shareholders meeting of an local international company. Concerned people brought some indigenous workers from whatever South American country this company had a plant in. They told the shareholders “we have great benefits, great insurance, great health care, great pension…we need money to live on, we want to improve our standard of living…we need more money to buy food.” And the shareholders voted not to give these people a raise.
But that’s beside the point.
What’s so good about having all these benefits, company or state sponsored (in the case of socialism) if your standard of living is crap? Just look at the people on welfare in this country. You proud your tax money is going to pay for others to sit on their ass collecting a check?
That’s why socialism will not work, because it’s human nature to look after one’s self. Not everyone’s equal and not everyone’s going to do an equal share of the work. Which is why the Soviet Union used the Gulags and collective farms. They forced people to become communist by the barrel of a gun. And because of this, you deny they are Socialist. Great you can cherrypick which Socialists you can ascribe to.[/quote]
Great post, this goes back to my point about nothing being free if you are taxed to holy hell to pay for it.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Great, if they get ill because of starvation, they can see a doctor for free.
Talked to an economist at a local university. He was from China. Having lived both there and in the US I asked him what he thinks of the system there vs in the US. He said in China, you are taken care of. You don’t have to worry about anything, but you are told where to work and how much you are going to make. In the US you can work anyhwere you want, make more money and pay for insurance ect. I asked him which system he prefered, and he said The US’s, of course.
I also attended a shareholders meeting of an local international company. Concerned people brought some indigenous workers from whatever South American country this company had a plant in. They told the shareholders “we have great benefits, great insurance, great health care, great pension…we need money to live on, we want to improve our standard of living…we need more money to buy food.” And the shareholders voted not to give these people a raise.
But that’s beside the point.
What’s so good about having all these benefits, company or state sponsored (in the case of socialism) if your standard of living is crap? Just look at the people on welfare in this country. You proud your tax money is going to pay for others to sit on their ass collecting a check?
That’s why socialism will not work, because it’s human nature to look after one’s self. Not everyone’s equal and not everyone’s going to do an equal share of the work. Which is why the Soviet Union used the Gulags and collective farms. They forced people to become communist by the barrel of a gun. And because of this, you deny they are Socialist. Great you can cherrypick which Socialists you can ascribe to.[/quote]
Very well said.
On another note, I would like to ad that Ryan P. did send me a PM in which he began to lay out a portion of the path that has lead him to his current beliefs. Unfortunately, I did not received it after my above post. For that I apologize.
While I do not agree with Ryan’s philosophy, I respect his right to it believe as he chooses. As I shared with him, with that choice comes the responsibility to defend that choice honestly, rationally and intellectually.
Good luck with that. (Good natured swipe. Now lets see what you got.)
[quote]
That’s why socialism will not work, because it’s human nature to look after one’s self. Not everyone’s equal and not everyone’s going to do an equal share of the work. Which is why the Soviet Union used the Gulags and collective farms. They forced people to become communist by the barrel of a gun. And because of this, you deny they are Socialist. Great you can cherrypick which Socialists you can ascribe to.[/quote]
There are different elements of socialism if you look at the numbers about 1 in 5 people in the United States feel the system of capitalism is flawed.
Social democracy is more the route Venezuela is taking with public control of their oil - natural resources and elements that apply to a nation should be owned by all not 1 wealthy person who inherited the damn thing then pays us all a minimum wage.
Were not talking a living wage; minimum wages are below the line of poverty for a single family.
Socialism is varying in its degrees when you talk about it and it has been stigmatized by the US if you look historically the last 60 years the US has been an imperialist state gaining influence in the Philippines, Capsian Sea and attempting at South America.
Venezuela simply does not want the influence of the US thats why they are not part of NAFTA and have created their own agreements that benefit South America.
Venezuela is also one of the most impoverished countries and Chavez simply is striving for something other than capitalism that benefits everyone.
The facts are voter turnout in Venezuela greatly exceeds the US and and further is more democratic in their political process with free press and Chavez speaking to the public on his own television show they are more informed.
Chavez has survived a couple coups yet people still elect him as their leader; socialism has been stigmatized, but the reality is Venezuela is an example of a country in the middle of a revolution; a revolution generated by the people and acted upon by their leader.
Venezuela is anti-American simply because they are looking out for Venezuela not being subject to another imperial colony of the US.
No, you just have no idea what socialism is.
[quote]orion wrote:The Catholics tried to wipe out the Reformation even though both were Christians.
Shisms are the worst.
[/quote]
But in that case, they are both believers in Christ. In the other case, neither one meets the old, well-established definition of socialist. You expend a considerable amount of effort here pretending that simply having a central bank makes a country non-capitalist, but to you, a country whose organization flies in the face of the principles of socialism is socialist simply because it’s in the name of the controlling party.
Principally because, while you were asleep, historians and economists have noted that this does not happen in the real world. To say nothing of theoretical problems.
I suggest then, that you become a primitivist, and completely forsake civil society, because that’s pretty much all that’s going to satisfy you with those demands.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Ryan, with your comments about Cubas’s success, did you know that in June 2008, the average earnings there were about $20 a month? And that number was equal for a farmer and a doctor.
[/quote]
No, but I wonder how it is significant? It seems you are fixated on this number, and not what it represents. Because I notice that they have cars, they have Internet access, they have the same types of consumer goods that we do (though obviously not in the same abundance). Their quality of life is similar. They actually live longer. So whether they achieve this on $20 a month or $2,000 makes no difference in my estimation.
Good point, but it assumes the standard of living in socialist countries is poor. Which is not always the case.
It may interest you to know that socialists, at least Marx, Engels, and most that I know of, do not support any form of welfare (except obviously for those who are disabled or otherwise unable to work).
Ignoring the fact that socialism has worked, and worked well, the complaint you lodge here is misplaced, as no prominent socialists that I am aware of (with the exception of George Bernard Shaw) advocated or advocated equal pay for everyone. Some social democrats and reform-minded leftists might, but not socialists.
Did you know that Stalin actually introduced different levels of pay for work at different skill levels? So this statement is not really accurate.
No, it’s pretty much because they don’t meet the first criterion for a socialist country.
[quote]Goons wrote:
Venezuela is anti-American simply because they are looking out for Venezuela not being subject to another imperial colony of the US.
[/quote]
If Chavez is right about us, why haven’t we simply conquered V? Why haven’t we simply sent an assasination squad down there and ended him?
I know of a SEAL team that stood motionless for 2 days outside of a cave in Afghanistan, waiting for a goatfucker to pop his rat head out of the cave. When he did, they popped him. Think how easy it’d be to pop Chavez. Yet we don’t. Why?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Did you know that Stalin actually introduced different levels of pay for work at different skill levels? So this statement is not really accurate.
[/quote]
What was the pay rate in the Gulag Archapelago? I’m curious what Alexandr Solzenitzyn earned.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Ryan, with your comments about Cubas’s success, did you know that in June 2008, the average earnings there were about $20 a month? And that number was equal for a farmer and a doctor.
[/quote]
No, but I wonder how it is significant? It seems you are fixated on this number, and not what it represents. Because I notice that they have cars, they have Internet access, they have the same types of consumer goods that we do (though obviously not in the same abundance). Their quality of life is similar. They actually live longer. So whether they achieve this on $20 a month or $2,000 makes no difference in my estimation.
[/quote]
I guess their toilet paper must be really expensive, since they ran into a shortage. Boy if they made just a bit more than $20 a month, maybe they could afford it. But then again, these people don’t eat very much so they probably don’t shit very much. And yes making so little does matter, as the cost of living goes up continually, if your rate of earning doesn’t match that you’re fucked. That was a main reason behind the real estate bubble, at least here in California. It doesn’t matter if you got a raise of $2/hr when home prices are going up 40k per year. If you cannot meet the financial demand of living, something will give. In the case of Cuba, the toilet paper faced the wrath.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Goons wrote:
Venezuela is anti-American simply because they are looking out for Venezuela not being subject to another imperial colony of the US.
[/quote]
If Chavez is right about us, why haven’t we simply conquered V? Why haven’t we simply sent an assasination squad down there and ended him?
I know of a SEAL team that stood motionless for 2 days outside of a cave in Afghanistan, waiting for a goatfucker to pop his rat head out of the cave. When he did, they popped him. Think how easy it’d be to pop Chavez. Yet we don’t. Why?
[/quote]
Because what is in the US’s interests is to have the illusion of democracy in countries like Iran, Venezuela etc whilst actually having control from groups close to the US.
You should try reading Failed States by Noam Chomsky.