Haha, as if that were necessary. If we were having this debate circa mid-1700s, and I asked you to cite an example of successful self-regulating market capitalism, to prove that it worked, you wouldn’t be able to do it, because it hadn’t existed so far. Then I might say to you “aha! Because it has never existed, therefore it can never work!” Of course we have the advantage today of knowing that I would have been wrong, because industrial capitalism was right around the corner. The long and short of it is, your statement is illogical. Reformulate your thoughts and ask an intelligible question.
[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
^A home owners association or something that closely resembles it.[/quote]
Home owners association is more like an oligarchy. My father lives in an HOA, and I hate it, ever few months I have to go to his place to clean up his house for him, the thing is…there is nothing wrong. They require desert landscaping and they complain when there is a weed in his yard, because it is not ‘desert landscaping’, but he lives in the desert with desert plants in his yard. Baffles me. [/quote]
It’s voluntary.[/quote]
How is HOA voluntary?[/quote]
Don’t you ultimately have a choice to become a member or to not be a member? No one can force you into an association by the point of a gun. When you want to leave they do not send armed men after you nor do they collect money from you to keep you under their thumb.
Homeowners associations are examples of voluntary governance. Sports leagues are an other example.
They all rely on contracts to function. When they have disputes they can be settled in private courts.
In fact, what I advocate is a society in which voluntary contracts govern all relationships.[/quote]
Well voluntary contracts are fine, but I do not want all my relationships to be that way.[/quote]
But they are whether you realize it or not. All relationships involve at least an implicit contract; for example, a friendship usually is based on some sort of mutual understanding and trust, etc. When that becomes no longer the case the relationship could end – the contract will be broken. In fact, trust itself is an implicit contract.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Honestly R.P.M. the propaganda is getting a little tiresome. I ask about this cooperative, and you can’t answer that, just making fun of the fact that I actually do research.[/quote]
Please don’t start this crap. You’re the one vomiting propaganda. “The rich man is actually the poor man’s employee.” “We need to all work together.” Give me a break.
And I’m not sure what you’re complaining about with regard to the cooperatives. I answered your question. Do you dispute the fact that they have a tiny footprint? Isn’t that what I claimed to begin with?
No, it’s not. This is why I told you that you don’t know what you’re talking about. According to this perspective, there’s really no difference between capitalism and socialism, just a cosmetic change and a slight difference in centralization.
No, I mean socialism. Again, you’re simply confused.
I assume you should know that socialism is the first stage of communism. It’s pointless to talk about communism proper because it’s so far away. Socialism is all that we can speculate about.
That they be expropriated and subsequently have to work for a wage like everyone else.
OK, fine. But what should we, as a society, do to ensure that we maintain proper capitalism, to prevent us from sliding back into this caricature? This is a question you must answer.
Wow, you’re in denial. If you care to open your eyes, you’ll find that the upper classes have been as pigs at the trough over the last thirty years, while everyone else has fallen behind. 40 million who don’t have health insurance. The highest rate of child poverty in the developed world. Come on.
Wrong. The rich person is rich because the poor man is poor. It’s worth noting that capitalism has never been able to solve the problem of poverty. The two are indissoluble from each other. This was noted in the 19th century. With the introduction of industrial capitalism, the poor multiplied at an unprecedented rate. The question, “where do the poor come from?” was widely discussed, as was the apparent paradox between this massive increase in productive capacity and the simultaneous increase in beggary.
I do not tell them they are oppressed (which may or may not be the case), but that they are exploited, which is true. This is not meant to convey any moral judgements, but it is the nature of the system. If we wish to improve the system, we must first know how it works.
[quote]How exactly are people being oppressed anyway? I assume you are talking about a person working for another person. But that is why they are working. Their job is to make the other person money. That is what I do, and I have no problem with it. If I am unhappy about the situation, I need to do something about it, and if I am unwilling to do something about it, I do not feel I have the right to complain.
I am a worker, and I am not oppressed.[/quote]
Again, you’re using the wrong word. You are exploited. You produce more value than you are paid for. That is all this term means.
Haha, as if that were necessary. If we were having this debate circa mid-1700s, and I asked you to cite an example of successful self-regulating market capitalism, to prove that it worked, you wouldn’t be able to do it, because it hadn’t existed so far. Then I might say to you “aha! Because it has never existed, therefore it can never work!” Of course we have the advantage today of knowing that I would have been wrong, because industrial capitalism was right around the corner. The long and short of it is, your statement is illogical. Reformulate your thoughts and ask an intelligible question.
[/quote]
still waiting . . .[/quote]
And you will be waiting until you fire up a couple of neurons and ask a logical question.
So your answer is that your perfect example doesn’t exist and thus my statement is accurate - because every socialist nation up to this point has been a failure.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
So your answer is that your perfect example doesn’t exist and thus my statement is accurate - because every socialist nation up to this point has been a failure.[/quote]
A perfect example does not exist, no. Your next statement is based yet again on a fundamental misunderstanding. What socialist nations have there been?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I do believe I provided that very detailed list many postings ago[/quote]
you know irish that ryan and I am marxist. Marx made it clear that socialisme could only work in
modern capitalist societys. Russia, China, Vietnam etc where not modern industrial capitalist societys
when they tried to trancfer to socialisme. Eastern europa was industrialized countrys, but “socialisme” was forced upon them from above, it was not implemented by the people/workers themself wich are another importent point to remember if socialisme should be succsesful. So there have not been a socialist experiment according to marxian doctrin.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I do believe I provided that very detailed list many postings ago[/quote]
you know irish that ryan and I am marxist. Marx made it clear that socialisme could only work in
modern capitalist societys. Russia, China, Vietnam etc where not modern industrial capitalist societys
when they tried to trancfer to socialisme. Eastern europa was industrialized countrys, but “socialisme” was forced upon them from above, it was not implemented by the people/workers themself wich are another importent point to remember if socialisme should be succsesful. So there have not been a socialist experiment according to marxian doctrin.
[/quote]
but that only goes to prove the point that I was making. Every time a nation has attempted socialism as a single economic/political system it has failed - you can blame that on the process if implementing the change to socialism - but the reality is that it was the system itself that proved incapable of success.
And then I made the statement (as supported by Marx himself) that it is only successful as a small scale component of a capitalistic system.
The idealized hope that a worker’s revolution will alter the outcome of a socialist economic/political system is just that - a mere hope that is contradicted by the evidence.
Regardless of how the system is implemented - if it is a viable economic or political model it would succeed on its on merits. It has proven incapable of doing so.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I do believe I provided that very detailed list many postings ago[/quote]
you know irish that ryan and I am marxist. Marx made it clear that socialisme could only work in
modern capitalist societys. Russia, China, Vietnam etc where not modern industrial capitalist societys
when they tried to trancfer to socialisme. Eastern europa was industrialized countrys, but “socialisme” was forced upon them from above, it was not implemented by the people/workers themself wich are another importent point to remember if socialisme should be succsesful. So there have not been a socialist experiment according to marxian doctrin.
[/quote]
but that only goes to prove the point that I was making. Every time a nation has attempted socialism as a single economic/political system it has failed - you can blame that on the process if implementing the change to socialism - but the reality is that it was the system itself that proved incapable of success.
And then I made the statement (as supported by Marx himself) that it is only successful as a small scale component of a capitalistic system.
The idealized hope that a worker’s revolution will alter the outcome of a socialist economic/political system is just that - a mere hope that is contradicted by the evidence.
Regardless of how the system is implemented - if it is a viable economic or political model it would succeed on its on merits. It has proven incapable of doing so.[/quote]
it is not as easy as that. I would say that the experiment i Russia is a proof that socialisme can not succsed from an humanitarian perspective in a society that is dominantly agrarian and with lack of democratic traditions. From a economic/growth perspective socialisme was a great succsess in Russia. The 5 year plans made russia able to have the fastest trancision from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy. It was under socialisme it was a superpower. but from a humanitarian perspective it failed.
it is not as easy as that. I would say that the experiment i Russia is a proof that socialisme can not succsed from an humanitarian perspective in a society that is dominantly agrarian and with lack of democratic traditions. From a economic/growth perspective socialisme was a great succsess in Russia. The 5 year plans made russia able to have the fastest trancision from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy. It was under socialisme it was a superpower. but from a humanitarian perspective it failed.[/quote]
But the Soviet economy didn’t thrive. It collapsed, leaving the Soviet people worse off in many ways than they had been under the last czar.
Let’s use meat consumption as an example - since it is a basic product of any economic system.
The average Russian worker in 1913 ate about as much meat as his American counterpart - just over 70 kilograms per year. In 1970, he ate only 48 kilograms compared with 118 kilograms for American workers.
In 1913, Russian workers worked just 50% longer than Americans for a pound of meat. By 1985, they were working 1,000% longer, according to a 1988 article by Soviet economist A.S. Zaychenko in the journal of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences.
I can use all sorts of statitics, from grain production, to debt levels, to infant mortality rates and deaths due to starvation.
I’m afraid you’ve swallowed too much soviet propaganda . . .
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i don’t know if this is comparable, but i own an apartment and have to be a member of the HOA. It’s even required by law to have an active HOA. I have to pay 150 euros each month for the upkeep of the building, but if i don’t pay it the HOA can/will start legal proceedings to get me to pay the money or even evict me. Ofcourse i didn’t have to buy this particular apartment, but since all apartment buildings have a HOA, and i can only afford buying an apartment, i’m stuck with it…
[/quote]
two things:
this is fascism and not a voluntary contract. The government is interfering in your ability to make choices.
you still have a choice where you live though the governance is probably all the same since it is mandated by government.[/quote]
…we have equal votes: 6 apartments = 6 votes. We don’t have to pay 150 euros each month, but we do so in order to renovate the 56 year old apartment building. If the roof needs fixing, we pay for it out of that fund. Electric bills needs to be payed for the stairwell lighting and so on…
…that the state made a HOA mandatory came from the fact that many apartment building became dilapadated because the owners didn’t do the work that was needed. Is that fascism? I don’t think so, it’s more about people not taking responsability for stuff that costs money…
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
The conditions for the market economy were created by the government. Especially the markets for the fictitious commodities of land and labor. Commons were enclosed and peasants were expropriated to make way for capitalist enterprises. Their houses were torn down and their land taken. Existing laws that impeded the workings of the new economy were repealed.
In other words, the state was consciously pursuing the goal of laissez-faire.[/quote]
Ok, sure. I don’t agree with the Inclosure Acts, which btw only happened in England. However, you still didn’t answer whether you think market forces by themselves were somehow created by government. You just said that the government abused its power… I agree with you.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i don’t know if this is comparable, but i own an apartment and have to be a member of the HOA. It’s even required by law to have an active HOA. I have to pay 150 euros each month for the upkeep of the building, but if i don’t pay it the HOA can/will start legal proceedings to get me to pay the money or even evict me. Ofcourse i didn’t have to buy this particular apartment, but since all apartment buildings have a HOA, and i can only afford buying an apartment, i’m stuck with it…
[/quote]
two things:
this is fascism and not a voluntary contract. The government is interfering in your ability to make choices.
you still have a choice where you live though the governance is probably all the same since it is mandated by government.[/quote]
…we have equal votes: 6 apartments = 6 votes. We don’t have to pay 150 euros each month, but we do so in order to renovate the 56 year old apartment building. If the roof needs fixing, we pay for it out of that fund. Electric bills needs to be payed for the stairwell lighting and so on…
…that the state made a HOA mandatory came from the fact that many apartment building became dilapadated because the owners didn’t do the work that was needed. Is that fascism? I don’t think so, it’s more about people not taking responsability for stuff that costs money…[/quote]
If something is a good idea why do people need to be forced into it?
You should be free to compete against those that take short cuts and put them out of business.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i don’t know if this is comparable, but i own an apartment and have to be a member of the HOA. It’s even required by law to have an active HOA. I have to pay 150 euros each month for the upkeep of the building, but if i don’t pay it the HOA can/will start legal proceedings to get me to pay the money or even evict me. Ofcourse i didn’t have to buy this particular apartment, but since all apartment buildings have a HOA, and i can only afford buying an apartment, i’m stuck with it…
[/quote]
two things:
this is fascism and not a voluntary contract. The government is interfering in your ability to make choices.
you still have a choice where you live though the governance is probably all the same since it is mandated by government.[/quote]
…we have equal votes: 6 apartments = 6 votes. We don’t have to pay 150 euros each month, but we do so in order to renovate the 56 year old apartment building. If the roof needs fixing, we pay for it out of that fund. Electric bills needs to be payed for the stairwell lighting and so on…
…that the state made a HOA mandatory came from the fact that many apartment building became dilapadated because the owners didn’t do the work that was needed. Is that fascism? I don’t think so, it’s more about people not taking responsability for stuff that costs money…[/quote]
If something is a good idea why do people need to be forced into it?
You should be free to compete against those that take short cuts and put them out of business.[/quote]
…because people in general don’t self-govern. For instance: if i live in this building for 8 years without paying into the HOA, and there’s no money to keep the building upto spec, the only downside to that is the resale value of the apartment. But because housing is scarce here, and if i keep the apartment itself in good order; i’ll be able to sell the apartment with some profit inspite of the building’s condition…
…obviously if the building is in good order the resale value of the apartment goes up, but for most that’s just an afterthought. That the state made an active HOA mandatory does not mean the state stipulates which agreements the HOA must contain. That’s for us to decide. I realise i made it sound like i didn’t like the HOA, and i’m still on the fence so to say, but last year we have major sewage problems in our part of the building and the repair work was expensive. I’m glad we had the funds from the HOA to pay for it, just saying…
Please don’t start this crap. You’re the one vomiting propaganda. “The rich man is actually the poor man’s employee.” “We need to all work together.” Give me a break.
And I’m not sure what you’re complaining about with regard to the cooperatives. I answered your question. Do you dispute the fact that they have a tiny footprint? Isn’t that what I claimed to begin with?
[/quote]
I expected this response. I knew you were going to try to turn this around and say I was the one spouting propaganda. I call this the nany nany booboo argument.
Anyway, no you didn’t answer my question, and no you didn’t say they had a tiny footprint. This is the propaganda I was talking about.
You mentioned a cooperative that was “CRUSHED” and yet when I searched, I found a cooperative under the same name, and it was interestingly not crushed.
I didn’t want to just assume it was the same thing you were talking about, so I decided to get more information instead of jumping to conclusions, and asked about it. Instead of clarifying things, you simply made fun of the fact that I actually tried to do a little research.
This tells me that I am not allowed to question you, or check the facts behind what you are saying. If you are going to put out statements, but are not willing to back them up, talk around them, that is propaganda.
Now when I said the rich man is the poor man’s employee, (and an excellent job of taking it out of context, by the way, so it sounds more all encompassing then what I meant,) this was not something I read, or something somebody else told me.
These were my words, and nobody else’s, and I said it because I have seen it. Walk into any Mom and Pop operation, and you have people running businesses, many quite wealthy, (and I did not say all,) who are working for the customer, regardless of that customer’s economic status. (Also why exactly do you disagree with me saying we need to work together anyway?)
I do find it interesting that your definition of Socialism seems to be a little different then the Merriam Webster dictionary:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done[/i]
But I concede that there are different types of socialism, so you may need to clarify what specific type of socialism you are referring to here. You should know that, after all your the “expert” on socialism here.
But the question is who implements the rule changes? Who takes the means of production? How is this done without big government?
Now on the discussion of being â??exploited.â?? At least you finally defined this, sort of. You think I should get 100% of the profit in the business I work in? Seriously?
But I didn’t pay for the building. I didn’t pay for the source material. I didn’t pay for shit. I was offered an amount of money for an amount of my time, and I agreed to it. And I am fully aware the owner is making a profit off of me. It’s why my job exists.
In fact when I do the math, (cause I actually know the numbers,) your wonderful idea of helping me means I could make an extra $38 a week.
All the work I do, all I get paid, just so he can make an extra $38 a week off of me. You actually think that is going to change my life?
This year alone I paid off enough debt to eliminate over $300 a month in payments. That is $69 a week in my favor. (And tax free.)
Also this is only the average. (Currently. Was higher before.) Actually there are times he does not make a profit off of me. There are expenses that come up that can cause a loss for months. Should my pay go down during those times? I am getting paid more then what is being produced after all.
Another reason I said you were putting out propaganda was the whole animosity issue. And one again you pushed out more propaganda. Put out a couple of charts, then make some over-simplistic assumptions about them, and again tell people they need to get upset over it.
But this is still bypassing what I was saying. There is a guy in Florida making 10 Million a year. I don’t know him, I am not connected to him, don’t work for him, and have nothing to do with him. Yet I am supposed to have some animosity against him.
This is the politics of jealousy. You actually want us to get upset because somebody may have a little more then me? This is the philosophy that keeps people poor. These are the people that try to keep up with the Jones’. And as a result have things they cannot afford. It ain’t the Capitalist keeping them poor, it’s their own attitudes and habits.
This is utterly wrong. Florelius is right when he talks about the conditions for socialism. Just look at the history. The Bolsheviks, for instance, far from coming into power as a result of a proletarian revolution, as Marx predicted, mounted what was essentially a coup, and established a centralized bureaucracy ruling over (not with) a population consisting of approximately 80% peasants (not urban workers). Nothing was right. Your criticism is like trying to bake a cake by putting it in a cool oven, and then saying (after it fails to cook) that you’ve demonstrated that a cake is impossible. No, cake is not impossible, you simply didn’t have the right conditions for the cake to bake. The oven needs to be hot. In this case, had you waited for the conditions to appear, you would have been successful.
The reality is, it is quite a large process to develop a modern industrial economy. Russia at that time had little heavy industry, and was largely agrarian. Though they tried to do it with a different organizational structure, they had to go through the same process that Europe and America did to industrialize. Conditions were incredibly harsh in all three places, and Russia was worse simply because of the pace they maintained. I won’t defend their actions, but they weren’t entirely unreasonable given their circumstances.
[quote]The idealized hope that a worker’s revolution will alter the outcome of a socialist economic/political system is just that - a mere hope that is contradicted by the evidence.
Regardless of how the system is implemented - if it is a viable economic or political model it would succeed on its on merits. It has proven incapable of doing so.[/quote]
Again, this is incorrect. The US has a history of militant labor organization and a strong socialist/communist presence. Look up the 1877 general strike in St. Louis. The city was briefly taken over by workers, who intended to run it as a commune (and had already taken steps in that direction) before federal troops broke the strike.
If you don’t see instances of attempted workers’ revolutions in history, you’re not looking. And they have only been unsuccessful insofar as they were violently suppressed, which is certainly no inherent fault of socialism.
Yes, it did. As Florelius mentioned, it was the fastest industrialization in history. Production of all kinds increased enormously. They were the #2 superpower in the entire world. Don’t try to pretend like they were some kind of third-world country. They beat us into outer space.
Furthermore, you’ll find that literacy rates shot up, mortality rates declined, and standards of living increased. The fact that they didn’t match the US, the richest country in the world that had numerous pseudo-colonies to exploit and a 100-year head start (not to mention that we had emerged from two World Wars virtually unscathed, while Russia was not so fortunate, to put it mildly) means nothing.
Now, this should not be misinterpreted as a defense of the Soviet regime, nor were they a socialist country by any traditional standards. However, an accurate reading of history demands that we take all relevant factors into account, and you’re definitely missing some big ones.
Look up Russia’s transition to capitalism. It didn’t go well. Does that prove anything?
[quote]I’m afraid you’ve swallowed too much soviet propaganda . . .
[/quote]
I don’t think it’s Florelius who’s swallowing the propaganda.
[quote]Dabba wrote:Ok, sure. I don’t agree with the Inclosure Acts, which btw only happened in England. However, you still didn’t answer whether you think market forces by themselves were somehow created by government. You just said that the government abused its power… I agree with you.
[/quote]
I see. I think I sort of misunderstood your question.
My personal view of market forces, is that they are the result of “human nature” (I’m going to be extremely loose in my use of this term here; don’t read too far into it) operating inside a particular pre-established framework. In this case, capitalism is the framework, and human nature inside this framework produces the market forces, however the market forces themselves are not human nature. In a different framework, you would have different economic forces. I hope that makes sense.
Well, as long as you go around spouting crap like that, you should expect for people to call you on it. You can support capitalism, that’s fine, but don’t pull out stuff like “the rich man is the poor man’s employee.” That’s stupid. You will never find a rich man who will trade places with a homeless person on the street.
Still not sure what you’re referring to. I said they had little to no influence. I might not have said literally “they have a tiny footprint” in the original post, but it’s the same idea. How is your lack of reading comprehension evidence of my propagandizing?
Well, first of all, I don’t know how you found a cooperative under the “same name” when I didn’t give one to begin with. But more importantly, unless this cooperative is currently operating in the 19th century, I’m not sure how it’s relevant, as I was talking about the 1840s and 1850s cooperatives.
[quote]Instead of clarifying things, you simply made fun of the fact that I actually tried to do a little research.
This tells me that I am not allowed to question you, or check the facts behind what you are saying. If you are going to put out statements, but are not willing to back them up, talk around them, that is propaganda.[/quote]
Oh good, here the persecution mentality begins, one of the best parts about conservatives.
I didn’t make fun of you, I simply told you that I’m not talking about cooperatives now (though I could be–they’re still insignificant). What else do want me to say? You’re looking at the wrong thing.
First of all, owners of mom and pop stores are not “quite wealthy,” at least not from that source. Moreover, these people are not capitalists in the Marxian sense of the word, and so when I criticize “capitalists,” they are not a target.
Because that it is not how capitalism works. Capitalism operates on a for-profit basis, and so the interests of capitalists and investors are opposed. The capitalist gains what the worker loses.
I have stated many times on this forum the nature of the socialism that I advocate.
Society takes control of the means of production and implements the new rules. In a sense, it is not done without “big government,” but it is done with a drastically different type of government.
Not necessarily 100%, because there is always overhead and so forth, but you should get more than you get now.
[quote]But I didn’t pay for the building. I didn’t pay for the source material. I didn’t pay for shit. I was offered an amount of money for an amount of my time, and I agreed to it. And I am fully aware the owner is making a profit off of me. It’s why my job exists.
In fact when I do the math, (cause I actually know the numbers,) your wonderful idea of helping me means I could make an extra $38 a week.[/quote]
This is an erroneous analysis, because you are thinking in terms of money, which masks the reality of the situation. You have, in fact, helped to pay for the building, the material, etc. Your unpaid labor is part of what makes it possible for your employer to buy those things. Total corporate profits in the US are usually around $1 trillion - $1.25 trillion per year. You don’t think that if that were paid to workers that you wouldn’t net a little more?
[quote]Another reason I said you were putting out propaganda was the whole animosity issue. And one again you pushed out more propaganda. Put out a couple of charts, then make some over-simplistic assumptions about them, and again tell people they need to get upset over it.
But this is still bypassing what I was saying. There is a guy in Florida making 10 Million a year. I don’t know him, I am not connected to him, don’t work for him, and have nothing to do with him. Yet I am supposed to have some animosity against him.
This is the politics of jealousy. You actually want us to get upset because somebody may have a little more then me? This is the philosophy that keeps people poor. These are the people that try to keep up with the Jones’. And as a result have things they cannot afford. It ain’t the Capitalist keeping them poor, it’s their own attitudes and habits.[/quote]
Stop berating me when you’re the one who keeps putting words in my mouth. Who said anything about animosity? Certainly not me. All I say is that this is the reason the system doesn’t work, and will ultimately fail.
And, it “isn’t the capitalists” keeping them poor? Try again.
"For all of 2005, before-tax profits totaled $1.35 trillion, up from $1.16 trillion in 2004 and just $767 billion in 2001.
Meanwhile, the share of national income going to wage and salary workers has fallen to 56.9%. Except for a brief period in 1997, that’s the lowest share for labor income since 1966.
‘It’s a big puzzle,’ said Josh Bivens, an economist for the Economic Policy Institute. ‘If this is a knowledge economy, how come the brains aren’t being compensated? Instead, the owners of physical capital are getting the rewards.’"