Socialism in Action

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

orion wrote:Whereas the gospel of Ryan is what exactly?

That pretty words do not constitute a successful economic system, and that wishing really hard won’t change reality.

The individual must be free to develop as he sees fit. He must not be constrained by any excessive action of the state, nor even by the forces of the market. His labor belongs to him, and not someone who is fortunate enough to be in a position to skim some off the top.

That society must be free to control as they please those things produced and made valuable by society, and which affect society.

That freedom for all cannot be achieved by giving wealth and power to a few, a concept you are unable to understand.[/quote]

The individual MUST be restricted by the force of the market, because the scarcity of goods is a reality.

You might as well try to ignore gravity.
[/quote]

This does not require that his purchasing power be steadily reduced, or that it be transferred to another.

[JoeGood]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

dmaddox wrote:Ryan is there actually an example on planet Earth that you would consider a Socialistic society that fits your definition of Socialism? Since this thread is called Socialism in Action you would be able to give us an example.

Not at the present time. There have been sporadic examples, such as the communes and “newly liberated” industrial zones during the Spanish Civil War. The Paris Commune was a good example. The Soviet example started off with some promise, but when the actual soviets lost control to a centralized bureaucracy, this marked the end of their experiment with socialism.

Socialism is inherently an internationalist system. It cannot survive in one country.
[/quote]

So what you are saying is that they all failed? In pretty short time frames too?

[Ryan_P_McCarter]

Yes. Any future socialist experiments will also fail unless they can gain somewhat widespread support. A socialist country cannot exist surrounded by capitalism.

[JoeGood]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
RPM, you are a typical dime a dozen fantasy tormented commie.[/quote]

A strange criticism coming from someone who has yet to point out any factual error of mine.

You can point to no significant examples of the success of your ideology while the world is still stinking with it’s 20th century corpses, both actual and political and yet you proclaim it’s superiority with a wholly irrational religious fervor.

Again, it seems to me that you are much more religious, when all of your assertions come without any support of any kind, many of which have turned out to be untrue. When you contradict yourself at every turn, yet still claim to be correct. Such as the sudden compassion for the deceased, when the system you adore has only been propped up on millions of bodies. You don’t seem to care about them.

All this while actually living in a country whose very history is a blaring refutation of practically every syllable you type.

This country’s history is almost an ideal vindication of Marx’s theories. Meanwhile, you mischaracterize or simply get wrong much of the history you claim to be proud of. Perhaps it’s not surprising that a man who cannot utter two sentences which do not contradict each should support a country built on so many hypocrisies. Self-government!

Except for women, non-whites, immigrants, and those who own no property. Liberty! Except for the slaves and the workers. Independence! Except for the countries which we would prefer to subjugate.

You’re a living breathing classroom postulation without a particle of consciousness in pragmatic reality. So once again here is where you demand that I respond to one of your insipid substanceless posts and prove to you the Earth is round. What’s really sad is how many multitudes of clones just like you have gone before… in this country. This is nuthin new.

When your vision of reality is so utterly distorted by a slavish devotion to ideology, a clear vision must seem a strange sight, indeed. Come out of the cave.
[/quote]

Just to satisfy my morbid curiousity, what exactly is it that you do for a living?

[IrishSteel]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

But government regulation is not socialism, not even close. This is why your argument is completely irrational.

Ha, the only one of those in which industry in collectively owned and run according to plan is Cuba. China, haha. Let me give you a hint: if you can buy stock in a company in that country, they’re probably not socialist.

In addition, none of these countries are in Europe, which is strange, seeing as how you were convinced that practically all European countries are socialist.

I am being specific, you moron. That’s why I specifically said “collectively owned” (not government owned), planned economy. This would eliminate market socialism.

If you want to seriously claim that any country in Europe is socialist, then apparently I also have enough leeway to discount any country you name as socialist. It goes both ways.

All I have to say is, have fun solving capitalism’s problems with more capitalism. It’s worked so well so far.
[/quote]

Government owned/planned/regulated = socialism, Government Owned = socialism, government planned = socialism, government regulated = socialism . . . nuf said

According to you a capitalistic nation practicing socialism is not socialist, thus a socialistic nation practicing some capitalism is not capitalistic - you fell on your own petard . . .

yes, because I do not artificially limit my definition of socialism as you do in your little semantics games.

You don’t think i noticed your little qualifiers? Why do you think I prefaced my remarks with a jibe at your semantic gymnastics and why i reminded you to define your terms - a collective can be anything from a group of farmers to a politburo - so, you do need to actually be very specific if you want to base your entire argument’s contstructs on such flimsy material.

And of course you can, you adorable little socialist, which is why socialists like yourself are always trying to pass off the failures of a socialism on some other tangential component of that particular version of socialism rather than on the fallacious foundations of the theory itself.

Capitalism’s foundation is based on individual freedom, socialism’s foundation is based on collective chains.

in capitalism I am an individual, socialism removes my individuality.

In Capitalism I have the freedom to fail or succeed based on my own energy, efforts and character - socialism only guarentees me certain privileges as long as the resources are available.

Capitalism is about free will and risk/reward, socialism is about subservance and conformity/punishment

You can have your socialism all day - may God grant you the mercy to avoid living in a socialist society and may the devil grant your wish to see such a day . . .

[dmaddox]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

IrishSteel wrote:If you think the next logical step from pointing out the faults of government regulation of private enterprise is to blame government regulation cancer (genetically and environmentally caused) obesity (again genetics and lifestyle) and climate change (a magical fairyland theory) - it’s no wonder you can’t create a logicla argument . . .

But government regulation is not socialism, not even close. This is why your argument is completely irrational.

countries in which the means of production are communally owned and operated on a planned basis - Republic of Cuba, People’s Republic of China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Ha, the only one of those in which industry in collectively owned and run according to plan is Cuba. China, haha. Let me give you a hint: if you can buy stock in a company in that country, they’re probably not socialist.

In addition, none of these countries are in Europe, which is strange, seeing as how you were convinced that practically all European countries are socialist.

You, on the other hand - need to be much more specific about your terms instead of hiding in the vagueries of your ideology. Socialism can be described in economic theory either as a Planned Economy or a Government Directed/Regulated Ecoonomy - if it is a planned economy, it can either be a Centralized planned economy or De-centralized planned economy. In addition, there is another alternative through Market Socialism.

I am being specific, you moron. That’s why I specifically said “collectively owned” (not government owned), planned economy. This would eliminate market socialism.

By using those basic variations, we could include a large portion of Africa, southern Asia and a number of ME states just for starters

If you want to seriously claim that any country in Europe is socialist, then apparently I also have enough leeway to discount any country you name as socialist. It goes both ways.

[quote]But any economic theory has to be predicated upon the underlying Socialist political theory and there is not enough space for a breakdown of all of the variations, mis-mash and repackaged versions of that nonsense.

But, since you’re such an expert, you already knew this . . .[/quote]

All I have to say is, have fun solving capitalism’s problems with more capitalism. It’s worked so well so far.

[/quote]

RPM no person who is not a citizen of China can buy a company’s stock on the Chinese stock exchange. They can buy a derivative in the Hong Kong exchange, but not the Shanghai Exchange. If an International company wants to do business in China they must set up a JV with a company or person in China which owns 51% of the JV.

China at any time can take ownership of the JV or the stock exchange at any moment. You might say owned by the government, but everyone knows that it is Socialism. It might not be the text book definition of socialism, but it is sure close. Samething in Europe.

[orion]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

orion wrote:Whereas the gospel of Ryan is what exactly?

That pretty words do not constitute a successful economic system, and that wishing really hard won’t change reality.

The individual must be free to develop as he sees fit. He must not be constrained by any excessive action of the state, nor even by the forces of the market. His labor belongs to him, and not someone who is fortunate enough to be in a position to skim some off the top.

That society must be free to control as they please those things produced and made valuable by society, and which affect society.

That freedom for all cannot be achieved by giving wealth and power to a few, a concept you are unable to understand.[/quote]

The individual MUST be restricted by the force of the market, because the scarcity of goods is a reality.

You might as well try to ignore gravity.
[/quote]

This does not require that his purchasing power be steadily reduced, or that it be transferred to another.
[/quote]

You mean, as in the high taxation that makes European welfare states possible?

[dmaddox]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes. Any future socialist experiemnts will also fail unless they can gain somewhat widespread support. A socialist country cannot exist surrounded by capitalism.[/quote]

Why is that? Could it be that the people in the socialist country see the freedoms and belongings of the people in the capitalistic country and covet them? Again you prove my point that socialism can not work in a world with humans.

[orion]

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes. Any future socialist experiemnts will also fail unless they can gain somewhat widespread support. A socialist country cannot exist surrounded by capitalism.[/quote]

Excuse me, but a system that cannot survive the existence of a misguided idea like capitalsim is probably not fit to be adopted by human beings.

For it is our minds that those ideas must choose as their playgrounds and it is telling that socialism is not fit to win in our minds.

Because, after all. it is human beinghs that are the economic agents.

[IrishSteel]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes. Any future socialist experiemnts will also fail unless they can gain somewhat widespread support. A socialist country cannot exist surrounded by capitalism.[/quote]

Excuse me, but a system that cannot survive the existence of a misguided idea like capitalsim is probably not fit to be adopted by human beings.

For it is our minds that those ideas must choose as their playgrounds and it is telling that socialism is not fit to win in our minds.

Because, after all. it is human beinghs that are the economic agents.
[/quote]

Orion - you and I have our differences to be sure, but damn son, that was pure poetry. I actually got teared up. Dude - i’ll share foxhole with you any day . . . or a beer, yea, let’s make that a beer

[dmaddox]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes. Any future socialist experiemnts will also fail unless they can gain somewhat widespread support. A socialist country cannot exist surrounded by capitalism.[/quote]

Excuse me, but a system that cannot survive the existence of a misguided idea like capitalsim is probably not fit to be adopted by human beings.

For it is our minds that those ideas must choose as their playgrounds and it is telling that socialism is not fit to win in our minds.

Because, after all. it is human beinghs that are the economic agents.
[/quote]

Orion - you and I have our differences to be sure, but damn son, that was pure poetry. I actually got teared up. Dude - i’ll share foxhole with you any day . . . or a beer, yea, let’s make that a beer [/quote]

We need to take a trip to Austria. I hear they have some really good beer over there. Right now with the Euro tanking the trip may not cost that much.

[StevenF]

Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country?

[dmaddox]

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]

Because Mommy and Daddy are paying for their school and well being, so it is like Socialism in their mind.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Responsible regulation[/quote]

From the state right? Coerced control = ownership, and since the state is a collective power under democracy, guess what? When the state puts regulations on a company, then they are effectively coercing their ownership on the company even if it is marginal.

It is lovely isn’t it, now if there was a private company that had regulatory terms and standards for a company to operate under its stamp of approval, then I have no problem with those regulations.

Or, if a fair liberal Rule of Law is applied, and one is allowed to use their private property as long as one do not hurt another person’s private property I have no problem with regulations that do not violate that, but obviously from America’s history that is difficult even in a country that starts out free when people are not educated properly.[/quote]

starts out free?

hm what about slavery? can a slave society be free?[/quote]

So now instead of just African’s being enslaved totally, the majority of American’s is now enslaved, well more in serfdom with having to fork over 30-40 percent of their labor to the master. I never said slavery was good, and I cannot say that I added the education because of slavery, but it also encompasses the issue of slavery.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I still don’t see how this is a problem for a system with no welfare.
[/quote]

How do you have such a system without welfare when the means of production is owned collectively? The lazy slobs are also part owners.

Now you could make it a majority rules sort of socialism but that would be horrible. You basically have no rights aside from those the majority gives you.[/quote]

But what if the lazy are the majority?[/quote]

If the majority in a society is lazy ( dont produce anything ) then it breaksdown regardless if its socialisme or capitalisme. the irony is that in a capitalist society, hig productivity leeds to economic crisis. called “overproduction crisis”[/quote]

There is no such thing of overproduction, and there is no proof.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]

Because Mommy and Daddy are paying for their school and well being, so it is like Socialism in their mind.[/quote]

Warren Buffet believes the same thing, he won’t leave his kids with shit because he sees it has a bag full of food stamps.

[Kvale]

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]

Does the country these people live in have publicly funded schools? Libraries? Roads and highways?

Sounds pretty damn pinko if you ask me.

[UB07]

Keynes was wrong. He still is. A pseudo-free market is not really free at all. Pure capitalism with strong protection of individual liberties is the most free, most fair system possible. It is not perfect, it is just better than all the rest.

Government cannot grant you rights that you do not already have as an individual. I have the right to protect myself from violence, for example. So, national defense is a valid government action.

However, I do NOT have the right to get something for nothing. I do NOT have the right to take from others. Therefore, the government does not have the right to tax one to pay the other.

[florelius]

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

But government regulation is not socialism, not even close. This is why your argument is completely irrational.

Ha, the only one of those in which industry in collectively owned and run according to plan is Cuba. China, haha. Let me give you a hint: if you can buy stock in a company in that country, they’re probably not socialist.

In addition, none of these countries are in Europe, which is strange, seeing as how you were convinced that practically all European countries are socialist.

I am being specific, you moron. That’s why I specifically said “collectively owned” (not government owned), planned economy. This would eliminate market socialism.

If you want to seriously claim that any country in Europe is socialist, then apparently I also have enough leeway to discount any country you name as socialist. It goes both ways.

All I have to say is, have fun solving capitalism’s problems with more capitalism. It’s worked so well so far.
[/quote]

Government owned/planned/regulated = socialism, Government Owned = socialism, government planned = socialism, government regulated = socialism . . . nuf said

According to you a capitalistic nation practicing socialism is not socialist, thus a socialistic nation practicing some capitalism is not capitalistic - you fell on your own petard . . .

yes, because I do not artificially limit my definition of socialism as you do in your little semantics games.

You don’t think i noticed your little qualifiers? Why do you think I prefaced my remarks with a jibe at your semantic gymnastics and why i reminded you to define your terms - a collective can be anything from a group of farmers to a politburo - so, you do need to actually be very specific if you want to base your entire argument’s contstructs on such flimsy material.

And of course you can, you adorable little socialist, which is why socialists like yourself are always trying to pass off the failures of a socialism on some other tangential component of that particular version of socialism rather than on the fallacious foundations of the theory itself.

Capitalism’s foundation is based on individual freedom, socialism’s foundation is based on collective chains.

in capitalism I am an individual, socialism removes my individuality.

In Capitalism I have the freedom to fail or succeed based on my own energy, efforts and character - socialism only guarentees me certain privileges as long as the resources are available.

Capitalism is about free will and risk/reward, socialism is about subservance and conformity/punishment

You can have your socialism all day - may God grant you the mercy to avoid living in a socialist society and may the devil grant your wish to see such a day . . .[/quote]

how many times most have this “what is socialisme” debate.

to be specific: marxist socialisme = A society where the proletariat owns the means of production togheter.

what you talk about, can be called: statist socialisme or statist capitalisme.

have you read marx?

Ok what is capitalisme. orion and his comrades are libertarians, what they call capitalisme, I call libertarianisme. thats an ideal for a society, not our society today.

when marxists talk about capitalisme, they meen the burgeois society. a society where the burgeois class controls the means of production and the state. the state of today are the state of the burgeois.

remember that marxist look at history as a history of class antagonisme, and that socialisme is the interrest ideology of the proletariat class not the state.

so governments dont equal socialisme. workers power do.

[mbm693]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:
Why is it that people that seem to be in favor of socialism choose not to live in a socialist country? [/quote]

Because Mommy and Daddy are paying for their school and well being, so it is like Socialism in their mind.[/quote]

Warren Buffet believes the same thing, he won’t leave his kids with shit because he sees it has a bag full of food stamps.[/quote]

Idiot…

Warren Buffett

Buffett once commented, “I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing”.