When Socialism Fails

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
Headhunter, you seem quite fixed in thinking that the name socialism by definition means that hard working people are always taken advantage of. This can happen under capitalism, socialism, or any other system. It is closed-minded to think that in all cases capitalism = good and socialism = bad.

Socialism-phobia resulted from the United States’ propaganda throughout the 20th century. Listen to a wise man explain why:

[/quote]

All this “workers running production” BS looks good on paper.
In practice it leads to replacing of the business owners with bureaucrats who get their salaries paid no matter how the enterprise they are in charge of is doing thus destroying any kind of competitive drive.
On top of that, free market competition gets replaced by a humongous bureaucratic machine that attempts to “plan” every aspect of the economy which basically drives it into the ground.

As far as “socialism-phobia” being a result of US propaganda - you don’t think USSR and the Eastern Bloc countries didn’t have anti - capitalist propaganda do you ?
Somehow it didn’t work so well eh?

[/quote]

bureacratic control over production is far from a democratic economy. please try again.

62

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
Headhunter, you seem quite fixed in thinking that the name socialism by definition means that hard working people are always taken advantage of. This can happen under capitalism, socialism, or any other system. It is closed-minded to think that in all cases capitalism = good and socialism = bad.

Socialism-phobia resulted from the United States’ propaganda throughout the 20th century. Listen to a wise man explain why:

[/quote]

All this “workers running production” BS looks good on paper.
In practice it leads to replacing of the business owners with bureaucrats who get their salaries paid no matter how the enterprise they are in charge of is doing thus destroying any kind of competitive drive.
On top of that, free market competition gets replaced by a humongous bureaucratic machine that attempts to “plan” every aspect of the economy which basically drives it into the ground.

As far as “socialism-phobia” being a result of US propaganda - you don’t think USSR and the Eastern Bloc countries didn’t have anti - capitalist propaganda do you ?
Somehow it didn’t work so well eh?

[/quote]

bureacratic control over production is far from a democratic economy. please try again.[/quote]

So we come together and vote whenever we buy a role of toilet paper?

Try again.

63

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I’m not trolling you or anything, just want to know – The Nazis had a slogan, ‘Community before Self’. Could you give me translation? I’m not tricking or anything like that; genuine question.
[/quote]

It was “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz”

That however does not translate as “Community before Self”, it is more like “that what benefits the community comes before that what benefits oneself/yourself”

64

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If Americans want to know why people move so slow in Europe, why the customer service is fucking horseshit in Europe, it’s because there is no reason to work hard. What’s the point of working for a raise, when you’re taxed at maybe 60% (or more) depending the country?

[/quote]

Agree. They should outsource customer service just like the US.

What was the tax rate for the wealthy when the US economy was strongest, during the 50’s? You might be surprised. Tax rate and how hard someone is willing to work is just theory. All tax cuts do is increase the gap between rich and poor. [/quote]

What is a fact however is that beyond a certain point tax increases lead to less revenue.

So, if your goal is to maximize the income of the state, though it is beyond me why anyone would wantg that, tax increases are very often counter productive.

Both Reagan and Bush II raised more income tax monies by lowering the tax rates.

So there.

[/quote]

A. But they still increased the deficit by overspending.

B. How much of the extra revenue was due to the overspending? Spending more, with borrowed money, to increase revenue doesn’t make long term sense. [/quote]

A. Yes they did.

To be fair, Reagan had a democratic congress, Bush has no such excuse.

B. They did not spend it to raise revenue, they spent it because it was easier than cutting programms or raising taxes. Not that raising taxes would have worked anyway.

Be that as it may, it is quite a common occurence that “taxing the rich” leads to overall less tax revenue.

Not only can they choose in what form they make their money, they can also choose when they make it, where they make it, and if all else fails, they just fire half their staff and golf 3 times a week.

Or move to Singapore.

65

Socialism and Capitalism have both failed. Graying, socially liberal, predominately free-market–but with a strong collectivist welfare state underneath–will be the state of the west. Some will come along slower than others, of course.

Actually, out of the two, Capitalism is really the failure. Laissez-faire is most definitely dead and buried. Socialism, actual state/people ownership, will always be flirted with. But, in the end, majorities will accept that private-ownership followed up by hefty redistribution practices is probably the safer bet than some theoretical pure socialism.

66

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Socialism and Capitalism have both failed. Graying, socially liberal, predominately free-market–but with a strong collectivist welfare state underneath–will be the state of the west. Some will come along slower than others, of course.

Actually, out of the two, Capitalism is really the failure. Laissez-faire is most definitely dead and buried. Socialism, actual state/people ownership, will always be flirted with.[/quote]

Dont be so pessimistic, you are actually assuming that social democracies will survive.

Since they are already failing, we will revert to a relatively free economy.

67

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Socialism and Capitalism have both failed. Graying, socially liberal, predominately free-market–but with a strong collectivist welfare state underneath–will be the state of the west. Some will come along slower than others, of course.

Actually, out of the two, Capitalism is really the failure. Laissez-faire is most definitely dead and buried. Socialism, actual state/people ownership, will always be flirted with.[/quote]

Dont be so pessimistic, you are actually assuming that social democracies will survive.

Since they are already failing, we will revert to a relatively free economy.[/quote]

Failing?! At most their services will reflect realities and reluctantly become better indexed to life expectancies and other indicators. Oh, it’ll be a belt tightening alright. But the welfare state isn’t going anywhere. When we climb out of the mess, austerity will go the way of the dinosaur. The belt tightners will be turned out of office, and on marches the parade. It’ll be 2 steps foward, to the present 1 step back.

68

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Socialism and Capitalism have both failed. Graying, socially liberal, predominately free-market–but with a strong collectivist welfare state underneath–will be the state of the west. Some will come along slower than others, of course.

Actually, out of the two, Capitalism is really the failure. Laissez-faire is most definitely dead and buried. Socialism, actual state/people ownership, will always be flirted with.[/quote]

Dont be so pessimistic, you are actually assuming that social democracies will survive.

Since they are already failing, we will revert to a relatively free economy.[/quote]

Failing?! At most their services will reflect realities and reluctantly become better indexed to life expectancies and other indicators. Oh, it’ll be a belt tightening alright. But the welfare state isn’t going anywhere. When we climb out of the mess, austerity will go the way of the dinosaur. The belt tightners will be turned out of office, and on marches the parade. It’ll be 2 steps foward, to the present 1 step back.[/quote]

I doubt it.

You cannot have a welfare state and a democracy.

One has got to give, I am sure that different countries will choose different paths, but in the end social dictatorships will still be outcompeted by free societies.

I would be willing to bet at least some money on capitalist dictatorships.

69

[quote]orion wrote:

You cannot have a welfare state and a democracy.

[/quote]

You can much more readily have a welfare state and democracy than near laissez-faire capitalism and democracy. And since democracy isn’t going anywhere…and even threatening to make it go anywhere for the sake of capitalism WOULD probably result in an actual “people’s revolution…” Capitalism is dead.

70

[quote]orion wrote:

I would be willing to bet at least some money on capitalist dictatorships.

[/quote]

Which would be most ironic of all.

71

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
Headhunter, you seem quite fixed in thinking that the name socialism by definition means that hard working people are always taken advantage of. This can happen under capitalism, socialism, or any other system. It is closed-minded to think that in all cases capitalism = good and socialism = bad.

Socialism-phobia resulted from the United States’ propaganda throughout the 20th century. Listen to a wise man explain why:

[/quote]

All this “workers running production” BS looks good on paper.
In practice it leads to replacing of the business owners with bureaucrats who get their salaries paid no matter how the enterprise they are in charge of is doing thus destroying any kind of competitive drive.
On top of that, free market competition gets replaced by a humongous bureaucratic machine that attempts to “plan” every aspect of the economy which basically drives it into the ground.

As far as “socialism-phobia” being a result of US propaganda - you don’t think USSR and the Eastern Bloc countries didn’t have anti - capitalist propaganda do you ?
Somehow it didn’t work so well eh?

[/quote]

bureacratic control over production is far from a democratic economy. please try again.[/quote]

So we come together and vote whenever we buy a role of toilet paper?

Try again.

[/quote]

My point exactly.
Somebody has to be in charge of a day-to-day operation on every level of the enterprise.

Keep trying florelius.

72

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Socialism and Capitalism have both failed. Graying, socially liberal, predominately free-market–but with a strong collectivist welfare state underneath–will be the state of the west. Some will come along slower than others, of course.

Actually, out of the two, Capitalism is really the failure. Laissez-faire is most definitely dead and buried. Socialism, actual state/people ownership, will always be flirted with. But, in the end, majorities will accept that private-ownership followed up by hefty redistribution practices is probably the safer bet than some theoretical pure socialism.[/quote]

You have had some very lucid on point posts lately,tip of the hat to you.I agree with this.

73

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]ReignIB wrote:

[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
Headhunter, you seem quite fixed in thinking that the name socialism by definition means that hard working people are always taken advantage of. This can happen under capitalism, socialism, or any other system. It is closed-minded to think that in all cases capitalism = good and socialism = bad.

Socialism-phobia resulted from the United States’ propaganda throughout the 20th century. Listen to a wise man explain why:

[/quote]

All this “workers running production” BS looks good on paper.
In practice it leads to replacing of the business owners with bureaucrats who get their salaries paid no matter how the enterprise they are in charge of is doing thus destroying any kind of competitive drive.
On top of that, free market competition gets replaced by a humongous bureaucratic machine that attempts to “plan” every aspect of the economy which basically drives it into the ground.

As far as “socialism-phobia” being a result of US propaganda - you don’t think USSR and the Eastern Bloc countries didn’t have anti - capitalist propaganda do you ?
Somehow it didn’t work so well eh?

[/quote]

bureacratic control over production is far from a democratic economy. please try again.[/quote]

So we come together and vote whenever we buy a role of toilet paper?

Try again.

[/quote]

who are we who vote for the toilet paper. be a bit more specific.

but you orion think that it is impossible to have a factory, a mall etc that are controled by those who work there?

74

…this is how much the french love their democracy. It’s completely over the top but absolutely amazingly spectacular: Eiffel Tower Fireworks for Bastille Day 2009 (Quatorze Juillet) - YouTube

75

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Socialism has to always evolve into National Socialism…or Soviet Socialism (as in USSR).
[/quote]
Wrong. If you look at countries like Sweden, Finland or Norway (granted Norway has a lot of oil, so we are kinda “cheating”) they are nothing close to “National Socialism” or “Soviet Socialism”, which by the way has nothing to do with true socialism.
[/quote]
Give it time, they will get there.
[/quote]
Do you seriously think so? I don’t think you have a good grasp of the political climate in Scandinavia. The Scandinavian countries are nowhere near National Socialism or Soviet Socialism, and they are not moving in either of those directions.

What is your basis for believing that this is where Scandinavia is headed?[/quote]

you seem to think you know so much about our society, but can’t take it if someone thinks they know something about your society.

funny
[/quote]
Not really, I don’t mind him commenting on Scandinavia. I also asked him what the basis for believing that the scandinavian countries are headed towards either national socialism or soviet socialism and he didn’t come up with an answer. Probably because there is nothing suggesting that such a thing is about to happen. The basic structure of the scandinavian welfare state has been very stable for very long and National Socialism or Soviet Socialism are probably among the least popular ideologies in Scandinavia.

76

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Socialism has to always evolve into National Socialism…or Soviet Socialism (as in USSR).
[/quote]
Wrong. If you look at countries like Sweden, Finland or Norway (granted Norway has a lot of oil, so we are kinda “cheating”) they are nothing close to “National Socialism” or “Soviet Socialism”, which by the way has nothing to do with true socialism.
[/quote]
Give it time, they will get there.
[/quote]
Do you seriously think so? I don’t think you have a good grasp of the political climate in Scandinavia. The Scandinavian countries are nowhere near National Socialism or Soviet Socialism, and they are not moving in either of those directions.

What is your basis for believing that this is where Scandinavia is headed?[/quote]

you seem to think you know so much about our society, but can’t take it if someone thinks they know something about your society.

funny
[/quote]
Not really, I don’t mind him commenting on Scandinavia. I also asked him what the basis for believing that the scandinavian countries are headed towards either national socialism or soviet socialism and he didn’t come up with an answer. Probably because there is nothing suggesting that such a thing is about to happen. The basic structure of the scandinavian welfare state has been very stable for very long and National Socialism or Soviet Socialism are probably among the least popular ideologies in Scandinavia.

[/quote]

molnes is right. skandinavia is not headed towards nazism or stalinism.
The trend the last 30 years has been more private capital mixed in with state capital, we are headed towards more market rule. and thats a bad thing, but dont see any new holocaust or gulags in the near future.

77

My big brother told me about this business model.

78

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
My big brother told me about this business model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation[/quote]

…very interesting. I wasn’t aware of this; thanks for posting!

79

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
My big brother told me about this business model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation[/quote]

a good example that a bussines can be controled by the workers.

thanks for posting this :slight_smile:

80

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I’m not trolling you or anything, just want to know – The Nazis had a slogan, ‘Community before Self’. Could you give me translation? I’m not tricking or anything like that; genuine question.
[/quote]

It was “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz”

That however does not translate as “Community before Self”, it is more like “that what benefits the community comes before that what benefits oneself/yourself”

[/quote]

Thank you! I saw that in a documentary and couldn’t think of it.