socialism

Socialism is not just "democratic control over reasources."

My quick definition of socialism: Elimination of private property (economic, not personal possessions), means of production held in commons (not public ownership as that implies a state in the contemporary sense), elimination of currency, production based on need instead of 'profit'.

Keynes developed his economic theories to alleviate the negative effects of capitalism. To, in effect, make capitalism bearable and prevent socialist revolution.

The issue of the US being a democracy is contested. It's a representative republic, where you elect candidates from an oligarchy (the extremely rich and connected) to govern you. It's a bit like saying a slave choosing between two masters is participating in a democracy.

 

You can thank Stalin for that "socialism" shit, but no, I'm referring to Marxian socialism.

 

Other than elimination of currency, your criteria for socialism can be summed up as "democratic control over resources". Instead of a government to protect property rights and individual freedom, it's a government to satisfy the wants of the majority.

I would say keynesianism is more fascism than anything, but the only thing differentiating it from socialism is the illusion of private property.

The US was intended to be a Republic but that hasn't been the case for about a century now. The modern interpretation of the US Constitution as a "living document" has allowed for judicial legislation and the expansion of Federal powers without the proper authority.

We elect representatives who then go to DC and expand the Federal government with simple majority vote regardless of the law, so I'd say we are a more a Democracy now than a Republic.

 

I'm not here to debate the merits of socialism versus capitalism. I've not taken a side for this entire thread.

It's interesting how I state historical facts and am attacked.

 

Reductionist followed by a straw-man

Then you have some reading to do. Keynesianism is not ultranationalistic and extremely socially conservative. It is not advocating "us" against "them" and a militarization of society followed by a violent expansion of national borders.

A republic is essentially "not a monarchy", usually with representative governance. The US is a republic.

 

What's wrong with simplifying your definition? Are you trying to obfuscate reality?

No strawman that I can see.

We're talking in the context of economics, so nationalism and social conservatism are irrelevant to the discussion of the economic system under fascism, aka corporatism.

You are aware there is a difference between (cultural) marxism and (economic) socialism?

Maybe I should have said we're no longer a Constitutional Republic, but a Democratic Republic. In the American sense Republic implies preservation of negative rights and individual liberty.

"The American Republic will cease to endure the day congress learns it can bribe the public with the public's money" - Tocqueville

 

You lie and call it fact. You're lies slander capitalism and favor socialism. Then you have the gall to tell us you haven't picked a side as if we're too stupid to think for ourselves. And I get an infraction for being disrespectful. Lul.

I'll say it again. You are so full of shit.

Disrespect is not allowed here. - KSR

 

Capitalism has risen billions of individuals from poverty and improved everybody's quality of life, while socialism/collectivism has oppressed billions of individuals into starvation, death and genocide.

But I'm not taking sides here, these are just historical facts.

 

Democracy is worst then a dictatorship. If Obama was able to appoint his successor (most likely his children) or sell America and looked at the US public as his long term slaves instead of short term slaves (8yr max term) he would certainly not be running up the debt and be so quik to start wars. Democracy is mob rule. If 51% want to bomb the middle east you pay in money, morality, and reputation even if you disagree. Elections are nothing more then auctions of stolen goods. Obama/Romney are thieves in a sportscoat telling you he will steal someone's time and labor and give it to you if you vote for them. They pit you againts your neighbours for states gain. Everyone I know complains about the wars and its cost yet they always blame each other not the state. It's those damn fly over bible belt gun toting states that gave bush power to go to war right? , and now its those intellectual peace lovers spreading democracy through war? Right? ........It's the state powered by democracy , financed by fiat , and it influences the public mainly through patriotism and controlling education and media. My twelve year old daughter knows more about economics then the rest of my entire family by studying at home with me. It's no wonder we are where we are as a nation. With so much state influence and propaganda around you hundreds of thousands will rush into Iraq and Afghanistan because 16 Saudi's attacked us? And for what ? To persevere American fascist so called freedoms.

 

I lol'ed.

My point of view on this debate is that the old, tired arguments of socialism v anything else are... old and tired. Looking at places like Europe, with their massive debt burdens, the broadly termed "socialism" appears to not be working. The inverse of that, the "free market" ideology, has seemingly failed as well, since the actions of foreign governments have extremely large impacts on our markets (see- Iran and the current oil prices).

This leads me to believe that there is no answer to this debate. In this new age of globalization, it is quite hard to pinpoint what "the fruits of my labor" truly entails. The closest thing I have found to a correct answer is along the lines of Freidman Monetarist economics - a respect for private property, and the merits of a largely privatized economy, with a somewhat centralized monetary base (Central Banking).

Even that system is far from perfect, and doesn't address the issues brought up by globalization. I'm waiting for a new visionary economist to emerge and cut through the cloud of rhetorical bullshit that swirls around these issues. *watches a pig fly by*.

 

[quote name='"eff yew"']

I lol'ed.

My point of view on this debate is that the old, tired arguments of socialism v anything else are... old and tired. Looking at places like Europe, with their massive debt burdens, the broadly termed "socialism" appears to not be working. The inverse of that, the "free market" ideology, has seemingly failed as well, since the actions of foreign governments have extremely large impacts on our markets (see- Iran and the current oil prices).

This leads me to believe that there is no answer to this debate. In this new age of globalization, it is quite hard to pinpoint what "the fruits of my labor" truly entails. The closest thing I have found to a correct answer is along the lines of Freidman Monetarist economics - a respect for private property, and the merits of a largely privatized economy, with a somewhat centralized monetary base (Central Banking).

Even this system is far from perfect, and doesn't address the issues brought up by globalization. I'm waiting for a new visionary economist to emerge and cut through the cloud of rhetorical bullshit that swirls around these issues. *watches a pig fly by*.[/quote]

I'd guess your definition of freemarkets are the states definition? Have you looked into Austrian economics ? But like Milton Friedman said about Austrian vs monetary vs kayensian there are only two types of economics....good and bad (good free - bad planned) Friedman just didn't fully understand money as a commodity and interest rates as a future production indicator and was convinced the fed could keep inflation at 2% ANNUALLY which is not freemarket at all. Actually playing with the money supply negates all freemarket principals since money constitutes half of most every transaction. If all things are honest but the commodity being traded to exchange these items is manipulated then it throws it all off. Money knowledge is the key to everything here its where we need to start.

 

Because it is incorrect. Arguments based on moralism are flawed, as morality is relative. Even democracy is something that is hotly debated on the far left. See Errico Malatesta and Amadeo Bordiga.

Fascism is a distinct system. Referring to economic corporatism alone as fascism is like referring to the Soviet Union as socialist because it was draped in red flags.

Marxism is a method of analyzing history and critiquing capitalism as unsustainable while positing an alternative (the poetically termed dictatorship of the proletariat).

Nobody is saying capitalism didn't provide much needed technological advances. And your definition of socialism is off. Characterizing it as "collectivism" is incorrect. That infers something different, whereas socialism is posited as providing absolute individual "freedom." (quotations because it's loaded terminology). Socialism has never existed.

Socialism has not yet come into existence.

I'll leave this thread for the moment with a quote from Ludwig von Mises.

 

I have indeed looked into Austrian/Rothbardian economics, the major hole in these theories is that the governments of the world will somehow keep a "hands off" approach. Looking at it from a geopolitical perspective, a nation's economy can be viewed as a strategic asset, and will therefore always be controlled in some manner.

We can sit in a circle jerk talking about the merits of something that (in my remotely educated opinion) is nigh impossible. Or, we can accept that government and economy will have a connection, and work from there. Currency control, to me, is one of the least intrusive methods of establishing this connection.

Forget for a second our own government, how do you propose that we get the rest of the world to come around to free market ideology, except through force? You can't have a conversation about the possible outcomes of non-interventionist system unless there is no intervention. A simple event such as the nationalization of Iranian oil is enough to undermine that.

Certainly Freidman economics is not the answer, but it is the closest thing I have seen toward progress.

 

Don't forget that the modern notion of the nation-state is presupposed by capitalism. Austrian economics, if it were ever implemented, would see a quick return to de facto states through the processes of market centralization due to competition. See the old mining towns of, say, Virginia for a crude example. It would lead to a sort of new feudalism as groups with the most capital and biggest private militia took hold of tracts of land.

 

^ through trade and show by example. Competing currency, non intervention foreign policies , small or better no state governing, private property rights ,self ownership and responsibility.

 

For the purpose of my statement, I am using the American strawman socialism. This is likely the "best" the world can do toward achieving such a system. The responses I have recieved re-enforces what I am trying to say - that these idealized notions of a magical "free market" or "true socialist" society are just that - idealized notions.

All of this sounds great on a chalkboard in a classroom, or emanating from a podium, but it doesn't come close to a pragmatically applied system. This is my goal, to find what works, if even it's even possible.

The Mises quote you put up is pretty good, and goes toward something I have been formulating in my head about economics- that these systems are passing phenomenon. I'm beggining to believe that any system is simply part of the journey and not the destination.