Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Socialism

Aayu
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 1:46:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why are people against socialism?

Most of the oppositions against it hinge on the rebuttal- it wont work. The problem is, they are based on a false understanding of human nature. The human nature is not a fixed characteristic, it changes as the social structure they live in changes. Marxism specifically addresses that.

Let's discuss. Why not socialism?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 2:00:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Depends on who's against it.

Austrian reason: socialist calculation problem. Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek provided reasoning that without a price mechanism in an economy, goods could not be rationally allocated. This explains why nations under Communist rule had huge excesses of goods in some places and horrible shortages in others. There was no rational way to decide where demand was greatest and to what extent goods needed to be transferred. Under capitalism, prices determine this since they function as a signal representing supply and demand.

Conservative reason (not necessarily all conservatives but those who bring up the criticism are almost invariably conservative): incentive problem. The reason a capitalist economy works the way it does is because people have rational incentive to actually do work. Pure neoclassical capitalism is basically a perfect meritocracy. If you work hard you are rewarded in proportion to that and if you screw around you're punished in proportion. Under socialism, no one had incentive to actually work since they're pay is not related to how well they do. It's more commonly related to how much political pull one has.

Anarcho Communist reason: state control problem. Under socialism (in it's commonly used context), the means of production are controlled and regulated by the State. Any anarchist will necessarily have a problem with this. Even though AnCommunists favor democratic management of the economy, they favor decentralist control. State control is necessarily centralistic and thus AnCommunists fear it is vulnerable to control by an elite minority which is not in the interest of those who favor a classless society.

Here I'm not necessarily arguing for the soundness of any of these criticisms, I'm just attempting to correctly outline some of the common criticisms of socialism.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Aayu
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 2:30:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 2:00:20 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Depends on who's against it.

Austrian reason: socialist calculation problem. Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek provided reasoning that without a price mechanism in an economy, goods could not be rationally allocated. This explains why nations under Communist rule had huge excesses of goods in some places and horrible shortages in others. There was no rational way to decide where demand was greatest and to what extent goods needed to be transferred. Under capitalism, prices determine this since they function as a signal representing supply and demand.

The problem was that they were state- socialist societies, which was bound to collapse. The problem is, given that the capitalist society focuses of maximising profits, the aim becomes to make sure that there is some scarcity, something that would maintain a higher rice, hence maximising profit. Overabundance can become a reality if profit maximising isn't the motivating factor. Non economic goods are not priced, pricing wont even be necessary in a anarchist communist society.


Conservative reason (not necessarily all conservatives but those who bring up the criticism are almost invariably conservative): incentive problem. The reason a capitalist economy works the way it does is because people have rational incentive to actually do work. Pure neoclassical capitalism is basically a perfect meritocracy. If you work hard you are rewarded in proportion to that and if you screw around you're punished in proportion. Under socialism, no one had incentive to actually work since they're pay is not related to how well they do. It's more commonly related to how much political pull one has.

Incentive problem is mainly a vicious cycle. Capitalist economy rewards your work through money, and a person works to earn more money. Since money becomes the sole motivator,people forget that they are intrinsically motivated to work because of the work itself. i.e they would work because the act of working gives them satisfaction, contentment. In a system where they won't be given money, they think they'd lose their source of motivation, which isn't true. In a society where the hard workers are rewarded by social respect, people would find motivation to work.



Anarcho Communist reason: state control problem. Under socialism (in it's commonly used context), the means of production are controlled and regulated by the State. Any anarchist will necessarily have a problem with this. Even though AnCommunists favor democratic management of the economy, they favor decentralist control. State control is necessarily centralistic and thus AnCommunists fear it is vulnerable to control by an elite minority which is not in the interest of those who favor a classless society.

Socialism, as introduced by Marx, proposes a stateless society. State socialism is relatively easy to implement, but is against the principles of Marx. Anything which would require the setting up of any regimenting power whatsoever, is against the principles of Marx. The real, stateless classless socialism will take dedes, maybe centuries to develop, because it aims at changes the very values that a capitalist society has inscribed in the people. The work ethic is contorted.


Here I'm not necessarily arguing for the soundness of any of these criticisms, I'm just attempting to correctly outline some of the common criticisms of socialism.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 2:43:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 2:30:45 AM, Aayu wrote:

The problem was that they were state- socialist societies, which was bound to collapse. The problem is, given that the capitalist society focuses of maximising profits, the aim becomes to make sure that there is some scarcity, something that would maintain a higher rice, hence maximising profit. Overabundance can become a reality if profit maximising isn't the motivating factor. Non economic goods are not priced, pricing wont even be necessary in a anarchist communist society.

You haven't actually shown why prices aren't necessary to coordinate goods. And your point that it is within capitalists interests to create scarcity, you fail to understand the fact that not all capitalists are in cahoots (and when they try it's a very shaky relationship indeed). If one firm under produces to create more scarcity, another one can step right in and overproduce to make up for that, thus raking in the extra profits which might have gone to the under producing firm.

Incentive problem is mainly a vicious cycle. Capitalist economy rewards your work through money, and a person works to earn more money. Since money becomes the sole motivator,people forget that they are intrinsically motivated to work because of the work itself. i.e they would work because the act of working gives them satisfaction, contentment. In a system where they won't be given money, they think they'd lose their source of motivation, which isn't true. In a society where the hard workers are rewarded by social respect, people would find motivation to work.

What motivates someone to be a garbage man or do menial jobs with terrible working conditions? The answer is that they believe they get more out of it then they would with their other options, a better paycheck. If I know I'm going to receive the same pay regardless of how well I do some job with terrible working conditions, I'm certainly rationally incentivised to slack off as much as possible. The social function of work isn't necessarily enough to overcome that fact.

Socialism, as introduced by Marx, proposes a stateless society. State socialism is relatively easy to implement, but is against the principles of Marx. Anything which would require the setting up of any regimenting power whatsoever, is against the principles of Marx. The real, stateless classless socialism will take dedes, maybe centuries to develop, because it aims at changes the very values that a capitalist society has inscribed in the people. The work ethic is contorted.

Marx never proposed anything. Remember that he subscribed to the dialectical materialist conception of history. He believed society was moved by economic forces and that eventually the inherent contradictions in capitalism would lead to it's downfall and thus the implementation of a new system. The thesis (capitalism) is challenged by its anti-thesis (socialism) and the synthesis (proletarian revolution) becomes the new thesis. Then a new anti-thesis develops, stateless communism in this instance which will takeover as the inherent contradictions in State socialism give way. Society as Marx conceived it moves along until the inner economic contradictions within it are completely erradicated with Stateless communism being the final stage. He thought it was inevitable and thus wasn't prescribing it in the sense you seem to think he did.

But anyways, your point about State socialism being against the principles of Marx is wrong. Under his own conception of history, State socialism was a necessary point to reach before Stateless communism would arise as its anti-thesis. Any society that would move from capitalism directly to Stateless communism in contrast would be against the principles of Marx. A

nd I don't think State socialism would give way to communism. Marx here was ignorant of basic human nature. When people get that kind of power they never give it up. Just look at Lenin, Stalin, and Mao's revision of Marx's thought. Most of it seeks to enhance or concentrate power during the socialist period. Whether it be a vanguard party or a cultural revolution, these are clear distortions of Marxist thought but are the inevitable result of those seeking to retain their power.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 2:49:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The point about Marx brings up a point I've been thinking about lately. Perhaps it isn't as much economic conditions that shape and move history as it is power relations. It would certainly explain the later "Marxists" revision of Marx's thought to retain their power over others. Even though economic conditions superficially changed (the Communist party took over the role of the capitalists and everyone else was downgraded to the proletarian), a certain factor remained the same: the want of power.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Aayu
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 6:37:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 2:43:24 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/16/2012 2:30:45 AM, Aayu wrote:


You haven't actually shown why prices aren't necessary to coordinate goods.

The purpose of pricing isn't to coordinate the goods, it is to make sure that the demand = supply of goods. It won't make sure that the supply is enough to equate itself to the desired demand.

And your point that it is within capitalists interests to create scarcity, you fail to understand the fact that not all capitalists are in cahoots (and when they try it's a very shaky relationship indeed). If one firm under produces to create more scarcity, another one can step right in and overproduce to make up for that, thus raking in the extra profits which might have gone to the under producing firm.

But then again, that won't exactly work in its favour. Each business works to maximise the profit, the point at which the Revenue - Costs would maximize. Prices fall as supply expands. The end result being, in a capitalist society, as the production of a good would reach a stage where it would equate itself to the actual desire demand, the supply would fall- since it would be no longer profitable to produce that good. Th eproduction cannot reach a point where every citizen is satisfied , not because of technological constraints (because there are not), but because teh structure of economy does not allow that. The incentives are screwed.


What motivates someone to be a garbage man or do menial jobs with terrible working conditions? The answer is that they believe they get more out of it then they would with their other options, a better paycheck. If I know I'm going to receive the same pay regardless of how well I do some job with terrible working conditions, I'm certainly rationally incentivised to slack off as much as possible. The social function of work isn't necessarily enough to overcome that fact.

See, this again is the same point. The underlying assumption is that man is a lazy creature. Today, we equate the monetary rewards with our incentives. And we believe that is the human nature. That is not true. We all want to participate in the society. We are social animals by nature. The satisfaction one gets by serving the society must not be under emphasized. When one does not work for money, and rather- works to satisfy himself. It's a work ethic change, which would occur slowly. We are working under a different social conditions.

Socialism, as introduced by Marx, proposes a stateless society. State socialism is relatively easy to implement, but is against the principles of Marx. Anything which would require the setting up of any regimenting power whatsoever, is against the principles of Marx. The real, stateless classless socialism will take dedes, maybe centuries to develop, because it aims at changes the very values that a capitalist society has inscribed in the people. The work ethic is contorted.

Marx never proposed anything. Remember that he subscribed to the dialectical materialist conception of history. He believed society was moved by economic forces and that eventually the inherent contradictions in capitalism would lead to it's downfall and thus the implementation of a new system. The thesis (capitalism) is challenged by its anti-thesis (socialism) and the synthesis (proletarian revolution) becomes the new thesis. Then a new anti-thesis develops, stateless communism in this instance which will takeover as the inherent contradictions in State socialism give way. Society as Marx conceived it moves along until the inner economic contradictions within it are completely erradicated with Stateless communism being the final stage. He thought it was inevitable and thus wasn't prescribing it in the sense you seem to think he did.

Oh.. I apologise for the misunderstanding. That was a pretty careless use of words, I merely wanted to emphasise that socialism is usually associated with state socialism, which has its own set of problems. The Marx theory puts more emphasis on liberation of mankind, and he supported (?) a stateless classless society, anarchist communism.

But anyways, your point about State socialism being against the principles of Marx is wrong. Under his own conception of history, State socialism was a necessary point to reach before Stateless communism would arise as its anti-thesis.
Exactly. State socialism is not pure socialism. It is not Marxism, it is what we can call, an in betweener. Citing the problems with State socialism as the problems with Marxism is not right, because that is not at all what his theory is all about. He never claimed state socialism would be free of problems.
Any society that would move from capitalism directly to Stateless communism in contrast would be against the principles of Marx. And I don't think State socialism would give way to communism. Marx here was ignorant of basic human nature. When people get that kind of power they never give it up. Just look at Lenin, Stalin, and Mao's revision of Marx's thought. Most of it seeks to enhance or concentrate power during the socialist period. Whether it be a vanguard party or a cultural revolution, these are clear distortions of Marxist thought but are the inevitable result of those seeking to retain their power.

Here, I'd hold out for a ‘philosopher-ruler'. The state socialism has not progressed into stateless socialism because the right people haven't bought out the state socialism. I think the previous efforts failed also because of the timings of the uprising. Marxism presumes a high public participation in politics, the transition cannot take place only at the whim of the rulers. However, historically, the state socialism occurred at the time rulers had quite a hold on the population. Take China before Mao Zedong, for example. There was imperialism (Qing dynasty), then it DID become a republic, but was quite weak. The KMT won against the warlord, and scared away the communists, but had to join hands with them after the Japanese attack, leading to civil war between the two which ultimately the communists won.

The point being, the republic system never did settle in China, liberty never a top priority. The media was never free, the public never openly participating. Some of the components that would help us today, if we were to convert to socialism. They were not perfect examples.
Aayu
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 6:51:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 2:49:51 AM, socialpinko wrote:
The point about Marx brings up a point I've been thinking about lately. Perhaps it isn't as much economic conditions that shape and move history as it is power relations. It would certainly explain the later "Marxists" revision of Marx's thought to retain their power over others. Even though economic conditions superficially changed (the Communist party took over the role of the capitalists and everyone else was downgraded to the proletarian), a certain factor remained the same: the want of power.

Yeah,the want of power is something that remains universal. One can say it is the source of all evil? Like, in capitalism- it is equated to money, hence the corruption, and hence the high inequality. I think once power becomes equated to social standing, which becomes equated to the level of good you do, can truly any ideology reach its ideal form. Although it's highly idealistic , I don't think its impossible. It just needs a shift of power structure.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 6:53:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 6:37:25 AM, Aayu wrote:

The purpose of pricing isn't to coordinate the goods, it is to make sure that the demand = supply of goods. It won't make sure that the supply is enough to equate itself to the desired demand.

Nah bro. Supply equaling demand is simply a neoclassical fantasy. The economy is always changing. Plus what I meant was that prices function as a signal to those who own the means of production and tells them what areas of the economy are optimal to invest in. Let's say the price of shoes goes way up. This would mean that either there is a shortage of shoes relative to demand or demand has shot up relative to supply. Either way those prices serve as a signal of this fact. Price is simply where demand meets supply.

But then again, that won't exactly work in its favour. Each business works to maximise the profit, the point at which the Revenue - Costs would maximize. Prices fall as supply expands. The end result being, in a capitalist society, as the production of a good would reach a stage where it would equate itself to the actual desire demand, the supply would fall- since it would be no longer profitable to produce that good. Th eproduction cannot reach a point where every citizen is satisfied , not because of technological constraints (because there are not), but because teh structure of economy does not allow that. The incentives are screwed.

Your point makes the unwarranted jump from supply reaching an equilibrium in relation to demand to the idea that this would mean supply would fall. Why would it become unprofitable to create such goods all of a sudden? Just because there's a cap doesn't mean something becomes a negative use i.e. it doesn't mean that one can't make a profit on it. It just means profits don't expand indefinitely. That's what technological innovation is for. It allows labor costs to be reduced as it takes less labor to create the end product, saving on production costs and adding those saved costs to revenue.

See, this again is the same point. The underlying assumption is that man is a lazy creature. Today, we equate the monetary rewards with our incentives. And we believe that is the human nature. That is not true. We all want to participate in the society. We are social animals by nature. The satisfaction one gets by serving the society must not be under emphasized. When one does not work for money, and rather- works to satisfy himself. It's a work ethic change, which would occur slowly. We are working under a different social conditions.

It's not that man is lazy, it's that man reacts to incentives pure and simple. We're naturally self interested to a point. This doesn't discount sociability, it just recognizes we have self interests. Now I understand your point about the need to be part of society and don't deny this. However, I don't see how this would translate to wanting to do jobs which are either menial or degrading. We want to participate in society in a way that is also a bit pleasurable to say the least. People generally don't picture digging ditches as their optimal way to interact in society.

Oh.. I apologise for the misunderstanding. That was a pretty careless use of words, I merely wanted to emphasise that socialism is usually associated with state socialism, which has its own set of problems. The Marx theory puts more emphasis on liberation of mankind, and he supported (?) a stateless classless society, anarchist communism.

He certainly thought it was the end route, it was that State socialism failed to take into account its inherent incentive structures when it was proposed that the State would simply wither away. Like capitalism though, when those elite gain power they tend to want to keep it. Just as capitalism was a good product of the anti-thesis to feudalism, it wasn't the end result and since there were still inherent contradictions, revolution is necessary to abolish it. The same is true for State socialism.

Exactly. State socialism is not pure socialism. It is not Marxism, it is what we can call, an in betweener. Citing the problems with State socialism as the problems with Marxism is not right, because that is not at all what his theory is all about. He never claimed state socialism would be free of problems.

I know but he never proposed any real way to get around the inherent problems with it. He didn't support proletarian revolution to overthrow it when the inherent contradictions in the system would become unbearable. He simply thought it would wither away which as we know never actually happened. Marx was certainly right about some things but his work on what to do after abolishing capitalism is wanting to say the least.

Here, I'd hold out for a ‘philosopher-ruler'. The state socialism has not progressed into stateless socialism because the right people haven't bought out the state socialism. I think the previous efforts failed also because of the timings of the uprising. Marxism presumes a high public participation in politics, the transition cannot take place only at the whim of the rulers. However, historically, the state socialism occurred at the time rulers had quite a hold on the population. Take China before Mao Zedong, for example. There was imperialism (Qing dynasty), then it DID become a republic, but was quite weak. The KMT won against the warlord, and scared away the communists, but had to join hands with them after the Japanese attack, leading to civil war between the two which ultimately the communists won.

The point being, the republic system never did settle in China, liberty never a top priority. The media was never free, the public never openly participating. Some of the components that would help us today, if we were to convert to socialism. They were not perfect examples.

That's not the only problem. There's also the fact that the State has incentive structures within itself. Public choice theory shows that there is no rational reason for the average citizen to be interested in politics since the worth of one vote by itself doesn't affect anything and the amount of time and energy needed to be change things is too much for the average person. This is an incentive problem inherent in any large scale government with public participation, not just socialism though. My point is that it might not be a historical problem, but an inherent problem with the State.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 11:21:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am a Progressive, but have Centrist economic views, I am against Socialism.

A Capitalist market distributes resources based on price signals in the market, and thus goods are supposed to be produced with greater efficiency to maximize profits, and with just regulations in place by the gov't quality will still remain. And through the effort of distributing goods and maximizing profits, people naturally try and consume as much as they can with the least amount of resources (cost benefit analysis) and thus the market makes the distribution of goods ever so efficient.

Socialism, in which the gov't distributes goods, does not respond to price signals or profit motives, etc, so some areas are naturally deprived of goods while others are not. It distributes resources badly, and removes the incentive to work, which makes the whole market system fall apart.

The only area where gov't is more efficient than the private sector is with defense, and insurance, primarily national health insurance. But I still think Capitalism is the way to go.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 1:03:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 11:21:43 AM, Contra wrote:
I am a Progressive, but have Centrist economic views, I am against Socialism.

A Capitalist market distributes resources based on price signals in the market, and thus goods are supposed to be produced with greater efficiency to maximize profits, and with just regulations in place by the gov't quality will still remain. And through the effort of distributing goods and maximizing profits, people naturally try and consume as much as they can with the least amount of resources (cost benefit analysis) and thus the market makes the distribution of goods ever so efficient.

Socialism, in which the gov't distributes goods, does not respond to price signals or profit motives, etc, so some areas are naturally deprived of goods while others are not. It distributes resources badly, and removes the incentive to work, which makes the whole market system fall apart.

The only area where gov't is more efficient than the private sector is with defense, and insurance, primarily national health insurance. But I still think Capitalism is the way to go.

Why do you believe the free market is less efficient in these systems but more efficient in others? What's the fundamental difference between them and other goods and services?

I also noticed that your list makes a good case for privatization of a lot of goods and services that are already run via the public.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 1:34:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Almost every form of socialism was tried in the 20th Century, and each failed. All the new nations of Africa in the 60s tried various forms of socialism, all failed. Democratic socialism in Europe failed, and have moved to heavily taxed and regulated capitalism, which is now failing.

Capitalism has also been tried in many forms, and economic success is achieved in proportion to how free the markets are. Taiwan and South Korea started as authoritarian regimes with a space carved out for free markets. They achieved dramatic economic success, and the authoritarian aspect eventually eroded.

The question is not if socialism fails, the question is why is fails. The basic economic fault is that government bureaucrats cannot determine supply and demand with anything close to the efficiency of free markets, and the overhead of maintaining a huge bureaucracy to attempt to determine markets is fatal. A bureaucracy never rewards innovation, so socialist governments do not invent smart phones or computer games or anything that amounts to progress.

Capitalism drives profits down. If an industry is making big profits, competitors rush in to cash in on the demand. Wal-mart made $3.74 billion in profits on $97 billion in sales. Imagine a government bureaucracy trying to provide low-cost goods with only a 4% loss of efficiency. It's inconceivable.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 3:48:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 1:03:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:21:43 AM, Contra wrote:
I am a Progressive, but have Centrist economic views, I am against Socialism.

A Capitalist market distributes resources based on price signals in the market, and thus goods are supposed to be produced with greater efficiency to maximize profits, and with just regulations in place by the gov't quality will still remain. And through the effort of distributing goods and maximizing profits, people naturally try and consume as much as they can with the least amount of resources (cost benefit analysis) and thus the market makes the distribution of goods ever so efficient.

Socialism, in which the gov't distributes goods, does not respond to price signals or profit motives, etc, so some areas are naturally deprived of goods while others are not. It distributes resources badly, and removes the incentive to work, which makes the whole market system fall apart.

The only area where gov't is more efficient than the private sector is with defense, and insurance, primarily national health insurance. But I still think Capitalism is the way to go.

Why do you believe the free market is less efficient in these systems but more efficient in others? What's the fundamental difference between them and other goods and services?

The market is efficient providing many goods and services. When it comes to general insurance though, with high administrative costs, the government is more efficient. That is why I'm a strong proponent of national health insurance. And many services can be provided by the market, but others, such as a strong job-creating infrastructure I believe is best provided by the government (roads, education system, water supplies).

I also noticed that your list makes a good case for privatization of a lot of goods and services that are already run via the public.

Honestly yes there are many areas that can be privatized, but others must be ran by the government for the public benefit. Things like highways, electric providers, a limited amount of schools, and transportation can be privatized (high speed rail though, I am unsure on that).

When it comes to economics, I am Centrist, leaning to the left.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 3:50:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 3:48:44 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/16/2012 1:03:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/16/2012 11:21:43 AM, Contra wrote:
I am a Progressive, but have Centrist economic views, I am against Socialism.

A Capitalist market distributes resources based on price signals in the market, and thus goods are supposed to be produced with greater efficiency to maximize profits, and with just regulations in place by the gov't quality will still remain. And through the effort of distributing goods and maximizing profits, people naturally try and consume as much as they can with the least amount of resources (cost benefit analysis) and thus the market makes the distribution of goods ever so efficient.

Socialism, in which the gov't distributes goods, does not respond to price signals or profit motives, etc, so some areas are naturally deprived of goods while others are not. It distributes resources badly, and removes the incentive to work, which makes the whole market system fall apart.

The only area where gov't is more efficient than the private sector is with defense, and insurance, primarily national health insurance. But I still think Capitalism is the way to go.

Why do you believe the free market is less efficient in these systems but more efficient in others? What's the fundamental difference between them and other goods and services?

The market is efficient providing many goods and services. When it comes to general insurance though, with high administrative costs, the government is more efficient. That is why I'm a strong proponent of national health insurance. And many services can be provided by the market, but others, such as a strong job-creating infrastructure I believe is best provided by the government (roads, education system, water supplies).

I also noticed that your list makes a good case for privatization of a lot of goods and services that are already run via the public.

Honestly yes there are many areas that can be privatized, but others must be ran by the government for the public benefit. Things like highways, electric providers, a limited amount of schools, and transportation can be privatized (high speed rail though, I am unsure on that).

When it comes to economics, I am Centrist, leaning to the left.

Congratulations on the baby steps to the Dark Side!
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2012 5:33:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 3:48:44 PM, Contra wrote:
The market is efficient providing many goods and services. When it comes to general insurance though, with high administrative costs, the government is more efficient. That is why I'm a strong proponent of national health insurance. And many services can be provided by the market, but others, such as a strong job-creating infrastructure I believe is best provided by the government (roads, education system, water supplies).

Lower administrative costs are traded for terrible oversight of health resources. You could make to case for lower administrative costs on just about anything centrally planned and managed.
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:06:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Soviet Union.

You'll probably answer "lack of democracy", and it's a solid counter-punch. But then, even in democratic countries, when one wants to get, say, a driver's license, one tends to be treated more as livestock than as a human being. This convinces me that democratic socialism would have many of the same problems the USSR had.

Of course, this is all mostly relevant to socialism with a centrally planned economy. How about market socialism?

I think we'd still need smaller businesses to be private, and new businesses to be started privately. Once a new business achieved a certain size and stability, the government would loan the money to pay a handsome price for it, and turn it into an employee-owned company, which would have to compete successfully with other companies (generally also employee owned). In recent times, people who start fast-growing companies generally are not interested in running them once they become solid, going concerns. So we could still expect new companies to continue to be formed under this system. Monopolies would continue to be prohibited.

But consider that this still would mean a much more powerful government, and that employees would be much more able to run their companies into the ground than they are now. I would like to have more faith in the common sense of the average person, but the average person does not make this easy for me. It took the most undemocratic element of the US Government, the Supreme Court, to end segregation in the public schools. One must crawl before walking before running. I would like to see the public use its vote to bring about the many small changes that would make for a more just society. Successful market socialism may lie down this road, but a long way down.

One should not be dismissive of the suffering of those who continue to lack proper food and shelter in the Western democracies. But there is much more continuing bigotry in these countries than can be explained by persistent poverty and insecurity. Consider how belief systems meant to deal with the lack of effective birth control persist when birth control is available. Ironically, these belief systems only change to incorporate a condemnation of using said birth control. Likewise, the evil elements of human culture will persist for some time after the causes for them are eliminated. This typically results in the classic paradox of needing the chicken to have the egg to have the chicken. Lenin's solution was a revolutionary vanguard to make positive social changes, and keep the evils at bay as they gradually died out. But of course said undemocratic vanguard ended up fomenting evil rather than keeping it at bay.

At 6/16/2012 1:46:01 AM, Aayu wrote:
Why are people against socialism?

Most of the oppositions against it hinge on the rebuttal- it wont work. The problem is, they are based on a false understanding of human nature. The human nature is not a fixed characteristic, it changes as the social structure they live in changes. Marxism specifically addresses that.

Let's discuss. Why not socialism?
Aayu
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 12:55:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 6:37:25 AM, Aayu wrote:

Nah bro. Supply equaling demand is simply a neoclassical fantasy. The economy is always changing. Plus what I meant was that prices function as a signal to those who own the means of production and tells them what areas of the economy are optimal to invest in. Let's say the price of shoes goes way up. This would mean that either there is a shortage of shoes relative to demand or demand has shot up relative to supply. Either way those prices serve as a signal of this fact. Price is simply where demand meets supply.

Yeah… Price is the point where demand equals supply, where the demand is too high in relation to its supply, the price would rocket, effectively shaving off a lot of demand (mostly from the lower sectors of economy.) Prices are the signals of the market, the reign in the supply or the demand whenever it increases or decreases too much in relation to the other.

So, the process is good as long as your main aim is to make sure that the goods produced are used up. They don't make sure there is universal satisfaction of all the needs.

Your point makes the unwarranted jump from supply reaching an equilibrium in relation to demand to the idea that this would mean supply would fall. Why would it become unprofitable to create such goods all of a sudden? Just because there's a cap doesn't mean something becomes a negative use i.e. it doesn't mean that one can't make a profit on it. It just means profits don't expand indefinitely. That's what technological innovation is for. It allows labor costs to be reduced as it takes less labor to create the end product, saving on production costs and adding those saved costs to revenue.

Technological progress isn't usually warranted for in the system, precisely because it is not certain. Firms do not make economic decisions based on some possible technology change.

At the point where everyone can afford a good, take water for example, the actual value of the good falls. That's why the corporations try to increase the value of ‘their' water by claiming is germ-free, pure and that bull. If there was a scarcity of a certain good, the price of the same would rise, garnering more profits to the producer.

IF there was a scarcity, the prices would go up, more firms supplying water would move into the industry, raking in the profits. If the supply increases too much, prices would fall, and many firms would stop supplying them because they'd incur losses.

In a capitalist society, it is just not possible for an economic good to become non-economic because the societal structure won't permit it. The price would make sure some people are unable to afford something, mainly because that's how the system works.

It's not that man is lazy, it's that man reacts to incentives pure and simple. We're naturally self interested to a point. This doesn't discount sociability, it just recognizes we have self interests. Now I understand your point about the need to be part of society and don't deny this. However, I don't see how this would translate to wanting to do jobs which are either menial or degrading. We want to participate in society in a way that is also a bit pleasurable to say the least. People generally don't picture digging ditches as their optimal way to interact in society.

It is subjective. We are talking of a lot of people. Each of whose mind waves work in a different way. There are bound to be a lot of people who'd shrug off the hard work required to become a doctor, even though they provide high satisfaction. They'd contend themselves to work menially.

I know but he never proposed any real way to get around the inherent problems with it. He didn't support proletarian revolution to overthrow it when the inherent contradictions in the system would become unbearable. He simply thought it would wither away which as we know never actually happened. Marx was certainly right about some things but his work on what to do after abolishing capitalism is wanting to say the least.

A lot of his work depended on some presumptions, some of them being high public participation, the universal aim of wanting liberty, and freedom, and the presumption that the public would wean off the state. The problem in historical cases has been that the state socialism has refused to wean off, and then detoriated. Today, however, high public participation being what it is, free media, at least in most of the countries, the social setting is quite close to what Marx might have imagined.

That's not the only problem. There's also the fact that the State has incentive structures within itself. Public choice theory shows that there is no rational reason for the average citizen to be interested in politics since the worth of one vote by itself doesn't affect anything and the amount of time and energy needed to be change things is too much for the average person. This is an incentive problem inherent in any large scale government with public participation, not just socialism though. My point is that it might not be a historical problem, but an inherent problem with the State.

People acting politically—for example, as voters or as legislators—do not behave as they do in markets. Individuals are differently motivated when they are choosing "for the public" rather than for themselves in private choice capacities.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:08:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
State Socialism and Marxism are bad. Libertarian Socialism is quite nice. lol
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 1:34:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:08:35 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
State Socialism and Marxism are bad. Libertarian Socialism is quite nice. lol

What's your beef with Marxism specifically if I might ask?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:27:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 1:34:31 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:08:35 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
State Socialism and Marxism are bad. Libertarian Socialism is quite nice. lol

What's your beef with Marxism specifically if I might ask?

Marxism advocates the "dictatorship of the proletariat" . This is a horrid idea that has cost a lot of people both freedom and life.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 8:55:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 8:27:42 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:34:31 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:08:35 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
State Socialism and Marxism are bad. Libertarian Socialism is quite nice. lol

What's your beef with Marxism specifically if I might ask?

Marxism advocates the "dictatorship of the proletariat" . This is a horrid idea that has cost a lot of people both freedom and life.

Dictatorship didn't refer to an authoritarian regime under Marx's conception. It referred to a worker's democracy wherein the workers controlled the State but it was still held accountable in the normal sense of the word. The first thing one needs to recognize in evaluating Marxism is that Stalin's, Mao's, and most of Lenin's thought is absolutely incompatible with it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:16:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 8:55:40 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 8:27:42 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:34:31 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:08:35 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
State Socialism and Marxism are bad. Libertarian Socialism is quite nice. lol

What's your beef with Marxism specifically if I might ask?

Marxism advocates the "dictatorship of the proletariat" . This is a horrid idea that has cost a lot of people both freedom and life.

Dictatorship didn't refer to an authoritarian regime under Marx's conception. It referred to a worker's democracy wherein the workers controlled the State but it was still held accountable in the normal sense of the wo. rd. The first thing one needs to recognize in evaluating Marxism is that Stalin's, Mao's, and most of Lenin's thought is absolutely incompatible with it.

Even a worker controlled state is a bad idea. It still holds the possibility of becoming a ruthless regime. Also, Marx advocated genocide of races of people that were not developed enough to make the transition into communism.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 9:18:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 9:16:32 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 6/17/2012 8:55:40 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 8:27:42 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:34:31 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:08:35 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
State Socialism and Marxism are bad. Libertarian Socialism is quite nice. lol

What's your beef with Marxism specifically if I might ask?

Marxism advocates the "dictatorship of the proletariat" . This is a horrid idea that has cost a lot of people both freedom and life.

Dictatorship didn't refer to an authoritarian regime under Marx's conception. It referred to a worker's democracy wherein the workers controlled the State but it was still held accountable in the normal sense of the wo. rd. The first thing one needs to recognize in evaluating Marxism is that Stalin's, Mao's, and most of Lenin's thought is absolutely incompatible with it.

Even a worker controlled state is a bad idea. It still holds the possibility of becoming a ruthless regime. Also, Marx advocated genocide of races of people that were not developed enough to make the transition into communism.

(A) The worker controlled State is no more likely to descend into dictatorship then any other State. (B) Where did Marx advocate genocide? From what I understand his work was only descriptive of how history would occur, no moralizing was invovled.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:18:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 8:27:42 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:34:31 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:08:35 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
State Socialism and Marxism are bad. Libertarian Socialism is quite nice. lol

What's your beef with Marxism specifically if I might ask?

Marxism advocates the "dictatorship of the proletariat" . This is a horrid idea that has cost a lot of people both freedom and life.

I don't think Marx meant Stalin's sort of dictatorship. Marx was a great economist but his notions of Political Science were extremely simplistic. He thought politics was all about class, and that once the Proletariat triumphed, society would be classless (so no politics). Government would then be an uncontentious matter, the issues would be administrative, not political, with consensus being the norm. He didn't worry about the details of post-revolutionary government from what I've read. Maybe he expected near-universally loved leaders. making fairly obvious decisions, perhaps without the need for much formal structure.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2012 10:50:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:18:50 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/17/2012 8:27:42 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:34:31 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:08:35 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
State Socialism and Marxism are bad. Libertarian Socialism is quite nice. lol

What's your beef with Marxism specifically if I might ask?

Marxism advocates the "dictatorship of the proletariat" . This is a horrid idea that has cost a lot of people both freedom and life.

I don't think Marx meant Stalin's sort of dictatorship. Marx was a great economist but his notions of Political Science were extremely simplistic. He thought politics was all about class, and that once the Proletariat triumphed, society would be classless (so no politics). Government would then be an uncontentious matter, the issues would be administrative, not political, with consensus being the norm. He didn't worry about the details of post-revolutionary government from what I've read. Maybe he expected near-universally loved leaders. making fairly obvious decisions, perhaps without the need for much formal structure.

Gawd that's not what he thought. He thought society would continue to evolve until it reached a point free of classes (the thing he believed was the driving force behind societal conflict). This would not happen after the worker's revolution. Once State socialism is created, it represents a better synthesis of the thesis and anti-thesis of the last society. However, socialism itself isn't classless and thus logically it would be subject to the same internal contradictions and conflicts of other class societies, just in a different form.

We can see this from the fact that the Communist Party basically took over the role of the capitalist class. These internal contradictions will eventually give way to some revolution wherein the synthesis represents a higher state of society. Problems might be simpler but they're on a different range than previously. History isn't over after worker revolution in Marx's conception, it simply reaches a better stage.

Marx realized that with every new societal development, history was pushed closer to the eradication of class and thus conflict. When barbaric societies gave way to slave societies, it was a good thing in his eyes. Slave systems were bad but he thought better then the previous society. In the same manner he realized that capitalism reached the highest point in societal development at that point. More people lived good lives and the standard of living was at it's historical highest.

However, even though it's great relative to the past dialectics argues that it is still a class society and thus still vulnerable to inherent contradictions that move society. Capitalism is great, it's just not he final stage. On a side note, this is why it pisses me off when Marxists and self-proclaimed followers of his thought call capitalism evil and exploitive and shat. Yeah it has problems but it's the most productive system in history. Give the devil his due as Zizek observed. It's not the best system but that's the point of historical materialism right? Society continues to improve.

These guys would have to argue against every stage of history which isn't the final stage with just as much hatred to stay consistent and lord knows they don't do that. State socialism we all know was a complete failure but Marxists for some reason are more sympathetic to it even though under their own conception, it's also a system strife with internal contradictions and class conflict. Whatever, ideology is a blinding force I suppose.

/rant
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
ChickenTender
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 8:34:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/17/2012 10:50:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:18:50 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/17/2012 8:27:42 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:34:31 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:08:35 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
State Socialism and Marxism are bad. Libertarian Socialism is quite nice. lol

What's your beef with Marxism specifically if I might ask?

Marxism advocates the "dictatorship of the proletariat" . This is a horrid idea that has cost a lot of people both freedom and life.

I don't think Marx meant Stalin's sort of dictatorship. Marx was a great economist but his notions of Political Science were extremely simplistic. He thought politics was all about class, and that once the Proletariat triumphed, society would be classless (so no politics). Government would then be an uncontentious matter, the issues would be administrative, not political, with consensus being the norm. He didn't worry about the details of post-revolutionary government from what I've read. Maybe he expected near-universally loved leaders. making fairly obvious decisions, perhaps without the need for much formal structure.

Gawd that's not what he thought. He thought society would continue to evolve until it reached a point free of classes (the thing he believed was the driving force behind societal conflict). This would not happen after the worker's revolution. Once State socialism is created, it represents a better synthesis of the thesis and anti-thesis of the last society. However, socialism itself isn't classless and thus logically it would be subject to the same internal contradictions and conflicts of other class societies, just in a different form.

No, that doesn't even make any sense. The Bourgeoisie controls capital by definition. If the Proletariat takes it away and establishes socialism, there is no Bourgeoisie. You need at least two classes to not be classless. A socialist society is not a communist one, Marx thought those who worked harder would still need to be paid more. But there are no real class differences, or that was how it was supposed to be in theory.


We can see this from the fact that the Communist Party basically took over the role of the capitalist class. These internal contradictions will eventually give way to some revolution wherein the synthesis represents a higher state of society. Problems might be simpler but they're on a different range than previously. History isn't over after worker revolution in Marx's conception, it simply reaches a better stage.

Marx realized that with every new societal development, history was pushed closer to the eradication of class and thus conflict. When barbaric societies gave way to slave societies, it was a good thing in his eyes. Slave systems were bad but he thought better then the previous society. In the same manner he realized that capitalism reached the highest point in societal development at that point. More people lived good lives and the standard of living was at it's historical highest.

However, even though it's great relative to the past dialectics argues that it is still a class society and thus still vulnerable to inherent contradictions that move society. Capitalism is great, it's just not he final stage. On a side note, this is why it pisses me off when Marxists and self-proclaimed followers of his thought call capitalism evil and exploitive and shat. Yeah it has problems but it's the most productive system in history. Give the devil his due as Zizek observed. It's not the best system but that's the point of historical materialism right? Society continues to improve.

These guys would have to argue against every stage of history which isn't the final stage with just as much hatred to stay consistent and lord knows they don't do that. State socialism we all know was a complete failure but Marxists for some reason are more sympathetic to it even though under their own conception, it's also a system strife with internal contradictions and class conflict. Whatever, ideology is a blinding force I suppose.

/rant
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 9:04:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/16/2012 5:33:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/16/2012 3:48:44 PM, Contra wrote:
The market is efficient providing many goods and services. When it comes to general insurance though, with high administrative costs, the government is more efficient. That is why I'm a strong proponent of national health insurance. And many services can be provided by the market, but others, such as a strong job-creating infrastructure I believe is best provided by the government (roads, education system, water supplies).

Lower administrative costs are traded for terrible oversight of health resources. You could make to case for lower administrative costs on just about anything centrally planned and managed.

It is not centrally planned and managed. Single Payer health care just means the insurance is socialized. All the rest is operated by the private sector. Because gov't is more efficient with insurance. So the private sector utilizes the resources, and revenues are centrally managed and distributed as needed.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:45:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 8:34:22 AM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:50:32 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 10:18:50 PM, ChickenTender wrote:
At 6/17/2012 8:27:42 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:34:31 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/17/2012 1:08:35 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
State Socialism and Marxism are bad. Libertarian Socialism is quite nice. lol

What's your beef with Marxism specifically if I might ask?

Marxism advocates the "dictatorship of the proletariat" . This is a horrid idea that has cost a lot of people both freedom and life.

I don't think Marx meant Stalin's sort of dictatorship. Marx was a great economist but his notions of Political Science were extremely simplistic. He thought politics was all about class, and that once the Proletariat triumphed, society would be classless (so no politics). Government would then be an uncontentious matter, the issues would be administrative, not political, with consensus being the norm. He didn't worry about the details of post-revolutionary government from what I've read. Maybe he expected near-universally loved leaders. making fairly obvious decisions, perhaps without the need for much formal structure.

Gawd that's not what he thought. He thought society would continue to evolve until it reached a point free of classes (the thing he believed was the driving force behind societal conflict). This would not happen after the worker's revolution. Once State socialism is created, it represents a better synthesis of the thesis and anti-thesis of the last society. However, socialism itself isn't classless and thus logically it would be subject to the same internal contradictions and conflicts of other class societies, just in a different form.

No, that doesn't even make any sense. The Bourgeoisie controls capital by definition. If the Proletariat takes it away and establishes socialism, there is no Bourgeoisie. You need at least two classes to not be classless. A socialist society is not a communist one, Marx thought those who worked harder would still need to be paid more. But there are no real class differences, or that was how it was supposed to be in theory.

The proletarian don't just take the capital and make it disappear remember. Once a government is setup the capital is merely re-organized in a different form. The politically connected and high ranking members of the Communist party have historically taken this role of the capitalists while everyone without sufficient political connection takes the role of the proletarians. In theory there are still classes because pure communism has not been reached. So long as this is the case, he theorized, dialectics would run its courses pushing out the internal contradictions until finally we reach such a state of affairs. That state of affairs as definitely NOT State socialism and was never intended to be.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 1:29:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol,

Because it doesn't work.

None of the mechanisms that are necessary for an economy to work, all of which are present in a free market, exist in a state socialist society.
President of DDO
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 1:38:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/23/2012 1:29:25 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Lol,

Because it doesn't work.

None of the mechanisms that are necessary for an economy to work, all of which are present in a free market, exist in a state socialist society.

State socialism sucks. Libertarian Socialism would totally work if given the chance. It worked the last time in Spain however, all the other powers hated the anarchist revolution and squashed it. However, the economy and social structure in Barcelona worked quite well.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2012 1:42:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/23/2012 1:38:25 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 6/23/2012 1:29:25 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Lol,

Because it doesn't work.

None of the mechanisms that are necessary for an economy to work, all of which are present in a free market, exist in a state socialist society.

State socialism sucks. Libertarian Socialism would totally work if given the chance. It worked the last time in Spain however, all the other powers hated the anarchist revolution and squashed it. However, the economy and social structure in Barcelona worked quite well.

IDK.

How is libertarian socialism different from anarcho capitalism?
President of DDO