Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is this socialism or capitalism?

regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 4:43:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I'm moving this debate from twitter, hoping the other party will want to move. Twitter is pretty useless for debates. ;)

OK, so lets first look at the defintion of the words.

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, independent actors looking for profit on a market. The economic funding is provided by capitalists.

Socialism can mean several things, but as an economic system it's the opposite of capitalism. It's common ownership of the means of production. There is no competition for profit, and in practice funding and control is by the state.

Right? So then, take this system: You have a free market with competition. Most actors are private, for profit companies (or independent people). A minority of actors are state owned, but all actors, private and state owned compete for the customers on a free market.

Would you call that system a socialist system?

(Yeah, I know the question is stupid, but that what happens on Twitter, which is why I'm moving it here, to make the debate less moronic. It may not work. :-) )
So prove me wrong, then.
db0
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 5:12:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 4:43:41 AM, regebro wrote:
Socialism can mean several things, but as an economic system it's the opposite of capitalism. It's common ownership of the means of production. There is no competition for profit, and in practice funding and control is by the state.


Then that's not socialism. If the state is doing the funding and control, then there is no common ownership of the means of production. Rather you simply have a bureaucracy controlling them, making the state the de-facto capitalist.

To have actual socialism, people really do need to control the means of production themselves (ie a cooperative). That however does not exclude market competition as you can simply have such cooperatives compete with each other.

Right? So then, take this system: You have a free market with competition. Most actors are private, for profit companies (or independent people). A minority of actors are state owned, but all actors, private and state owned compete for the customers on a free market.

Would you call that system a socialist system?

No.

But then again, I've disagreed with your opponent on the same issue before. He's not convinced.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 5:33:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 5:12:37 AM, db0 wrote:
Then that's not socialism. If the state is doing the funding and control, then there is no common ownership of the means of production.

Of course there is. That is in fact the only practical way to have common ownership of the means of production. If it's common, that means everybody owns it. That means control has to be done democratically, by voting, which in practice can only means that you elect officials to do the actual running.

Yes, you get a bureaucracy.

If you claim that socialism requires the absence of bureaucracy, all you then say is that socialism is a contradiction which is impossible both in practice and in theory.

Rather you simply have a bureaucracy controlling them, making the state the de-facto capitalist.

Yes. That does not make the system capitalist. Capitalism is not the existence of capital (as that would make the universe capitalist per definition). Capitalism is when capital is private and for profit.

To have actual socialism, people really do need to control the means of production themselves (ie a cooperative).

The state is a cooperative. It's where one person has one vote, as opposed to votes being spread after how much you own.

But then again, I've disagreed with your opponent on the same issue before. He's not convinced.

No, because he is a troll, which is why he isn't likely to get here. Thanks for answering, though. :-)
So prove me wrong, then.
db0
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 5:57:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 5:33:09 AM, regebro wrote:
Of course there is. That is in fact the only practical way to have common ownership of the means of production. If it's common, that means everybody owns it. That means control has to be done democratically, by voting, which in practice can only means that you elect officials to do the actual running.

Just because you cannot imagine another way does not make it true. There's a lot of Anarchist literature on the many ways this can be achieved without a state.

You do not need elected officials to make the decisions, nor do you mean the whole populace making decisions on every little thing. People only need to control what they use and coordinate with others through federated means.

Yes, you get a bureaucracy.

If you claim that socialism requires the absence of bureaucracy, all you then say is that socialism is a contradiction which is impossible both in practice and in theory.

Not at all. I'm just saying that you are making an argument from personal incredulity.

Yes. That does not make the system capitalist. Capitalism is not the existence of capital (as that would make the universe capitalist per definition). Capitalism is when capital is private and for profit.

First of all, Capitalism as a definition is vague and can encompass a large amount of systems. Any system which has the capitalist mode of production as the dominant form can be classified as capitalist. And the capitalist mode of production is the worker producing less than they receive back, while the owner receiving surplus value they did not produce themselves.

Under this definition, a bureaucracy can be a capitalist as it gets to keep the surplus value the workers create and use it as they wish.

In short: The bureaucracy can just as well be called a private owner, as it's impossible to take back control of the capital from them unless you go into a stateless society, ie actual socialism.

The state is a cooperative. It's where one person has one vote, as opposed to votes being spread after how much you own.

The possibility to vote does not automatically make a state a cooperative. This can easily be seen by how the state is built around rules which makes it so that only an elite class of people (the weathy) get into it. Or alternatively that only those who have a particular mentality can get into it.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 6:36:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 5:57:12 AM, db0 wrote:
Just because you cannot imagine another way does not make it true. There's a lot of Anarchist literature on the many ways this can be achieved without a state.

At the moment we are discussing reality, and not some sort of utopian fantasy. What is possible in theory is not relevant to the question if one existing system is socialist or not.

You do not need elected officials to make the decisions

For common ownership you do, since everybody must have equal say. You can't have millions of people having equal say in how a powerdrill in a factory should be used without using representative democracy. It's simply impossible, both in theory and practice.

nor do you mean the whole populace making decisions on every little thing.

I don't mean anything, I am not a socialist. But socialists do mean that. Because if you don't then you aren't talking about common ownership any more. Yes, many individualistic anarchist theories do drop the requirement of common ownership, but then they also remove all theoretical and practical difference towards anarcho-capitalism. And then it's not socialism any more, whatever the anarchists say. That is a definition of socialism where the word simply no longer means anything, it's just used as a sort of fluffy pink pacifier blanket.

People only need to control what they use and coordinate with others through federated means.

Unless that means representative democracy, you have reduced the meaning of the words to nothing.

Not at all. I'm just saying that you are making an argument from personal incredulity.

No, I'm not. This is not a case of "I can't imaging it". It's a case of "it is impossible". Big difference.

First of all, Capitalism as a definition is vague and can encompass a large amount of systems.

I gave a non-vague definition. You think it's vague either because you don't understand it, or because no definition fits with your preconcieved ideas. It's very popular amongst socialists to have vague definitions, and both use them to say nothing while still using the same words, and as you do now, blame the vague definitions. You cna't do that with me,. My definitions are not vague.

Any system which has the capitalist mode of production as the dominant form can be classified as capitalist. And the capitalist mode of production is the worker producing less than they receive back, while the owner receiving surplus value they did not produce themselves.

With that definition, no system is capitalist, as this simply don't happen. You are basing this argument on Marx theories of economics, which are not only since more than a 100 years thoroughly disproven, but are based on the assumption of objective value, which is simply incorrect. Value is not objective.

The possibility to vote does not automatically make a state a cooperative.

Of course not, the vote has to be democratic as well. That was an unstated (and in my opinion completely obvious) assumption.

You are already in this discussion trying to flee the field by redefining words until they mean nothing and reverting back to Marx failed economic theories. It's not going to work. We can continue, but I have had this discussion what seems to be millions of times already. I know where it's going to end up. You will, with your back to the wall, either start calling me names, or claim that "everything is relative" and that you "can't know anything", deny the knowability of the universe and state that all facts are just opinions. In this way you can shut yourself into a castle of subjectivity and hence protect yourself from the cold harshness of objective reality.

We won't come anywhere, you can not be convinced of anything if you deny that there is true and false, and that's where you are going to end up pretty damn soon. I recognize the mode...
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 7:30:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
If the state is doing the funding and control, then there is no common ownership of the means of production
In other words there is no such thing as socialism in your mind, because the definition you've implied here is a contradiction in terms.

First of all, Capitalism as a definition is vague and can encompass a large amount of systems. Any system which has the capitalist mode of production as the dominant form can be classified as capitalist.
The "Capitalist mode of production" in the sense you speak of it is a definition given by Marx. It has no bearing on what an actual system conforming with the ideology "capitalism" would look like. Marx's definition is far broader than that of any capitalist ("capitalist" referring to a proponent of capitalism, not a private employer).

Right? So then, take this system: You have a free market with competition. Most actors are private, for profit companies (or independent people). A minority of actors are state owned, but all actors, private and state owned compete for the customers on a free market.
Exactly how did the state come to own this minority of actors? It is essential to know that in order to know whether it meets a non-slur definition of capitalism (a social and economic system based on the prohibition of the initiation of force and fraud).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
db0
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 9:25:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 6:36:07 AM, regebro wrote:
At 7/29/2009 5:57:12 AM, db0 wrote:
Just because you cannot imagine another way does not make it true. There's a lot of Anarchist literature on the many ways this can be achieved without a state.

At the moment we are discussing reality, and not some sort of utopian fantasy. What is possible in theory is not relevant to the question if one existing system is socialist or not.


Socialism is a theory which has not managed to be put into practice for any long amount of time (eg Spanish Revolution). As such we can only talk about the the concept as it has ben theorized, not on what you think socialism is.

In short, a concept may be theoretical but that does not invalidate it, anymore than when democracy was theoretical it was invalid.

You do not need elected officials to make the decisions

For common ownership you do, since everybody must have equal say. You can't have millions of people having equal say in how a powerdrill in a factory should be used without using representative democracy. It's simply impossible, both in theory and practice.

Nope, millions of people don't need to have an equal share on hw a powerdrill will be used in a factory. The workers in the factory have to. The millions of people can affect the factory direction through a democratic vote if that is somehow warranted, and that does not need representatives either. But in the normal running of things, the only ones who care how the powerdrill is used are its workers, and the only ones who care what the factory does is possibly its immediate community or its syndicate.

I don't mean anything, I am not a socialist. But socialists do mean that. Because if you don't then you aren't talking about common ownership any more. Yes, many individualistic anarchist theories do drop the requirement of common ownership, but then they also remove all theoretical and practical difference towards anarcho-capitalism. And then it's not socialism any more, whatever the anarchists say. That is a definition of socialism where the word simply no longer means anything, it's just used as a sort of fluffy pink pacifier blanket.

I am a socialist and I do not mean that. And yes, it is still common ownership. Again, just because you refuse to understand it does not make you right.

Unless that means representative democracy, you have reduced the meaning of the words to nothing.

No I haven't. I explained another way to coordinate without representative democracy.


Not at all. I'm just saying that you are making an argument from personal incredulity.

No, I'm not. This is not a case of "I can't imaging it". It's a case of "it is impossible". Big difference.

Your argument for it's impossibility is because you can't imagine it. You haven't provided any other argumentation.

First of all, Capitalism as a definition is vague and can encompass a large amount of systems.

I gave a non-vague definition. You think it's vague either because you don't understand it, or because no definition fits with your preconcieved ideas. It's very popular amongst socialists to have vague definitions, and both use them to say nothing while still using the same words, and as you do now, blame the vague definitions. You cna't do that with me,. My definitions are not vague.

The definition of "Capitalism" is vague because everyone seems to have a different meaning for it. However when socialists talk about capitalism, they mean a particular system. Thus when we're discussing about socialism and we mean the abolishment of capitalism, we mean the abolishment of capitalism as we've defined it.

What you're trying to do is say that Capitalism is DefA. And Socialism is the opposite of Capitalism. Thus Socialism is DefB. But this is not what Socialists suggest. This is just the setup of a Strawman.

Any system which has the capitalist mode of production as the dominant form can be classified as capitalist. And the capitalist mode of production is the worker producing less than they receive back, while the owner receiving surplus value they did not produce themselves.

With that definition, no system is capitalist, as this simply don't happen. You are basing this argument on Marx theories of economics, which are not only since more than a 100 years thoroughly disproven, but are based on the assumption of objective value, which is simply incorrect. Value is not objective.

Marx's theories are far from disproven and value has objective and subjective elements. But this is all besides the point. By my definition what we have now, as well as what Marx described is a Capitalist system, ie workers producing more value than they get back in return is the dominant form of production.

Don't forget that "Capitalism" is historically a Marxian concept.

The possibility to vote does not automatically make a state a cooperative.

Of course not, the vote has to be democratic as well. That was an unstated (and in my opinion completely obvious) assumption.

That doesn't make a cooperative as well. It requires that the practical control is in the hands of the workers, not of an elected ruler.


You are already in this discussion trying to flee the field by redefining words until they mean nothing and reverting back to Marx failed economic theories. It's not going to work. We can continue, but I have had this discussion what seems to be millions of times already. I know where it's going to end up. You will, with your back to the wall, either start calling me names, or claim that "everything is relative" and that you "can't know anything", deny the knowability of the universe and state that all facts are just opinions. In this way you can shut yourself into a castle of subjectivity and hence protect yourself from the cold harshness of objective reality.

I find it amusing that you need to imply that I am scared of your arguments. I'm not. I find them extremely weak and based on definitions and incredulity rather than any solid basis.

I also find it amusing that instead of arguing, you prefer to attack Marxian economics which I didn't even bring up.

I lastly find it amusing that your presume to tell the future.


We won't come anywhere, you can not be convinced of anything if you deny that there is true and false, and that's where you are going to end up pretty damn soon. I recognize the mode...

Let me know where I can buy some of your crystal balls.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 10:06:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 9:25:53 AM, db0 wrote:
Socialism is a theory which has not managed to be put into practice for any long amount of time (eg Spanish Revolution). As such we can only talk about the the concept as it has ben theorized, not on what you think socialism is.

Socialism has not been able to be put into practice at all, as it simply does not work as an economic system. Or, you could say it works in small doses, where everyone knows everyone, but not otherwise.

In short, a concept may be theoretical but that does not invalidate it, anymore than when democracy was theoretical it was invalid.

It's invalidated if it can't be put into practice. We are now talking about an existing system, and it must therefore be compared to systems that can be put into practice. Theoretical but practically impossible systems are irrelevant.

Nope, millions of people don't need to have an equal share on hw a powerdrill will be used in a factory.

Then it's not common ownership of the means of production. If the people who has a share in that drill is not everyone, then it's not socialism, it's just shared ownership. And in that case an corporation is socialism, as the owners are more than one.

Once again, you try to stretch the meaning of the word socialism until capitalism is a form of socialism. That doesn't hold.

The workers in the factory have to. The millions of people can affect the factory direction through a democratic vote if that is somehow warranted, and that does not need representatives either. But in the normal running of things, the only ones who care how the powerdrill is used are its workers, and the only ones who care what the factory does is possibly its immediate community or its syndicate.

And who are to decide who they are? Right, everyone. Hence, they are the elected representatives.

Either you have *common* ownership, or you don't. Either *everyone* owns it, or just a group.

I am a socialist and I do not mean that.

Then socialism for you is just a fluffy pink blanket. You use socialism in the word "whatever I like". This is of course the most common usage of the word, but that doesn't validate it as a useful definition.

And yes, it is still common ownership. Again, just because you refuse to understand it does not make you right.

I do understand. Way better than you can even imagine.

Unless that means representative democracy, you have reduced the meaning of the words to nothing.

No I haven't. I explained another way to coordinate without representative democracy.

No you didn't. That was either private ownership or representative democracy, depending on who decided who got to decide. Common ownership or the abolition of property or whatever you wnat to call it must mean that *everybody* has *equal* say in the usage of *everything*. If you water down socialism to mean that a group of people has the say of the usage of some things and another group has the say of the usage of some other things, then any company with more than one owner is a socialism. You can't do that. You are constantly trying to make the word socialism mean nothing, and that makes the discussion pointless.

Socialism is common ownership. The abolition of property. Any other definition means the word loses all meaning. And that's the final end of that discussion.

No, I'm not. This is not a case of "I can't imaging it". It's a case of "it is impossible". Big difference.

Your argument for it's impossibility is because you can't imagine it. You haven't provided any other argumentation.

No it is not, and I have. Maybe you did not understand the arguments, but that's not my problem.

I gave a non-vague definition. You think it's vague either because you don't understand it, or because no definition fits with your preconcieved ideas. It's very popular amongst socialists to have vague definitions, and both use them to say nothing while still using the same words, and as you do now, blame the vague definitions. You cna't do that with me,. My definitions are not vague.

The definition of "Capitalism" is vague because everyone seems to have a different meaning for it.

Again: I gave a clear an non-vague definition in the beginning. Is there something you find hard to grasp there? Of course not. You are just trying to flee the debate by claiming that the definition is vague. It isn't. Get back on the field.

Thus when we're discussing about socialism and we mean the abolishment of capitalism, we mean the abolishment of capitalism as we've defined it.

Which is how I defined it as well. You ain't getting away, you know.

What you're trying to do is say that Capitalism is DefA. And Socialism is the opposite of Capitalism. Thus Socialism is DefB. But this is not what Socialists suggest. This is just the setup of a Strawman.

Socialism and capitalism is what I defined it as above. The end.

Marx's theories are far from disproven

Sorry, you fail. Marx economical theories have been thoroughly disproven. You can not lean on Marxism and keep credulity outside of dogmatic Marxist circles. Nobody will take you seriously. Why, do you think. there isn't one single financial company basing themselves on Marxist theory? Marxism as economic theory doesn't even exist outside of some narrow academic circles. It's disproven and practically useless. It has become a religious dogma, nothing more, nothing less.

By my definition what we have now, as well as what Marx described is a Capitalist system

No. According to your definition, then one you had based on Marx, what we have now is not a capitalist system.

ie workers producing more value than they get back in return is the dominant form of production.

This is not the case.

Of course not, the vote has to be democratic as well. That was an unstated (and in my opinion completely obvious) assumption.

That doesn't make a cooperative as well. It requires that the practical control is in the hands of the workers, not of an elected ruler.

No, it does not. It is perfectly possible to have an elected leadership in a cooperation, and you will be hard pressed to find any cooperation with more than a handful of members that does not.

I find it amusing that you need to imply that I am scared of your arguments.

I didn't say that. I said you are scared of reality. More specifically, you are likely scared of being wrong.

I'm not. I find them extremely weak and based on definitions and incredulity rather than any solid basis.

Definitions are solid. You need to start with defining the words, which I did. You however try to base your arguments on the lack of meaning. If you think that's more solid you need to wake up.

I also find it amusing that instead of arguing, you prefer to attack Marxian economics which I didn't even bring up.

Yes you did. Maybe you don't know enough Marxian economics to realize that you did, but you did.

I lastly find it amusing that your presume to tell the future.

It's not that hard you know. If you pick up a tennis ball and release it ten times, you'll soon figure out that it will fall to the ground every time. Then you can tell the future. You can say "When I release this tennis ball, it will drop to the ground". Nobody will be surprised, because everybody can tell that bit of the future.

Let me know where I can buy some of your crystal balls.

It's called experience and insight. I have debated with enough socialists to know exactly what is going to happen next, and predict exactly what kind of argumentation is going to come along. And I was right now too. You are in this answer again stepping further away from real debate and into an area where words have no meaning and everything is pure subjectivity. I'm going to try to stop that, but ultimately it's up to you what arguments you use. I can't force you to NOT use those kinds of arguments.
So prove me wrong, then.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 11:01:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 4:43:41 AM, regebro wrote:
Socialism can mean several things, but as an economic system it's the opposite of capitalism. It's common ownership of the means of production. There is no competition for profit, and in practice funding and control is by the state.

Right? So then, take this system: You have a free market with competition. Most actors are private, for profit companies (or independent people). A minority of actors are state owned, but all actors, private and state owned compete for the customers on a free market.

This is Fascism.

/thread
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 11:08:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
nah, fascism is the form of socialism where they pretend private property exists.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 11:12:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 11:01:38 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
This is Fascism.

Oh hai! <waves at the troll> How are you today!? Feeling good? :thumbsup:
So prove me wrong, then.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 11:40:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 4:43:41 AM, regebro wrote:
So then, take this system: You have a free market with competition. Most actors are private, for profit companies (or independent people). A minority of actors are state owned, but all actors, private and state owned compete for the customers on a free market.

Would you call that system a socialist system?

I admit I only skimmed through the thread so far, but I didn't see anyone answer this question properly.

That is not a socialist system. It is what is known as a 'Mixed Economy'. Every nation has a mixed economy. No nation has ever had a socialist system or a capitalist system in their pure forms.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 1:58:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Jblake, there is a significant amount of information missing. Even though he seems to be implying mixed economy, the information he's stated is technically compatible with even my strict capitalism-- until we find out the source of that "state ownership," which in all likelihood, if it's a real country he's talking about anyway, contradicts not just capitalism but also other parts of his description :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 2:11:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 11:40:59 AM, JBlake wrote:
I admit I only skimmed through the thread so far, but I didn't see anyone answer this question properly.

db0 gave a very clear "no". Easily missed though. :)

That is not a socialist system. It is what is known as a 'Mixed Economy'. Every nation has a mixed economy. No nation has ever had a socialist system or a capitalist system in their pure forms.

In a strict sense the system is of course not purely capitalist, as some of the actors are state-owned. But they still act on a free market in competition for the money that exists on that market. I fail to see how that means the system can be called "mixed". And as you mention, with that definition, all systems are "mixed". Again, that makes the words menaingless. If "capitalism" and "socialism" are only allowed to exist as theoretical perfect constructs, are the words even useful? And how can we discern between different systems if we are only allowed to call any existing system "mixed" because they don't fullfill some impossible laws of purity?

I say that system is capitalist, or at least predominantly capitalist. All providers compete on an open market for the consumers. It is in this system the consumer that makes the calls, not the state.

It may be relevant to mention what we are talking about here now. It's French health care. We can contrast this with Swedish healthcare, which is socialized (French isn't) that is, the state owns and runs the hospitals. There are private doctors as well, but they are outside the social system, so you get no economic help when you visit them. There are some hospitals that are driven by private companies within the system, but those services are procured by the public service. That system, I would agree, is predominantly socialist. The state owns, runs, controls and pays for everything. The patient has no practical (only theoretical) power or control.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 2:12:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 1:58:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
until we find out the source of that "state ownership,"

The source is the state.... <scratches head at this strange question>
So prove me wrong, then.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 3:02:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 11:08:51 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
nah, fascism is the form of socialism where they pretend private property exists.

Haven't heard that definition before. I like it :D

I take back my previous comment, then.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 3:13:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 2:12:24 PM, regebro wrote:
At 7/29/2009 1:58:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
until we find out the source of that "state ownership,"

The source is the state.... <scratches head at this strange question>

In other words, what did the state do to own those businesses?

Did it create them from scratch? Did it buy them? Did it nationalize them without asking permission of it's former owners? Where did it get the capital to do the first two, if it's one of the first two?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 3:17:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 3:13:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Did it create them from scratch? Did it buy them? Did it nationalize them without asking permission of it's former owners? Where did it get the capital to do the first two, if it's one of the first two?

Why would that make a difference? Is it not socialism if you take it by force? Or is it not socialism if you buy it with tax money? Of course its still socialism.
So prove me wrong, then.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 3:19:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 11:12:16 AM, regebro wrote:
At 7/29/2009 11:01:38 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
This is Fascism.

Oh hai! <waves at the troll> How are you today!? Feeling good? :thumbsup:

Rezz =/= troll. n00b.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 3:22:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
We have neither capitalism nor socialism. We have a combination of the two. I don't see any other way to interpret it.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 3:24:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 3:17:16 PM, regebro wrote:
At 7/29/2009 3:13:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Did it create them from scratch? Did it buy them? Did it nationalize them without asking permission of it's former owners? Where did it get the capital to do the first two, if it's one of the first two?

Why would that make a difference? Is it not socialism if you take it by force? Or is it not socialism if you buy it with tax money? Of course its still socialism.

Tax money = money taken by force. If you take the money by force, and then buy it, adding an extra step still leaves it socialism insofar as you do that (and a mixed economy overall). But there is your contradiction. No economy in which taxes exist has a free market.

The question was to find out if, I dunno, the government was invested in and turned a profit without having to resort to taxes, in which case it would be capitalism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 3:36:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 3:24:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The question was to find out if, I dunno, the government was invested in and turned a profit without having to resort to taxes, in which case it would be capitalism.

I see. Well, I claim that you are misguided in this. There is nothing that makes public ownership more or less socialist because it runs with a loss or profit. It's the mode of ownership that dictates it, nothing else.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 3:38:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 3:19:52 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 7/29/2009 11:12:16 AM, regebro wrote:
At 7/29/2009 11:01:38 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
This is Fascism.

Oh hai! <waves at the troll> How are you today!? Feeling good? :thumbsup:

Rezz =/= troll. n00b.

Oh, more trolls! Great! Welcome! How are you today? All is well? You want coffee and cake?
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 3:41:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 3:22:20 PM, wjmelements wrote:
We have neither capitalism nor socialism. We have a combination of the two. I don't see any other way to interpret it.

OK, so should we prefer a combination or a combination? Is the french system a combination, or maybe a combination? Is the combination better than the combination? If we change the US combination should we change it more towards a combination or a combination?

If you don't allow words to be used for things that are not 100% fitting on the Platonic Ideal, then communication becomes impossible.
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 3:44:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 3:41:14 PM, regebro wrote:
At 7/29/2009 3:22:20 PM, wjmelements wrote:
We have neither capitalism nor socialism. We have a combination of the two. I don't see any other way to interpret it.

OK, so should we prefer a combination or a combination? Is the french system a combination, or maybe a combination? Is the combination better than the combination? If we change the US combination should we change it more towards a combination or a combination?

If you don't allow words to be used for things that are not 100% fitting on the Platonic Ideal, then communication becomes impossible.

There are words for different mixes. They are simply longer and in sets. If you can't communicate that what you want is to take the presently nearest system to capitalism and switch it over to one of the nearest to socialism, you might be the first person I've met who needs more public school English :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 4:00:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 3:44:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There are words for different mixes. They are simply longer and in sets. If you can't communicate that what you want is to take the presently nearest system to capitalism and switch it over to one of the nearest to socialism, you might be the first person I've met who needs more public school English :).

After 25 years of political interest, I have to admit that I have never encountered any of these words. Please enlighten me. What is the word for "socialism that is as much socialism as is practically possible, but still not exactly matching to the platonic ideal socialism"?

And what is the word for "Socialism that is not as much socialism as the previous socialism, but almost"?

How many steps/words are there on the way to capitalism?
So prove me wrong, then.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 4:07:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 4:00:04 PM, regebro wrote:
At 7/29/2009 3:44:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There are words for different mixes. They are simply longer and in sets. If you can't communicate that what you want is to take the presently nearest system to capitalism and switch it over to one of the nearest to socialism, you might be the first person I've met who needs more public school English :).

After 25 years of political interest, I have to admit that I have never encountered any of these words. Please enlighten me. What is the word for "socialism that is as much socialism as is practically possible, but still not exactly matching to the platonic ideal socialism"?
Those are the words. I said there were words, plural.


And what is the word for "Socialism that is not as much socialism as the previous socialism, but almost"?
Those are the words.


How many steps/words are there on the way to capitalism?
Economics isn't reducible to "steps." If you can figure out the percent of the economy that is taxed (or regulated out of existence) each year or becomes debt that can only be paid with taxes, that is the extent to which an economy is socialist (assuming a definition of socialism that actually serves as a definition rather than a contradiction in terms)-- obviously, a continous, not discrete, percentage.
You can't actually figure that out of course unless you either banish taxes or abolish all economic activity aside from that which is government directed, in which case you respectively have a 0% or 100% socialist economy. So you approximate, which is fine, as long as you qualify it as approximate :). But the words exist, so long as you have the ten numerals of our decimal system and know how to combine them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 4:08:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A few terms of common approximation are, for example, "Reaganomics" and "Dirigisme."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 4:09:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 4:07:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Those are the words. I said there were words, plural.

Sigh. OK, that was below even what I expected from a 19 year old libertarian.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 4:15:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Anyhow, nobody here has even tried to support the position that the system in question is a socialist system.

So the conclusion is that I was right from the start, The French health care system is not socialist, and danielspengies was wrong. Which he of course was fully aware of, which is why he refuses to debate the issue.
So prove me wrong, then.