• America, propaganda, and socialism
    240 replies, posted
[QUOTE=R3mix;26937445]" It has been proved over time and time that [b]the USSR has had socialistic ideals[/b] and you don't agree with that statement. " :derp: Are you saying that an economy is not part of "the system?"[/QUOTE] The USSR was not socialist or communist. You COULD say it was going in that direction when Lenin was in power, but when Stalin took over it went downhill. You could say that the USSR was state capitalist. "...usually described as a society wherein the productive forces are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist manner, even if such a society calls itself socialist."
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;26947150] Anyway, I think we should abolish the income tax and have a giant national sales tax. Any rationalized, detailed reason why we shouldn't?[/QUOTE] Because poor people spend proportionately more of their income on things than rich people do and regressive taxes are a terrible idea
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26947913]Because poor people spend proportionately more of their income on things than rich people do and regressive taxes are a terrible idea[/QUOTE] Alright, back to the drawing board.
[QUOTE=Matix;26938248]I wish we'd stop arguing about the USSR. They thought they'd be socialist, the turned out communist. End of story.[/QUOTE] I think it arises out of confusion over the relation between what is "Communist" and what is "Socialist". The Soviet Union, and its chief ideological originator, Lenin, drew from Marxism. Lenin's view of Marxist theory can be simplified (and it is more complicated than this- I suggest for anyone who wants to look into his thoughts further to go to the Marxists.org archive of his writings) into the belief that a society had to go through a "socialist" phase before it could achieve Communism. The naming was intentional- the Soviet Union saw itself as a socialist state, the bulwark for the international revolution and for the development of Communism. Socialism would develop up the Soviet Union until then and as such a "socialist" state would be needed to direct the development its industry. When Communism is achieved, in their view, there will be no more state. So using the designation "Communist State" or country is an error and contradictory. Marx and Engels saw Communism as a classless and stateless arrangement. This led to issues of whether Lenin (and others) concept of socialism as a distinct stage from Communism was true or not. That's just one angle of the debate. This then opens a whole other issue- what is "socialism"? Socialism is an economic concept at its core, placing itself opposite of capitalism. Where capitalism is based on private ownership of the means of production, socialism lays out workers, or some sort of social or collective, ownership of the means of production. This is generally what is referred to as "private property"- when this is used they don't mean that your personal possessions are forfeit, but rather the productive forces (factories, land for farms, infrastructure, etc) will be held in common as opposed to privately. Marx and Engels used "Socialism" and "Communism" interchangeably at times. This led to debates among Marxists who wondered if they had felt that the two meant the same thing, or if it was possible to have a "socialist" step that led into Communism (as Lenin would later hold). In other words socialism would provide the building blocks for a successful communist society. In some ways we could say this- Socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds" Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" To understand the first, look at Bebel's (of the SPD when it was still a Marxist party) summation of the socialist arrangement: [quote]"The organisation of society in such a manner that any individual, man or woman, finds at birth equal means for the development of their respective faculties and the utilisation of their labour. The organisation of society in such a manner that the exploitation by one person of the labour of his neighbour would be impossible, and where everyone will be allowed to enjoy the social wealth only to the extent of their contribution to the production of that wealth."[/quote] Now OP, while I agree with you that Americans (and many people in general) have a misplaced and misunderstanding of what "socialism" is, what you have laid out in the OP is mostly social services. This does not make a society "socialist" or even lead to it at all. It has to come down to the role of the worker in all this, and their relation to the means of production. Simply having public services and infrastructure doesn't mean capitalism is ended or "tamed". It's still going, full force. Marxists themselves had lots of arguments and infighting over this. The first large split in the late 1800s produced what we associate as "Anarchists" over the matter and role of the state. The second, in the midst of WW I and the aftermath, produced on one had "revolutionary" factions that argued workers had to overthrow the state and establish their own class rule (A "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" they argued, as opposed to the "Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie" that existed then). The others, so-called "Reformists" felt they could use the apparatus of the state to create conditions for workers to take control of the economy on their own as opposed to a revolution. Those who followed the former path funneled into the various tendencies of Marxist thought- "Left Communism", Marxist-Leninism (that is, what Stalin established as Marxist-Leninist thought), Trotskyism, Maoism, and Hoxhaism, to name a few. They all have different approaches to the Soviet Union (when it became capitalist, if it was socialist at all, etc,), Stalin, how to do socialism, and so much more I can't take up space here with. In Europe the descendants of the "reformists" are the various "socialist" or "social democratic" parties. In the past the left-wing of those parties were "Democratic Socialists", but the influence of those wings have faded away in the past thirty years. For the most part these parties have drifted more and more to the centre, discarding the Democratic Socialist wings as they go. Examine the actions of those various parties- New Labour, the French Socialists, SPD, Social Democratic Parties in Scandinavia and elsewhere, the PSOE, etc. Compare what they are doing now, and what they did in the past. Take a look at the löntagarfonder (Employee Funds) by the Swedish Social Democrats, by which means they attempted to aid trade unions in taking control of their industries and creating a syndicalist arrangement- that is socialism through unions. I'd say really that is as far as the Democratic Socialists managed to push it. Social services were often planks in their programs- but they were nods to the essentials of caring to people, but ultimately would not lead to by itself workers controlling their workplace To put it simply there can be no country that can be described as "socialist" currently, nor proceeding in that direction. Sorry if this is a bit long, but I think it might help to clear up some confusion.
Socialism is the least of our worries. It's the fascists we have to worry about.
I perfer Capitalism. Yes, I am a Capitalist pig. :dance: [editline]26th December 2010[/editline] My political view is Liberal. [editline]26th December 2010[/editline] I know what I am on about. I googled 'Capitalism' and 'Liberal' and I agree with them.
[QUOTE=NotSo1337;26971784] I know what I am on about. I googled 'Capitalism' and 'Liberal' and I agree with them.[/QUOTE] You sound highly suggestive. Google "nazi" and see what happens.
Continually throughout this thread people have misinterpreted my original post as a call for complete conversion to socialism. This is not the case, so before you decide to post for the Nth time that complete socialism doesn't work, take into account the fact that what you are writing is irrelevant and detractive. But there's a lot of smart people posting in this thread with legitimate arguments and interesting ideas, so I'll give you guys credit on that.
[QUOTE=R3mix;26909495]What? Are you a retard? Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence you idiot and he was a part in drafting the Constitution of the United States. I don't know about you, but neither of those seem communistic at all. It's better on a Federal Level because now that [b]everyone[/b] is required to get it, nobody's paying for a bloody hobo on the streets out of their taxes who went to the hospital. You obviously don't live in the United States then. We like money in our pockets, not with the government. Hence Capitalism. Hence Democratic-Republic. We don't need a government-ran economy.[/QUOTE] We have a free economy. We also have universal health care that is free for everyone. And free education. For everyone. Ever. We also have some of the best fiberoptics deals in the world in rural monopoly ISP's because those are regulated. They'll also never consider violating net neutrality either. Welfare states rock.
Full capitalism can't work because we have civil liberties and constitutional rights that may prevent people from doing certain things with their business. Socialist legislation works if the people actually want it, such as social security or medicaid. Everything is situational, if the people demand something from their government, they should step in. On the other hand, if the people don't want their government to regulate something, they should step out as fast as they can step in. What is beautiful about a democracy is that the only real challenge is finding a good balance in government control and an individual's freedom.
Am I too late to talk about anarchy? [editline]26th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=BmB;26972301]We also have some of the best fiberoptics deals in the world in rural monopoly ISP's because those are regulated. They'll also never consider violating net neutrality either.[/QUOTE] lol. [editline]26th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Matix;26972209]Continually throughout this thread people have misinterpreted my original post as a call for complete conversion to socialism. This is not the case, so before you decide to post for the Nth time that complete socialism doesn't work, take into account the fact that what you are writing is irrelevant and detractive. But there's a lot of smart people posting in this thread with legitimate arguments and interesting ideas, so I'll give you guys credit on that.[/QUOTE] Socialism, like communism or anarchy, have a very bad reputation. Partly because they don't serve "power", and partly because those who tried to give a better impression sadly failed. So, honestly, you can't really expect to get a majority of constructive answers on subjects such as these, not on FP anyway. My Anarchy thread had 115+ boxes, but also around 15 Informatives, which is more than enough for a first time. :buddy:
[QUOTE=BmB;26972301]We have a free economy. We also have universal health care that is free for everyone. And free education. For everyone. Ever. We also have some of the best fiberoptics deals in the world in rural monopoly ISP's because those are regulated. They'll also never consider violating net neutrality either. Welfare states rock.[/QUOTE] Sweden, Norway, or Finland right? (Sorry if you said already in this thread, I only checked your profile and it wasn't there)
Something like that.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26972093]You sound highly suggestive. Google "nazi" and see what happens.[/QUOTE] Nothing. :confused:
[QUOTE=Moose;26933649]how am i being cynical right now[/QUOTE] You assume that everyone who is capitalist, is automatically a greedy bastard and that the world is horrible...
You should never be quick to rule out an entire way of thinking
[QUOTE=Earthen;26972997]You assume that everyone who is capitalist, is automatically a greedy bastard and that the world is horrible...[/QUOTE] but the world is horrible and greedy bastards run this country
Who cares.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26972397]Sweden, Norway, or Finland right? (Sorry if you said already in this thread, I only checked your profile and it wasn't there)[/QUOTE] Or Denmark?
[QUOTE=BmB;26972301]We have a free economy. We also have universal health care that is free for everyone. And free education. For everyone. Ever. We also have some of the best fiberoptics deals in the world in rural monopoly ISP's because those are regulated. They'll also never consider violating net neutrality either. Welfare states rock.[/QUOTE] Are you talking about the U.S?
[QUOTE=R3mix;26979707]Are you talking about the U.S?[/QUOTE] nope, about Afghanistan.
I'd take Socialism over Capitalism any day. Why would I want people to make money off of so many tragedies? A family loses their house, someone buys it, and resells it for 100x what he/she payed for it. Big flaw in capitalism. No one should lose their house. I would gladly pay more taxes if it meant others wouldn't lose their house. We as human beings rely on others to survive, capitalism goes against that. Capitalists only think about themselves.
[QUOTE=TGKhaotik;26980747]I'd take Socialism over Capitalism any day. Why would I want people to make money off of so many tragedies? A family loses their house, someone buys it, and resells it for 100x what he/she payed for it. Big flaw in capitalism. No one should lose their house. I would gladly pay more taxes if it meant others wouldn't lose their house. We as human beings rely on others to survive, capitalism goes against that. Capitalists only think about themselves.[/QUOTE] That's the whole problem/ People aren't responsible. There is hunger in the world? well, "we pay more taxes and everythig will be fine." Taxes do no shit because they aren't the solution for the problem, just a tool like others.
To anybody here who wants to point to the USA as a free-market economy: you're wrong. We are VERY, VERY far from Free-Enterprise. What we have is a system more similar to corporatism. Business is always getting in bed with government, and government is always creating legislation favoring certain monopolies of business. In a true free-market economy, the government would not be getting in bed with business OR castrating the private sector as is done in moderate socialism.
[QUOTE=kayOkay;26980986]That's the whole problem/ People aren't responsible. There is hunger in the world? well, "we pay more taxes and everythig will be fine." Taxes do no shit because they aren't the solution for the problem, just a tool like others.[/QUOTE] Works pretty good in Denmark. they have almost no homeless and most people are happy to pay there taxes. crime is way down, people are smarter on average, less religion and since girls dont depend on a man they are more open with men.
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;26981995]To anybody here who wants to point to the USA as a free-market economy: you're wrong. We are VERY, VERY far from Free-Enterprise. What we have is a system more similar to corporatism. Business is always getting in bed with government, and government is always creating legislation favoring certain monopolies of business. In a true free-market economy, the government would not be getting in bed with business OR castrating the private sector as is done in moderate socialism.[/QUOTE] That's not corporatism though. Corporatism is an entirely different beast- what you are referring to is is the pervasive influence corporations have on the governments of many countries- this isn't corporatism but rather a consequence of the power they have in the economy and consequently their influence over the mechanisms of the state. "Corporatism" is a concept that ended up being incorporated wholesale by fascist regimes, referring to an organic organization of the industry in such a way that the government, labor, and executives would be brought in line to cooperate for the national good as the fascists would later argue. The only part of the US that could possibly be described as "corporatist" is the arrangement present in the Defense sector- that is the so-called "Military-Industrial" complex. The US is still based on private ownership of the means of production. It's still mostly based on the principles of free-trade and enterprise too. Capitalism, as it seeks to revolutionize and change the process of production, begins to centralize and increase the productivity of its methods. This results in large businesses being where they are now, and making sure that their markets continue to remain open and free from interference by using the state. People only begin to see this process now, but Marx writing back in the mid-1800s as capitalism was just beginning to explode foresaw the possibility of this scenario occurring from the trends he was seeing then. The centralization and growth of industry, and the "petit-bourgeoisie" being squeezed out in the process.
[QUOTE=MercZ;26982662]<long post>[/QUOTE] Thank you for enlightening me on the subject matter. The question remains, how do we keep business free while keeping business from influencing legislative matters?
[QUOTE=Moose;26973132]but the world is horrible and greedy bastards run this country[/QUOTE] Its people like you that make the world what you perceive it to be. Pessimists and people of a cynical nature have never, NEVER achieved anything good. If you think the world is so horrible, why aren't you doing anything to better it?
[QUOTE=furbrain;26942158]You [b]DO[/b] need to stay relevant to my post as you click the 'reply' button. Do you understand what a reply is? [/QUOTE] do you understand what a reply is? it is a very complicated concept!!!!
[QUOTE=Treybuchet;26985382]do you understand what a reply is? it is a very complicated concept!!!![/QUOTE] Yeah I kept trying to explain to him, but I guess he's never been on a Internet forum before.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.