Socialists set to gain a majority in French parliamentary elections - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36285038] yeah I want to see proof that centralised planning can efficiently manage an arbitrary number of resources as far as I can tell it's NP-hard [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] you're only given a small amount back because the capitalist gave you the materials to make the product in the first place. he or she essentially loaned you capital, and the contract says you add value to it, then give it back, and you are compensated for doing so. if you don't like it, start your own factory.[/QUOTE] First: I'll get on it after work. Second: That's like saying if I give a man a car, I'm entitled to 70% of everything he ever does with that car and does because he had that car. It doesn't work like that. That's taking what he [I]made[/I] because he [I]used[/I] something of mine. Revolutionary socialism asserts that the machines, the car, should be owned by those who operate them, and all earning are theirs. This is why capitalism needs to exist first, because there needs to be machines to get us started. But then the capitalist is an unnecessary parasite on the labor of those who are forced to work under them, and therefore needs to be cut out of the equation. Additionally, the capitalist does not have rights to my labor value because I'm using their machines, he's useless without me and my coworkers. Machines are only one necessity. Workers are the other. The capitalist is in no way a necessity beyond industrializing a nation. After the nation is industrialized, there's no need for the capitalist any longer.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36285258']First: I'll get on it after work. Second: That's like saying if I give a man a car, I'm entitled to 70% of everything he ever does with that car and does because he had that car. It doesn't work like that. That's taking what he [I]made[/I] because he [I]used[/I] something of mine. Revolutionary socialism asserts that the machines, the car, should be owned by those who operate them, and all earning are theirs. This is why capitalism needs to exist first, because there needs to be machines to get us started. But then the capitalist is an unnecessary parasite on the labor of those who are forced to work under them, and therefore needs to be cut out of the equation. Additionally, the capitalist does not have rights to my labor value because I'm using their machines, he's useless without me and my coworkers. Machines are only one necessity. Workers are the other. The capitalist is in no way a necessity beyond industrializing a nation. After the nation is industrialized, there's no need for the capitalist any longer.[/QUOTE] You're severely underestimating just how important managers and investors are. There's a reason why the most successful companies generally aren't worker owned - workers are [B]fucking terrible at managing things, that's why they're workers and not managers.[/B] Specialization doesn't stop as soon as you go up a meta level. The same goes for investors and noticing if a new product is promising. The relationship between capitalist and worker is not parasitic as is the fashionable view, but symbiotic. In fact I even think the distinction itself is old-fashioned.

Nice to see alternative ideas are gaining ground in the modern world. State socialism from what I understand is just capitalism with a few cherry picked socialist ideals that are destined to be poorly implemented.

snippery

[QUOTE=znk666;36282481]I can't show you a nation that has even attempted to achieve socialism because there isn't any,as i said USSR had it for a while but Stalin fucked it up. By definition,it is in fact a great system and we are yet to see whether it's the same in practice.[/QUOTE] While it's true that the Soviet growth and general progress lagged starting from the ~75s, it would be wrong and utterly moronic to say that it was "completely ruined" by Stalin. [img]http://i.imgur.com/TTLGP.png[/img] The Soviet GDP per capita surpassed several non-Warsaw Pact European nations around the 50s, and its life expectancy surpassed that of the US. Sadly, the Soviets chose a poor growth strategy of almost total capital accumulation, which is unsustainable in the long term. If not this poor choice, as well as some well-directed systematic changes (allowing a vast range of political freedoms, setting up a decentralized price system, improving the planning information by setting up a people-based project submission etc), the USSR could still exist up to the present day.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36285341]The relationship between capitalist and worker is not parasitic as is the fashionable view, but symbiotic.[/QUOTE] [quote]under capitalism workers are driven by economic necessity to sell their labour (and so liberty) to those who own the means of life. This process re-enforces the economic conditions workers face by creating "massive disparities in wealth . . . [as] workers. . . sell their labour to the capitalist at a price which does not reflect its real value."[/quote] [quote]"To portray the parties to an employment contract, for example, as free and equal to each other is to ignore the serious inequality of bargaining power which exists between the worker and the employer. To then go on to portray the relationship of subordination and exploitation which naturally results as the epitome of freedom is to make a mockery of both individual liberty and social justice."[/quote]

The USSR surpassed other nations in the 1950s because it practically sucked out the economic output of puppet states such as Poland. They also failed to reform their inefficient economic system, a good portion of which was based upon slave labour in gulags. The soviet economy was based around running the military rather than providing for their people, and had a completely inefficent method of farming, and was forced to import food from the 70s onwards.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36285384]The USSR surpassed other nations in the 1950s because it practically sucked out the economic output of puppet states such as Poland whilst failing to reform their inefficient economic system which a good portion of which was based upon slave labour in gulags.[/QUOTE] A good portion? Like 0.5%? [QUOTE=Sobotnik;36285384] The soviet economy was based around running the military rather than providing for their people, and had a completely inefficent method of farming, and was forced to import food from the 70s onwards.[/QUOTE] "The soviet economy was based around running the military " Wrong. The Soviet military investments amounted to about 11-13% of the Soviet GDP. And yes, some collective farms suffered from diseconomies of scale, and there was quite a large loss in the farming output during the bad weather conditions (around 60s-70s, as far as I know).

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;36285372]"massive disparities in wealth . . . [as] workers. . . sell their labour to the capitalist at a price which does not reflect its real value."[/QUOTE] Praytell, how exactly is this "real value" determined? Wealth disparity is irrelevant, what matters is overall absolute standard of living. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GenPol;36285411]A good portion? Like 0.5%?[/QUOTE] Consider that the work done in gulags was infrastructure (railways, canals and shit), whose value compounded over time.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36284892']Considering that all value is a product of labor, a capitalist takes all of my labor values and pays me a small percent in return. I am required to accept this wage else I starve. There is no volunteerism in capitalism.[/quote] The capitalist didn't really "take" anything. You entered into a voluntary transaction with him to sell your labor in exchange for something else (money). You are not required to accept that wage, you have opportunities to learn new skills, look for better employment, or even start your own business in capitalism. The focus is on individual liberties and personal responsibility, socialism is about forced collectivization and redistribution of private property (theft/not voluntary/state coercion). [quote]Economic factors and wealth are as powerful as weapons and handcuffs, and because the capitalist owns the wealth and controls the economics, you have to abide by that system and under their rule. You are given the choice of giving your entire labor value to an employer in exchange for your wage, or starvation. There's no volunteerism about it. If you don't do that, you lose your house, you lose your possessions, you lose your food, you lose your life. That's not volunteerism.[/QUOTE] They don't own the wealth and control the economics unless they have the assistance of government force in doing so. In free market capitalism, such force doesn't exist, you are free to start your own business and compete. You wouldn't be forced into giving your labor to one employer, there would be a number of companies competing with each other to attract skilled employees with higher wages, better working conditions, benefits etc. [QUOTE=Lonestriper;36284654]Cite your sources, even if you are ignoring the fact that communism (in Marxist theory terms) requires superabundance of resources edit: Ah misread production and demand, I thought you meant resources or material. Even then, what proof do you have of this claim?[/QUOTE] I'm just addressing it on a theoretical level. If you're going by "from each according to their ability,to each according to their need", you're going to see people's "needs" start rising while their desire to work simply doesn't. The incentive will be to put in the least amount of work to society that they can, while trying to leech the maximum amount of benefits that they can. That just isn't sustainable. The state can't possibly afford to hire everyone, feed everyone, give everyone health care, all the work benefits they want, house everyone, etc. These involve scarce resources, while the demand for them is not scarce. You need a way to allocate scarce resources to people in a way that is fair and efficient. The solution is private property and the profit motive. Private losses and private gains provide the best motive for efficiency of resource allocation and technological progress as a result of potentially risky investment (that wouldn't take place outside of capitalism) in innovative ideas.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36285439]Praytell, how exactly is this "real value" determined? Wealth disparity is irrelevant, what matters is overall absolute standard of living. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] Consider that the work done in gulags was infrastructure (railways, canals and shit), whose value compounded over time.[/QUOTE] Still doesn't increase the labor inputs of the Gulags, which amounted to less than 1% of the Soviet GDP. Saying that the Soviet economy received a good portion of its labor from Gulags is profoundly stupid and ignorant.

[QUOTE=GenPol;36285411]A good portion? Like 0.5%?[/QUOTE] They did build a hell of a lot of infrastructure, such as the White Sea Canal and the railways, along with towns, cutting of trees, mining, etc. The gualg was also the largest employer in Europe by 1939.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36285489]They did build a hell of a lot of infrastructure, such as the White Sea Canal and the railways, along with towns, cutting of trees, mining, etc. The gualg was also the largest employer in Europe by 1939.[/QUOTE] "The gualg was also the largest employer in Europe by 1939" - Source. The labor inputs of the Gulags amounted to under 1% of the Soviet economy even during Stalin. They amounted to far less than the 1% figure after the Stalin Era. You can check the Gulag population statistics during and after the Stalin Era here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag[/url] The Soviet population statistics: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Soviet_Union[/url] Do your maths.

[QUOTE=GenPol;36285568]"The gualg was also the largest employer in Europe by 1939" - Source. The labor inputs of the Gulags amounted to under 1% of the Soviet economy even during Stalin. They amounted to far less than the 1% figure after the Stalin Era. You can check the Gulag population statistics during and after the Stalin Era here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag[/url] The Soviet population statistics: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_Soviet_Union[/url] Do your maths.[/QUOTE] [quote]Today's major industrial cities of the Russian Arctic, such as Norilsk, Vorkuta, and Magadan, were originally camps built by prisoners and run by ex-prisoners.[8][/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_settlement[/url] On the eve of World War II, Soviet archives indicate a combined camp and colony population upwards of 1.6 million in 1939, according to V. P. Kozlov.[30] Anne Applebaum and Steven Rosefielde estimate that 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in Gulag system's prison camps and colonies when the war started.[31][32] Also remember that the Soviet Union did some rather nasty acts of genocide.

I knew from the title that this thread would be read worthy. Many countries use social structures because they are good for the people. A social government sucks at budget cutting though, so it might not be a good thing right now. Good thing they don't have a single party parliament.

[QUOTE]"The soviet economy was based around running the military " Wrong. The Soviet military investments amounted to about 11-13% of the Soviet GDP. [/QUOTE] 11-13% may seem like a really small amount of money; however, one must understand that that is, in comparison to other western powers, a ludicrous amount of money for a superpower to be spending on military expenditures. Even the United States, with its huge military budget, only spends around 4ish% of national output on the military

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36285694][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_settlement[/url] On the eve of World War II, Soviet archives indicate a combined camp and colony population upwards of 1.6 million in 1939, according to V. P. Kozlov.[30] Anne Applebaum and Steven Rosefielde estimate that 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in Gulag system's prison camps and colonies when the war started.[31][32] Also remember that the Soviet Union did some rather nasty acts of genocide.[/QUOTE] "On the eve of World War II, Soviet archives indicate a combined camp and colony population upwards of 1.6 million in 1939, according to V. P. Kozlov.[30] Anne Applebaum and Steven Rosefielde estimate that 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in Gulag system's prison camps and colonies when the war started.[31][32]" How does this even relate to my post? I don't deny that there were many camps which had large populations. All of the Gulag populations combined amounted to far less than 1% of the Soviet population (around 0.5-0.6%). This number fell dramatically after the end of the Stalin Era.

[QUOTE=sami-pso;36285770]I knew from the title that this thread would be read worthy. Many countries use social structures because they are good for the people. A social government sucks at budget cutting though, so it might not be a good thing right now. Good thing they don't have a single party parliament.[/QUOTE] I will agree that certain things should be socialized, medicine being the one that America needs to catch up on.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36285877]Im pretty sure the US spent around 15-20% of its GDP during the Cold War on military. You're referring to the percentage from the modern age.[/QUOTE] It spent more than today but not that much. [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qve2Ds-cMvk/SQfHyKlOaWI/AAAAAAAAAhw/GXZEXD_UDp8/s400/Defense+spending+as+a+percent+of+gdp+1949+-+2009.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=GenPol;36285868]"On the eve of World War II, Soviet archives indicate a combined camp and colony population upwards of 1.6 million in 1939, according to V. P. Kozlov.[30] Anne Applebaum and Steven Rosefielde estimate that 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in Gulag system's prison camps and colonies when the war started.[31][32]" How does this even relate to my post? I don't deny that there were many camps which had large populations. All of the Gulag populations combined amounted to far less than 1% of the Soviet population (around 0.5-0.6%). This number fell dramatically after the end of the Stalin Era.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that the gulags were the largest employer in Europe, and that the gulags throughout their history, used millions for forced labour (Slavery)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36286151]I'm saying that the gulags were the largest employer in Europe, and that the gulags throughout their history, used millions for forced labour (Slavery)[/QUOTE] "I'm saying that the gulags were the largest employer in Europe" - No, they weren't. The Gosplan was the largest employer in Europe.

[QUOTE=sami-pso;36285770]I knew from the title that this thread would be read worthy. Many countries use social structures because they are good for the people. A social government sucks at budget cutting though, so it might not be a good thing right now. Good thing they don't have a single party parliament.[/QUOTE] Budget-cutting is the last thing a country should be doing in a recession. There are few, if any, cases in history where a recession or depression has been cured by austerity. In fact, the most growth that the majority of countries have ever experienced was when there was heavy government intervention.

[QUOTE=Earthen;36288863]In fact, the most growth that the majority of countries have ever experienced was when there was heavy government intervention.[/QUOTE] Could you provide some sources for this claim?

[QUOTE=Funcoot;36288879]Could you provide some sources for this claim?[/QUOTE] Page 24, the table: [URL]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:BmsP0sJ59wIJ:unctad.org/en/docs/dp_113.en.pdf+comparing+economic+growth+rates+before+globalization&hl=en&gl=ch&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShBLE__MpRrTF130NR_RnxJzLpPabW-ByxxSwpu0NFQ1nj03NHSoNMuUSjvh1NaMfcjqnlHNW95s4kdZEtEzVTHTwwxWdLj89V-JcYAHitHHgnaKjN1Ek_4gFs9Skr6xfxeqXK0&sig=AHIEtbTRVADYBcfVql0A3T2erqFCBd1DaQ[/URL] ‘Between the 1950s and the mid-1990s, US federal government funding accounted for 50-70% of the country’s total R&D funding, which is far above the figure of around 20%, found in such ‘government-led’ countries as Japan and Korea. Without federal government funding for R&D, the US would not have been able to maintain its technological lead over the rest of the world in key industries like computers, semiconductors, life sciences, the internet and aerospace.’ ‘Practically all of today’s developed countries, including Britain and the US, the supposed homes of the free market and free trade, have become rich on the basis of policy recipes that go against the orthodoxy of neo-liberal economics.’ ‘[South Korean] President Park launched the ambitious Heavy and Chemical Industrialization (HCI) program in 1973. The first steel mill and the first modern shipyard went into production, and the first locally designed cards (made mostly from imported parts) rolled off the production lines. New firms were set up in electronics, machinery, chemicals and other advanced industries. During this period, the country’s per capita income grew phenomenally by more than five times, in US dollar terms, between 1972 and 1979. Park’s apparently delusional goal of $1,000 per capita income by 1981 was actually achieved four years ahead of schedule. Exports grew even faster, increasing nine times, in US dollar terms, between 1972 and 1979.’ ‘During the ‘bad old days’ of protectionist import substitution industrialization (ISI), developing countries used to grow, on average, at double the rate that they are doing today under free trade. Free trade simply isn’t working for developing countries.’ -Bad Samaritans by Ha-Joon Chang He is a developmental economics professor at Cambridge. Unfortunately I don't have the book, it was a friends so I can't get any figures out of it. However, the growth rate of most South American countries was at around 3% before neo-liberal economics took place when growth rates fell to around 1%. China (self-explanatory) The US supported infant industries heavily by having tariffs during the 1800's at around 50%: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)[/URL] Canada did the same thing: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Policy[/URL]

The error Chang makes there is assuming that correlation somehow equals causation. He doesn't prove that protectionism is responsible for the economic growth and he doesn't examine alternative causes as to what other factors could have caused the growth. And I don't understand how he can call Britain and the US "the supposed homes of free market and free trade" - neither of those countries have ever been any such thing at any point. There simply is no historical example of actual free trade that he can actually make a comparison with because free market capitalism hasn't existed.

[QUOTE=Funcoot;36288879]Could you provide some sources for this claim?[/QUOTE] I can do this for him: South Korea's economic miracle (Miracle on the Han River). It was characterized by 5-year-planning and heavy government investment in industry, as well as heavy export for further government industrial reinvestment. This gave most of the momentum to South Korea's development, which was a dirt-poor nation with a less than $100 income per year before its spectacular development, which was led by heavy government investment. West German economic miracle (Miracle on the Rhine) which resulted due to heavy government investment, connected with the Marshall Plan. Japanese economic miracle - the government provided guaranteed 30% profit to big companies, as long as they exported their products. Virtually all of the economic miracles resulted from high levels of government investment. Government centralization can be easily overdone and lead to negative consequences, though. But it would be very wrong to say that heavy government investment is bad, because the contrary is true.

[QUOTE=Noble;36292286]The error Chang makes there is assuming that correlation somehow equals causation. He doesn't prove that protectionism is responsible for the economic growth and he doesn't examine alternative causes as to what other factors could have caused the growth. And I don't understand how he can call Britain and the US "the supposed homes of free market and free trade" - neither of those countries have ever been any such thing at any point. There simply is no historical example of actual free trade that he can actually make a comparison with because free market capitalism hasn't existed.[/QUOTE] You haven't read the book, of course it seems like his argument is wrong. He explains quite clearly that protectionist policies allowed for infant industries in the US and Europe to develop at their own pace without having to compete against far superior foreign companies in terms of technology and capital. He also explains the allocation of FDI, copyright and patent laws, acquisition of better technology, etc... He calls them 'supposed homes of free market and free trade' because they tout themselves as that. What do you mean free trade doesn't exist?

[QUOTE=Noble;36285481]I'm just addressing it on a theoretical level. If you're going by "from each according to their ability,to each according to their need", you're going to see people's "needs" start rising while their desire to work simply doesn't. The incentive will be to put in the least amount of work to society that they can, while trying to leech the maximum amount of benefits that they can. That just isn't sustainable.[/quote] Making assumptions on a theoretical level is still making assumptions [quote]The state can't possibly afford to hire everyone, feed everyone, give everyone health care, all the work benefits they want, house everyone, etc. These involve scarce resources, while the demand for them is not scarce. You need a way to allocate scarce resources to people in a way that is fair and efficient. The solution is private property and the profit motive. Private losses and private gains provide the best motive for efficiency of resource allocation and technological progress as a result of potentially risky investment (that wouldn't take place outside of capitalism) in innovative ideas.[/QUOTE] You missed the point where I said Communism requires the superabundance of resources, which is why the USSR and other communist venture were flawed from the start.