Capitalism versus Socialism

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Our 'representation' in gov't is exactly that... a picture of ourselves.

quote>

My solution for that is to dismantle the political machinery behind both major parties.

[morriswalters 16]

The purpose of any social mechanism is to provide protection for it's members.  For external threats it uses a collective response to exercise power that individuals can't.  Internally it uses rules to make sure that each member understands both his rights and his obligations.  In this context greed would be defined as a behavior which ignores the rights and obligations set out by the social mechanism for a given individual. In that context greed is bad.

Manticore argues that Capitalism has empowered the average man and made society  overall wealthier.  That statement is unassailable.  However it also ignores the fact that it has embraced things which from a modern point of view are indefensible.  Slavery and child labor to name two.  A comparison can be drawn between Capitalism and fire.  Both are extremely powerful forces which can be harnessed to do great good and both are extremely dangerous if misused.  My fear of modern capitalism revolves around socalled multinationals.  I believe that they operate outside the constaints of any one social system.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[saltandsauce 0]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

well, that's one way of looking at it

The famous speech from Wall Street had power because it is true; greed works. It is human nature, capitalism is the only system to harness it instead of attempting to suppress it. It is also the system that has brought more wealth to more people across all walks of life than any other, and the fans of socialism cannot claim the same thing.quote>

the greed of whom? the consumer or the corporate executive?

under corporatism (multinationals owning everything) wealth of the lowest quintile (income not population) has decreased in real terms the 4th quintile remains unchanged, the middle classes (3rd) has increased slightly the upper classes (2nd) has increased a little but the 1st quintile has exploded in the amount off wealth it has in real terms.

having greedy consumers is brilliant for a (service) economy, having greedy employers is not (if you work in production, transportation (of goods) or retail)

as we all know, the capitalist system rewards the laziest and irrational and punishes the productive and meek. who works harder, the factory worker or the maniging director? add up their calories burned during work (heavy thought uses a surprising amount of energy) and see who works harder.

greed used to be something frowned apon, if you were five and hogged all the toys, the nearest adult would scald (punish) the child for being greedy and sometimes would feebly say "learn to share" and eventualy you'd learn to share. the current system demands that crazier bets need to take place to make "enough" money

the people that infuriate me are the ones who buy a property, do no work at all but the increasing value of their home allows them to live ridiculously lavish lifestyles just because they have a beachfront property which soars in value (they spend the equity)

don't tell me that corporatism rewards work, it rewards pieces of paper

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: morriswalters  My fear of modern capitalism revolves around socalled multinationals.  I believe that they operate outside the constaints of any one social system.quote>

Which is just one point that makes the recent "activist" (to use a conservatvie talking point) Supreme Court decision is so disastrous.  We have opened the floodgates to unrepresentative government.

Barbarossa

quote>

Answer this question -- do corporations vote in the United States?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[ScaryMonkey 0]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: morriswalters  My fear of modern capitalism revolves around socalled multinationals.  I believe that they operate outside the constaints of any one social system.quote>

Which is just one point that makes the recent "activist" (to use a conservatvie talking point) Supreme Court decision is so disastrous.  We have opened the floodgates to unrepresentative government.

Barbarossa

quote>

Answer this question -- do corporations vote in the United States?

quote>

You bet they do, with the almighy dollar.  Here is where so many (dis)miss the problem.  It does not matter that a corporation does not vote.  What matters is that they lobby and they can promote the worst candidate.  Simply because that candidate has money pouring in from special interests, he/she can do a lot more toward promoting their campaign and their contributors will reap the rewards.  Plenty downplay it, but the court decision seriously undermines our democracy.

As I have said before, corporations should not be entitled to the same benefits as an individual.  Capitalism, while essentially good for an economy, has absolutely no place in government.

Barbarossa

quote>

Exactly, the ability to make huge campaign contributions give coroporations far more clout over the electoral process than all but the richest individual.  I'd trade my one measly vote for that kind of influence in a heartbeat.

[chicah 20]

I think a lot of people are looking at this the wrong way. For instance, I have always been called and called myself a socialist. But if you look at my actual views, you would find that in many cases, they're more traditionally anarchist/liberalist, and I think a lot of people have a too rigid look on ideologies. It's just the basis you build your thoughts and opinions on, you "develop" it and disagree with a lot of it, it's just the base, it's not everything. I have a socialist analysis of a lot of the economical situations in the world, and also believe in a regulated economy, so that is where I am socialist, I suppose; and I would rather see a democratic state in control of assets than private persons thinking solely of self-gain. But the values of freedom, equality and solidarity are more human values than values for one specific ideology. Values and ideology are in few cases one and the same, but the ideology can affect how we develop our values. Marx "feared" ideologies because they gave you a set of thoughts, opinions, "rules", which doesn't make humans evolve and think for themselves. Reflection is in many ways what separates us from the animals, and our most important feature.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa  Capitalism, while essentially good for an economy, has absolutely no place in government.

Barbarossa

quote>

 Now it's my turn to laugh so hard that (*insert beverage here*) comes out of my nose... you're joking, I assume. Our gov't derives its income and existence from capitalism, it is a backbone of our entire system. To end capitalism is to end the Republic, pure and simple. Attempting to hybridize our system will ultimately accomplish the same disaster.

[rant] On a personal level, I truly tremble for the future of our nation when I see people actually discussing it as if it's a good idea. Have we not shed enough blood, or squandered acres of treasure, fighting a range of evils that all had socialism at their core? My God, a generation or two later and Americans want to jump into bed with a direct threat to the American way of life. What are they teaching in the schools nowadays? [/rant]

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

[rant] On a personal level, I truly tremble for the future of our nation when I see people actually discussing it as if it's a good idea. Have we not shed enough blood, or squandered acres of treasure, fighting a range of evils that all had socialism at their core? My God, a generation or two later and Americans want to jump into bed with a direct threat to the American way of life. What are they teaching in the schools nowadays? [/rant]quote>

There is a vast, vast, vast, vast, vast difference between democratic socialism and the authoritative communist regimes that have been seen.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: chicah

the values of freedom, equality and solidarity are more human values than values for one specific ideology.quote>

True, but different people cite those things in very different ways. Indeed, different people want different things in life. There is the Libertarian angle of freedom of personal choice and freedom from government interferrence... and then there is the more socialist angle of freedom from having to worry about what choice to make or about whether or not something will be available to you. 

Each system has its merits, but there are a some key sticking points on the question of Socialism and America.

The first, of course, is that our constitution, gosh darn it, puts up quite a few roadblocks to getting there on the national level. Along with that, America has traditionally aired on the more Libertarian laissez-faire side, and we're not embracing socialism with open arms the way much of Europe already has.

But beyond that, you have to consider that collectivism in America really doesn't work the same way it does in European counties for two reasons: heterogenity and scale. America is a melting pot. We aren't a nation of one nationality, anyone and everyone is here living among each other. Too many different people from too many different backgrounds, we can never get anywhere close to all agreeing on anything except on rare occasions when something drastic unites us (see: fighting terrorism right after 9/11). This throws a monkey wrench into any idea of operating in a collectivist manner. We can't "just all get along" the same way people in European countries can and the way some people here would like us to. Open question to anyone from Europe: how many neighbors do you have who are of a different nationality than you?

As for the matter of scale...there are 310 million Americans. Europe's largest country has only slightly more than a quarter of that (Germany). All but three (Germany, France, UK) have less than a fifth of that. Also consider that America covers nearly 10 million square kilometers, more than twice every country in the EU combined. Given all that, does it start to make sense why we handle things so much on the state level rather than the national level?

Marx "feared" ideologies because they gave you a set of thoughts, opinions, "rules", which doesn't make humans evolve and think for themselves..quote>

Which is interesting, because Communism is an ideology. And conducive to free thinking it most certainly is not!

Originally posted by: manticorefan

What are they teaching in the schools nowadays? quote>

Depends on the school. On one extreme, you've got schools teachers making kids sing songs about how great Barack Obama is (I believe that was in New Jersey). On the other extreme, you've got schools that still teach kids the world was created in six days. Indoctrination goes both ways on that level, so it's not where the problem is. The issue is cultural, not institutiuonal... we've become far too morally relativistic and sympathetic, we're too unwilling to let people have consequences for making bad choices, and want to reward everyone rather than rewarding merit.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Governmental operations should not be run like a business, it should be run like a government.quote>

I can think of a few different ways of interpreting this statement. Do elaborate.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: beebs

There is a vast, vast, vast, vast, vast difference between democratic socialism and the authoritative communist regimes that have been seen.quote>

A local car has the bumper sticker: 

Communism, Socialism, Liberalism. 

Is there a difference?quote>

Unfortunately, this lack of education is rampant.

It's one thing to dislike all of them. It's another thing to not understand the difference.

Originally posted by: Duke87

We can't "just all get along" the same way people in European countries can and the way some people here would like us to. Open question to anyone from Europe: how many neighbors do you have who are of a different nationality than you?  quote>

 

There are towns in the US where everyone has the same background; they just aren't on the east coast.  I have a friend who lives in a small town (population under 10,000) in Texas.  It is the only town in the county (1,500 square miles).   They have their way of doing things and everyone does them that way.  Sounds rather Stepford to me but they like it that way. 

   

Not surprisingly, they are among the people who are upset that their way of life is being threatened.  Well, yeah!  There is a whole big world out there and it doesn't look like their small town.  At some point, they will need to extract their heads from the sand.

  

As for the matter of scale...there are 310 million Americans. Europe's largest country has only slightly more than a quarter of that (Germany). All but three (Germany, France, UK) have less than a fifth of that. Also consider that America covers nearly 10 million square kilometers, more than twice every country in the EU combined. Given all that, does it start to make sense why we handle things so much on the state level rather than the national level? quote>

  

I believe the largest cultural divide in the US is urban versus rural.   In areas of high population density, people can be literally living on top of each other.  Close proximity requires more tolerance, or more rules, so people can coexist.  In areas of low population density, people do have more freedom to do what they want because the nearest neighbor can be a mile or ten away and isn't going to care.

The whole concept of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" looks totally different when your nearest neighbor is a couple of yards away than a couple of miles away.

[chicah 20]

Duke87: Marx never called himself a "marxist", to put it like that. He put forth an analysis, the ideology has been developed later, and I think he wanted to leave plenty of room to "think" and reflect.

I am not talking about socialism in America. I find myself agreeing with manticorefan (which doesn't happen often), that the country was founded on capitalism, and I doubt it is possible to change that. I just don't want corporations and New Public Managment ruling this world, which is why I've chosen a different ideology. But I don't adapt my opinions to it, I've always had the views I have now, and I'll probably always have them. They just happen to fit better in socialism than capitalism.

That being said, America is more "socialist" (according my understand of socialism at least) than Europe in a lot of ways, for instance the direct election for Senate; as opposed to voting for parties, and it's much easier to get a hold of official papers etc. than in most European countries. And I believe a lot of Americans have a very... wrong look on what socialism is. They'd rather die than being associated with it, not knowing how much that term cover. Socialism covers everything from communism to moderate social democracy. Stalin read Marx like the devil would read the bible, he and Lenin developed their own ideology (Lenin's is called marxist-leninism here, Stalin's is called Stalinism) which is really quite far from how most socialist would picture the ideology. There was a standing joke in the Soviet Union that there were more communists OUTSIDE the bolsjevik party than within in. A dictatorship is a dictatorship, no matter which ideology they pretend to follow.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

A local car has the bumper sticker: 

Communism, Socialism, Liberalism. 

Is there a difference?quote>

Unfortunately, this lack of education is rampant.

It's one thing to dislike all of them. It's another thing to not understand the difference.quote>

Subtlety here: the intended meaning may not be to that there literally is no difference (absurd, obviously), but that there might as well be no difference - in a "it's all basically the same crap" sort of way. Which, admitedly, is still rather dismissive and closed-minded... but not stupid, as the literall interpretation would make it out to be.

There are towns in the US where everyone has the same background; they just aren't on the east coast.  I have a friend who lives in a small town (population under 10,000) in Texas.  It is the only town in the county (1,500 square miles).   They have their way of doing things and everyone does them that way.  Sounds rather Stepford to me but they like it that way.quote>

As an aside... that the very town I live in (Stamford, CT) was supposedly the basis for the fictional "Stepford". Of course, in reality, it's nothing like that. I live across the street from an Asian man and back-to-back with an Iranian couple. And people here don't have nearly as much money as the story depicts. Also, only the northern half of town is in any way affluent. The southern half ranges from average suburbua to working-class inner city.

   

I believe the largest cultural divide in the US is urban versus rural.quote>

Oh no doubt. Rurals are red, Urbans are blue... I think there's a cheesy Valentine's card in there somewhere.

Originally posted by: chicah

That being said, America is more "socialist" (according my understand of socialism at least) than Europe in a lot of ways, for instance the direct election for Senate; as opposed to voting for parties,quote>

Voting for people as opposed to parties is about Republic versus Parliamentary Democracy, a key difference between America and most of the rest of the developed world. I don't see what either has to do with Capitalism or Socialism, though.

(also, FYI: senators weren't always directly elected. Prior to the 17th Amendment (1913), state legislatures chose them)

it's much easier to get a hold of official papers etc. than in most European countries.quote>

Er... are you referring to the Freedom of Information Act and the fact that pretty much any non-classified government documents are available to anyone on request here? 

Again, I fail to see what's Socialist or Capitalist about that.

[morriswalters 16]

           Originally posted by: Meg

            A local car has the bumper sticker: 

            Communism, Socialism, Liberalism. 

            Is there a difference?

            Unfortunately, this lack of education is rampant.

             It's one thing to dislike all of them. It's another thing to not understand the difference.

The statement itself shows a great deal of sophistication by the person who wrote it.  It may well say something about the lack of an education of the people who read it.  You can draw your own conclusion.  Neither is it particulary subtle.  It uses seven words to make it's argument and it would take a hundreds of words to refute it.  An argument concieved for generation "sound bite".

[morriswalters 16]

Nashville, Tennessee (CNN)

-- The organizer of the Tea Party Convention says he agrees with Tom Tancredo's description of President Obama as a socialist.

The former congressman from Colorado and 2008 Republican presidential candidate blasted Obama, saying "people who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama."

Tancredo made his comments Thursday night as he gave the kickoff speech for the convention, which is being held at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center in Nashville.

Judson Phillips, a Tennessee lawyer who formed Tea Party Nation and who organized what's being billed as the first national Tea Party Convention, told reporters Friday that "Tom Tancredo gave a fantastic speech last night. I think he is an amazing politician."

Asked if he agrees with Tancredo's description of Obama, Phillips said, "The word 'socialist' is a word you don't want to be labeled with in the American political system. It's got a lot of negative connotations, but it also has a very specific political meaning. It refers to a specific political ideology. I think it is very clear that that is the political ideology of Barack Obama."

Phillips added that he thinks "Tancredo doesn't feel like a lot of people who supported Barack Obama understand the basics of this country."

A spokesman for the Tea Party Nation, the group that organized the convention, said Tancredo's speech may have provided some red meat but termed it problematic.

This posted in CNN this morning.  Link here www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/05/tea.party.convention/index.html.  I find this offensive in a number of ways.  The two highlighted phrases are the worst offenders.  The first is racist fear mongering. The second assumes that he has knowledge or insight that is special, or that he is so intelligent, that he can understand something I too stupid to.  I had posted the following in another thread, ask yourself if it is applicable.

If I wished to pass a constitutional amendment or monkeyfart with the political system here's what I would do.  Infiltrate a movement, the tea party comes to mind.  It doesn't really matter as long as they are either really angry or really hurting and frightened. 

Study the movement and find their hot button issues. 

Behavioral Science is  used to great effect in advertising. 

Find a proxy, somebody with  a Steely gaze and a well modulated voice, or assume that role yourself, you just have to project sincerity and trust and be able to deliver speeches which fan the flames.  Raise the temperature, a lot. 

The louder a conversation the less likely that people will hear what's being said.  Find some easy political targets and crush them. 

Demonize your opponents, never let them be seen as people.

  Whisper campaigns, email spam, YouTube videos, what have you, remember the idea is to win the game, truth is useful only when it serves you, else use a lie.  If you control the dialog and say it loud enough it becomes the truth.  Create a provocation, a martyr  might be nice, people love them.  Find the intelligence in the movement, and either subvert them or remove them.  You don't want people who can think.  Well, I think you get the idea.

[Duke87 1,070]

First of all, consider that this is very much a grassroots movement. It lacks any real organization or leadership. So it's not that surprising that someone who steps up to speak for it is going to run their mouth off like that because there's no standard of proffessionality to prevent them from doing so. Besides, he's speaking to a bunch of people who absolutely hate Obama and his ilk. They want to hear stuff like that.

Plenty of people were saying stuff like this about Bush when he was president. Some things don't change and are universal - the desire to attack and destroy one's opponents is one of them.

I can see where people would think the comment is racist, but I don't. Let's examine things a little more closely:

people who could not even spell the word 'vote'quote>

This is calling the supporters of Barack Obama "stupid". Unfairly broad-brushing, yes; and insulting, yes... but since his supporters come from all backgrounds, not "racist".

or say it in Englishquote>

Now here's the tricky part: the implication here would seem to be that they could say it in Spanish. But do bear in mind that not all immigrants are from Latin America. Plenty of Chinese and Koreans, too, for one thing. Since no specific group of immigrants was singled out, this is xenophobic... but not racist.

put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House.quote>

That Obama is pretty far over there ← is little secret to anyone who's paying attention. Now, whether or not that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to your personal opinion... but it isn't fear-mongering to point it out because, well, it's true.

...although, granted, "socialist" is one of those words that gets thrown around more as an insult than anything else, so I'd be wary of going there, personally.

[morriswalters 16]

The states requirements for voter eligibility.

www.declareyourself.com/voting_faq/state_by_state_info_2.html

General Eligibility Requirements for U.S. Citizenship

To apply for U.S. citizenship, applicants must:

• Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400
• Have been lawfully admitted to the United States
• Have resided as a permanent resident in the United States for at least 5 years or 3 years if you meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
• Have demonstrated continuous permanent residence
• Have demonstrated physical presence
• Have lived for 3 months in the USCIS district or state where the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400 is filed
• Demonstrate good moral character
• Show an attachment to the U.S. Constitution
• Be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English
• Demonstrate a knowledge of U.S. civics (history and government)
• Take the oath of allegiance to the United States

Please see the links on the right of this page to learn if you are eligible and how to apply for U.S. citizenship.

[Duke of York 23]

Well.. If you look at every socialist country you can see some problem and if you look at a capitalist Country you can see problems to.Now full Capitalism imo is really bad since the rich tend to almost monopolize and the free Marget system will end up collapsing within itself do to instability.Okay now as far as socialism goes the major issue I see is the tendency of to much social Programs with not enough free market capitol flow to pay for them and as you would guess a unstable economic system and bankrupt Government.Now I need to go ahead and point out that Obama is not a " Real " Socialist.Why? Well if you break things down it's easier. What Socialist bails out the rich in order to create a better economy? Sounds like a trickle down economics to me which would crest the top of Capitalist Parade. Now further more If I had to make this "Perfect Idealist" System I would say scratch both Capitalism and Socialism.What if for once a Country would adopt a a system that Allows Freedom but a common society where everyone lives as one economic status then we grow as Humanity.Why have the Rich?Why have the poor?It doesn't make sense when you could have one common middle class that could strive as one.But tis the reason this will not seem to function is that nobody wants to practice self sacrifice for the Government nor there fellow Country Citizen so I guess we can scratch that Idea to.So for now we can keep on playing this Cat and Mouse 50 % Capitalist 50 % Socialist and keep on growing in a more unstable greed driven economy where self want is more important in order to generate a dollar or two.Or where from Children we drown in advertisement of wants and got to have items which can lead to a life of work more buy more try try try your whole life to obtain ...for ?Maybe if we would teach Children in the Federal School system that you do not work hard for yourself.You work hard for the person sitting beside you and for the Government that you have full rights to take leadership in.That would start a new wave of Social Equality.Might as well add that Shareholder profits are never worth killing the earth we live and breath in. Okay now that I'm through enjoying placing my opinion Take Care, Duke of York

[Lampala 1]

To get down to the issue, I am very against socialism. It is always unsustainable in the common form that is practiced everywhere these days. Think about it. You cannot give everyone an adequate standard of living if you aim to exploit the means of creating wealth. By taxing business, businesses will need to have higher prices, employ less workers, cut services, etc. and eventually more failures will occur due to something that the private sector could not help. The money that was taken from these potentially successful, employing, well-paying business then goes to the government to expand its services. And you'd think we would get great education, less poverty, and more equality out of this process, right? No. The private sector decreases its productivity dramatically in these circumstances and pays less taxes, resulting in less government tax revenues (due to an increase in taxes... whoa!). Companies are forced sometimes to outsource the jobs or just lay off workers, and are increasingly outcompeted by the government. The government workforce, however, expands. So how does the government pay for its new workers and their services if businesses have so much less tax money to give it? They don't, and that's where you get situations that so many countries are in right now: huge, unsolvable deficits. Right now, the state of Illinois is trying to figure out how to solve their budget problems with taxes. You don't! You get rid of the primary cause of the deficits: the taxes. Or at least you lower them. If America embraces this rebellion against common sense, it will be the end of our prosperity and quality of life. We should just go the simple, obvious route: let businesses do their thing (with minor government services and regulations, etc., but minimal). If we don't do so, our economy will be controlled by one big corporation-like organization which cannot be boycotted, can only be held accountable once every two or four years, can impose universal requirements on anything in our lives, and whose power is unlimited... except by a constitution (which is in the US under attack... big surprise, huh?). So that's my opinion on socialism.

And I sort of agree with the mentioned bumper sticker. Communists, socialists, and liberals have only one difference: how far they take the same agenda of government ownership of the economy. Their social agendas may differ, but that's not what we're discussing here. If liberals were going a different economic direction than socialists, they would not be trying to raise taxes, spend our way out of economic downturn, or establish government health care.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Lampala

And I sort of agree with the mentioned bumper sticker. Communists, socialists, and liberals have only one difference: how far they take the same agenda of government ownership of the economy. Their social agendas may differ, but that's not what we're discussing here.  quote>

The bumper sticker didn't mention economics or social agendas.  

In terms of, for instance, personal freedom, there is a huge difference between communism, socialism, and liberalism.

Why would it only be about economics?

[Duke of York 23]

Originally posted by: Lampala

To get down to the issue, I am very against socialism. It is always unsustainable in the common form that is practiced everywhere these days. Think about it. You cannot give everyone an adequate standard of living if you aim to exploit the means of creating wealth. By taxing business, businesses will need to have higher prices, employ less workers, cut services, etc. and eventually more failures will occur due to something that the private sector could not help. The money that was taken from these potentially successful, employing, well-paying business then goes to the government to expand its services. And you'd think we would get great education, less poverty, and more equality out of this process, right? No. The private sector decreases its productivity dramatically in these circumstances and pays less taxes, resulting in less government tax revenues (due to an increase in taxes... whoa!). Companies are forced sometimes to outsource the jobs or just lay off workers, and are increasingly outcompeted by the government. The government workforce, however, expands. So how does the government pay for its new workers and their services if businesses have so much less tax money to give it? They don't, and that's where you get situations that so many countries are in right now: huge, unsolvable deficits. Right now, the state of Illinois is trying to figure out how to solve their budget problems with taxes. You don't! You get rid of the primary cause of the deficits: the taxes. Or at least you lower them. If America embraces this rebellion against common sense, it will be the end of our prosperity and quality of life. We should just go the simple, obvious route: let businesses do their thing (with minor government services and regulations, etc., but minimal). If we don't do so, our economy will be controlled by one big corporation-like organization which cannot be boycotted, can only be held accountable once every two or four years, can impose universal requirements on anything in our lives, and whose power is unlimited... except by a constitution (which is in the US under attack... big surprise, huh?). So that's my opinion on socialism.

And I sort of agree with the mentioned bumper sticker. Communists, socialists, and liberals have only one difference: how far they take the same agenda of government ownership of the economy. Their social agendas may differ, but that's not what we're discussing here. If liberals were going a different economic direction than socialists, they would not be trying to raise taxes, spend our way out of economic downturn, or establish government health care.quote>

 Theres only one problem I have though with a system you have stated which would end up a more Capitalist system and that is the fact that the government cannot fix a economy through tax cuts.Sure when the economy is spiraling down tax cuts can help.Just like Reagan Tax Cuts prevented and recovered us from Jimmy Carter who was a spend and Tax president himself.But Trickle down economics are soon to fail because you give the rich all the control and then you hand over the economy to greedy wolves who can pretty much have there say in Goverment.Now I've always supported one flat tax and then maybe a system of living excess tax.For instance if someone goes out to a Lobster and Steak house I see it as a justification to put a additional government tax on Lobster and Steak ...Maybe even up to 20 % more.However that money could be used by the government to pay some of the cost and completely waive a tax on necessities like Milk,bread and common household and everyday living products.Same thing with vehicles.Somone buys a Hummer should have to pay more tax because over all there excess should not cost the average worker.With that tax money you could cheapen as prices for someone driving a Toyota Camery .

Heres some quotes to take in mind Imo

 If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism, we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.

- Vladimir Lenin -

 A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

- Thomas Jefferson -

Both have there points but nether are 100 % right in there extremities.

-Duke of York-

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Duke of York

But Trickle down economics are soon to fail because you give the rich all the control and then you hand over the economy to greedy wolves who can pretty much have there say in Goverment.quote>

Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.  The rich will have large shares of the power regardless of what system of economics or government you choose to have.  Money is power and it has a way of superseding other forms of power.

Now I've always supported one flat tax and then maybe a system of living excess tax.For instance if someone goes out to a Lobster and Steak house I see it as a justification to put a additional government tax on Lobster and Steak ...Maybe even up to 20 % more.However that money could be used by the government to pay some of the cost and completely waive a tax on necessities like Milk,bread and common household and everyday living products.quote>

Most states already offer tax free purchases of items necessary for day to day living.  There is no need to introduce new taxes for something that can much more easily be solved by simply dropping sales tax on items deemed necessary to life.

Same thing with vehicles.Somone buys a Hummer should have to pay more tax because over all there excess should not cost the average worker.With that tax money you could cheapen as prices for someone driving a Toyota Camery .quote>

It is doubtful that the state would raise enough money to have a significant benefit in such a scenario, but it would assuredly raise legal challenges over whether that new Mercedes was a luxury purchase or a work expense.

[Duke of York 23]

hym

Remember the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.  The rich will have large shares of the power regardless of what system of economics or government you choose to have.  Money is power and it has a way of superseding other forms of power.

 

Thats very true and a good point.Now solutions are available like stopping Lobbying by Corporations which it seems

the administration was going to do but once one has what they need from the people such as votes a persons words

really don't seem to mean that much.

hym

 Most states already offer tax free purchases of items necessary for day to day living.  There is no need to introduce new taxes for something that can much more easily be solved by simply dropping sales tax on items deemed necessary to life.

 Indeed, I still think it's not asking much for someone of excess to pay a little more for lobster when theres people that can't

afford beans.The government could actually take that tax money and cheapen the product not just reduce the tax alone.

hym

It is doubtful that the state would raise enough money to have a significant benefit in such a scenario, but it would assuredly raise legal challenges over whether that new Mercedes was a luxury purchase or a work expense.

 Well , you do not have to classify the vehicles as luxuries as much as excess fuel and resources that are not needed for that individuals purpose.The tax made off of that excess living can go towards clean energy and updates plus new Mass Transit networks that would also create jobs right here in the States.

-Duke of York-

[Lampala 1]

I think that tax cuts are underestimated. Maybe cutting taxes in itself won't solve all of our economic problems, but raising them will do and has done terrible things. There's always the issue of corporations' potential to have excess, unaccountable power, but that can be solved through some restrictions (definitely not higher taxes) and, if it comes down to it, boycotts. The government should not be the one to get inside corporations and punish them for doing something wrong. It should be up to the people running it to decide the line between greed and financial success/safety, or cruelty and sacrifices. Usually corporations' evil is over blown anyway. It's not true that the rich always "rule" the economy and have ultimate say in the government as a result of capitalism. Sure, they can lobby, but they have no real power over the government. I would rather them not, in the case of a capitalism-encouraging sort of government. But my point was that lower taxes provides the opportunity for entrepreneurship and smaller businesses to form and grow. Some may be very successful, but they can't all grow into the greedy-wolf-filled, highly influential corporations that you mentioned. Actually, higher taxes make it so the biggest companies are the only ones that can survive, if they have the biggest profits. And it gives big companies the motive to influence the government in the first place. Why would they want to do so if the government is harmless to them anyway? As more socialist measures are being pushed forward, more corporations are lobbying so that the legislation doesn't kill them and all they've worked for. It's mere survival in this case.

[morriswalters 16]

Originally posted by:

Lampala

I think that tax cuts are underestimated. Maybe cutting taxes in itself won't solve all of our economic problems, but raising them will do and has done terrible things.

I love tax cuts.  But if you cut taxes without cutting spending it's irrational. And if you cut taxes and increase spending it's suicidal.

There's always the issue of corporations' potential to have excess, unaccountable power, but that can be solved through some restrictions (definitely not higher taxes) and, if it comes down to it, boycotts.

A boycott presumes a lever, with most large multinationals you can't find a lever.

The government should not be the one to get inside corporations and punish them for doing something wrong. It should be up to the people running it to decide the line between greed and financial success/safety, or cruelty and sacrifices.

I'm not sure if you actually mean what you seem to be saying,  Do you mean that corporations should never be punished for anything they do?  That only their bottom line is important?

Usually corporations' evil is over blown anyway. It's not true that the rich always "rule" the economy and have ultimate say in the government as a result of capitalism. Sure, they can lobby, but they have no real power over the government. I would rather them not, in the case of a capitalism-encouraging sort of government.

Coporations aren't evil they are amoral.   What corporations get for their money is access.  Try this.  Call your Senator on the phone and try to get him, in person.  I willing to bet that it will be difficult if not impossible.   Now imagine you are Warren Buffet, do you think he  will have as hard a time?

But my point was that lower taxes provides the opportunity for entrepreneurship and smaller businesses to form and grow. Some may be very successful, but they can't all grow into the greedy-wolf-filled, highly influential corporations that you mentioned. Actually, higher taxes make it so the biggest companies are the only ones that can survive, if they have the biggest profits. And it gives big companies the motive to influence the government in the first place. Why would they want to do so if the government is harmless to them anyway? As more socialist measures are being pushed forward, more corporations are lobbying so that the legislation doesn't kill them and all they've worked for. It's mere survival in this case.quote>

I actually support tax cuts for small businesses.  Community based business are the backbone of the Nation and should be supported.  But I disagree that taxes have ever forced a company out of business.  Most companies go out of business because they couldn't adapt to a changing market or to cheaper imports.  Companies motives to influence government is the same as anybodys.  They want something that Government controls.  Something that gives them an edge, something that protects them from competition, well I could go on and on.

Even when coporations don't do "evil" the results can be just as bad.  Early one Sunday morning in my city of Louisville, Kentucky a company then known as Ralston Purina released Hexane into the sewers.  The fumes were ignited slightly before six in the morning.  The ensuing explosion destroyed 2 miles of streets.  No one was killed, more as a matter of the hour than for any other reason.  The city was years recovering.  See this link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville_sewer_explosions

They weren't evil just careless, to make sure it didn't happen again meant new regulation.

[chicah 20]

Duke87: Which simply proves my point, people's understanding of ideology. To me, socialism is more democratic than a non-socialist system. Of course, the countries we have seen who have called themselves socialists have failed aswell in understand what ideology is about (in my opinion). It's more of an intention than an actual system a country shall be ruled after. I do not believe in a purely socialist state, but I believe the intention of socialism is good and that we should try to acheive it - which is easiest done through democracy, and social programs to make sure everyone have the same possibilites available (which is what socialism is to me - not making everyone equal, but giving everyone equal opportunities. They can choose something else than these opportunities, but the opportunies are there so the less and the more fortunate are at least ensured a basic level of education and so on) - a social democracy or even a capitalist state can be influenced by socialism. It is an important thing for most socialists is that the weak, the ones at the "bottom", in other words the general public, have a means of controlling their superiors. And freeing information is a way to do this. People can actually go in and see for themselves what the ones they have elected have or have not done, look at reports and receive more information - socialism to me is about enlightenment aswell, and through these reports people can be enlightened. Thus, it does in fact have to do with socialism in my book. The same goes for direct elections as they are more democratic, and you can directly choose a candidate you prefer for the Senate, instead of having to vote for a party, even if you prefer the third candidate, the first will get elected and you might not agree as much with them as with candidate #3 on the party list.

As you can see, the first view might be seen as more liberalistic and the second as more anarchistic, thus no ideology is simple. People call me a socialist, but does that mean I have one completely still ideology and do not develop new thoughts, or the ideology in itself in my head? It's possible to be a socialist and disagree strongly with a lot of things Marx said, and it's possible to be a socialist and despise the thought of a "1984"-society as much as anyone else. Because an ideology is not what a few men said, did or wrote - an ideology is inspiration and basis for further thought and reflection. An ideology should never control a society, the people should control the society. I think totalitarian ideologies are a threat to freedom and democracy, but I believe most totalitarian ideologies (like Stalinist communism or facism) are used like a tactic for someone to get in power, and those ways of ruling a country open for dictatorship and torture and murder, all things bad. You should never let an ideology completely take charge, there needs to be a constant debate and evolution of the society. Freedom is the ultimate goal for everyone, we just differ in our thoughts of how to get there. I think a nation needs a stable state to provide them with opportunities for them to be as free as possible. You are more free if you do not constantly have to worry about getting injured because you can't afford the hospital bill, or if you can get a good, free education regardless of background, and then go out to fulfil your own potential as whatever you want. That's freedom. I believe the market can make us just as much slaves as a totalitarian state can, and that's why we need to regulate it. People should control money, money shouldn't control people.

[Lampala 1]

You make some good points, Chicah, and I agree. However, I think you are just articulating what everyone believes. I, too, think that people should have control over their lives, not money. We just disagree on how to make that happen. I think that lower taxes and less regulation (when unnecessary, like many of the regulations that destroyed our auto industry) are the answer to the creation of jobs and the long-term stability and adaptability of our economy. Someone does not have to "worry about getting injured" if the government has gone out of the way to let prices drop naturally, and not drive them up by getting unnecessarily involved. Plus, even though socialism may deliver more equality or better government services for a short while, it's unsustainable and will create long term problems. I don't think it would ever even work in the short term, in a country like the US with the biggest and most diverse economy in the world.

Also, corporate greed and carelessness is too often cited as a fallback of capitalism. Sure, it may blow up a street in Louisville now and then, but look at the large scale effects. Look at a company like Wal Mart, and how many people it employs. These people have been guarded from poverty by a corporation's willingness to pay them for labor. The small, isolated negative effects of capitalism can be investigated, but should not be fixed by huge government rules, made from miles away, or large beaurocracies. This inevitably leads to more corruption and less freedom.

That brings up something else. Socialists (and progressive liberals) bring up that socialism was not tried perfectly by the soviets or other socialist countries in the past. They try not to let Marx take credit for past failures. But I think that Marxism and excess government control is what leads to inefficient governments and greed in politics. If we give the government less control there will be less motive for such things. One thing we can all work together for is a truly accountable, transparent democracy, but I believe that to have this we must first have one that does not own half of our incomes or excessively control our businesses. The socialist utopia is wishful thinking and cannot be somehow separate from human immorality and hunger for power. Personal freedom can be realized the other way much easier.

[chicah 20]

Lampala: For us, maybe. Capitalism can work in an already functioning society, where there are natural regulations in place, and where the standard of living is high enough for people not to let themselves be exploited by greedy corporations. My main problem with capitalism is that is is global. Huge organizations like IMF and the World Bank demand that poor countries shall open completely for private companies, and have a free market. In a state where basic welfare insitutions arent already in place, like education or a health system or even a water or sewage system, this can be disastrous. And they are not able to protect their own market and therefore build up a strong one before they open up for competition. Capitalism in that form eradicates all competition, there is no way they CAN match a competition like that when their entire society, system or economy isnt strong enough. But in the global capitalism, it is in many ways survival of the fittest, and the western countries ignore that WE protected our economy and built up a sustainable market and a strong economy before the global world trade started. By denying the developing countries that opportunity, we ensure that they will remain poorer than us. Because capitalism leads to a lot of happy people, on BEHALF of someone else. For us to get richer, they need to get poorer. If you have the choice between hazardous work 22 out of 24 hours for lousy pay or no work at all, you choose the first alternative, and the capitalists of the world know how to exploit that.

So yes, it might give a lot more freedom to SOME people than a socialism-based system can. But it will also enslave a lot more people. And why do people keep dragging the US into this, I'm not from the US and I never said I thought socialism was the solution for America.