Originally posted by scherzoThe IWW isn't Marxist-Leninist.
The USSR fell apart because of Stalin, and later Gorbachev. Neither were truly socialist. Lenin was.
Today, there are few Marxist-Leninist countries left. Cuba, North Korea, and that's really about it.
Why you you have the IWW thing up if you're not Marxist-Leninist? Or Maoist? Or socialist in general?
Originally posted by rwingettIf in this day and age any rational person would suggest that the personal views and ideology of any individual could actually make much of an imprint on the office that is as well guarded and groomed as that of the President of the United States, then there's hardly much point in engaging further debate on this issue with you. I basically do not believe that an individual can exist behind the desk of that oval office for more than a nan-second, unless they have sold out their private ambitions in terms of ideological goals and visions. If on the rare occasion the person in the office has actually managed to synthesise the mindset of the establishment oligarchy and is a good salesman to boot, then the Caesar effect comes into play, and the machine tends to cut off its own head. But I could easily be under some serious misapprehension on all of this couldn't I?
But if you're claiming that Obama is a socialist, then your definition of socialism is so broad as to be meaningless.
Originally posted by scherzoPutting all the blame on Stalin is a bit too convenient. But the problem didn't start with Stalin. Lenin made Stalin possible. The police state, the suppression of dissidents, the emasculation of the soviets, were all started during Lenin's time. And Lenin's authoritarian program got its impetus from Marx. Stalin wasn't the betrayer of Marxism-Leninism, he was the inevitable result of it.
The USSR fell apart because of Stalin, and later Gorbachev. Neither were truly socialist. Lenin was.
Today, there are few Marxist-Leninist countries left. Cuba, North Korea, and that's really about it.
Why you you have the IWW thing up if you're not Marxist-Leninist? Or Maoist? Or socialist in general?
The IWW was not Marxist-Leninist. Your claim that they were demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding on your part. They represented the anarchistic, anti-authoritarian wing of the socialist movement, which stood in stark contrast to the Marxist-Leninists. A few of the anarchists, like Emma Goldman, saw very early that the Bolsheviks and Marxism-Leninism were destroying the revolution. Her analysis of that period is as relevant today as it was in 1919.
You claim that Lenin was 'truly' socialist. This is false. The most fundamental principle of socialism is that "the workers shall control the means of production." In fact, the Bolsheviks came to power with the slogan "All power to the soviets." The soviets, as you should know, were workers' councils. In other words, things were to be run by the workers themselves through their democratic, self-managed organizations. One of the first things Lenin did was to strip the soviets of any real power and instead put it into the hands of the Communist Party hierarchy. Under Marxism-Leninism the workers never controlled the means of production and thus once the Bolsheviks consolidated power, Lenin's Soviet Union was never really socialist. You're clinging to a phantasm.
So to answer you, I am a socialist. But in order for socialism to make any progress beyond the infantile stage, Marxism-Leninism needs to be overcome and forgotten.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87I honestly don't have any idea what you're talking about. Sorry.
If in this day and age any rational person would suggest that the personal views and ideology of any individual could actually make much of an imprint on the office that is as well guarded and groomed as that of the President of the United States, then there's hardly much point in engaging further debate on this issue with you. I basically do not believe that ...[text shortened]... own head. But I could easily be under some serious misapprehension on all of this couldn't I?
Edit: Actually, I do get what you're saying, but I fail to see what it has to do with anything.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI've pretty much debated around this observation of yours. My point of view is that while the world may never truly end up as being socialist it will approach the sort of rule by bureacracy as seen in the USSR North Korea and China. That on occasion a tyranical despot rises through these oligarchical ranks (like a Stalin) its of no real consequence to the long run tendency of money and power that has led to an incremental centralising of power the world over and regardless of what the ideological hoardings of a particular national state may claim to profess, my long held suspiscion and belief is that all the estates have been systematically and inexorably driving the worlds populations into accepting the yoke of universal citizenship and placing limits on national agency through the promotion of *socialist* agenda's like universal healthcare, social welfare in the form of unemployment benefits, state housing and universal free education.
Unless you consider the whole 20th century a necessary learning example of how NOT to go about applying socialism.
When national governments are convinced/coerced into accepting these programs as a natural and the normal response owed to their citizens(they provide the greater proportion of tax revenues anyway!), what this does is also deplete the national coffers of funds that might otherwise give countries jingoistic tendencies, militaristic posturing and territorial ambitions. The long run is to convince people of the logic that there are enough resources to look after everyone and that to continue to uphold the rights of a few to profit at great expense on the masses is the most diabolical inversion of freedom ever conceived. Lets face it, the much feared new world order and its much anticipated one world government will attempt to place much of the world in space somewhere between US style capitalism and the USSR under Brezhnev.
In short somewhere between Scandanavia and Australia. And as I already live in the latter all I can say is big whoop!
Originally posted by LundosBy and large, it is an appropriate generalization to state that most government budget reflect a share of politics that pushes spending above the levels that would optomize growth from savings and investments. Governments spend a lot of money in non-investments...
No, of course not. But where do you draw the line? Social Security, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities and Exchange Commission for example?
[b]As you mentioned, even Friedman found use for government (who doesn't, this isn't anarchy being discussed, is a predominantly-capitalist, market-based economy versus a more socialis ...[text shortened]... he other hand have been as liberal as it gets. Or do you just want to argue the last 50 years?
So let's start with less government size and spending than those present in most countries today.
I think countries like Britain and the US have been benefiting from predominantly laissez-faire capitalist economic policies for the past 200 years (and their early industrialization), which were largely pro-business, pro-capitalist policies over the last few years.
I am not saying that their past extremes are ideal, but that they fostered growth.
You pointed to occasional protectionism, but which countries are you saying were more capitalist the past 200 years? Are we comparing them to an extreme ideal or to other countries' actual policies? I favor the latter, relative to which countries are have they not been capitalist for the past 200 years? Not just 50. Also, where is this headed? 200 hundred years remains a better answer than 50, but then what? Or you argue that therefore what?
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThat only demonstrate that high spending does not always and everywhere completely prevent growth, but it does not demonstrate that lower spending would not lead to even greater growth.
But Norway's government spending is quite high, so even your good examples show that it's not necessarily the size that weighs down on the economy, but mostly about what governments are doing with that money.
Let's say the government of Norway let it's own people invest their own money in their own enterprises... might not that have greated even greater wealth?
Norway only shows a piece of the puzzle, let's see what changes improve it or bring it down as well as many other countries. The story of most countries is to spend much on things that are not investments, wouldn't you agree?
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by spruce112358
So when all the developing countries have become developed countries, and there is no one left to work for infrahuman wages, how much will sports shoes cost in the USA?
Cost of Shoes. They will cost about the same. The companies are not passing savings on to consumers (heaven forbid!) The cost of shoes is based on what the market will bear, and companies are pocketing the difference. But why should we care? If I want those shoes, I decide what price I will pay. I could care less what it cost to make them.
But this doesn't make any sense.
So the people making the shoes will - one day - be paid ten times more and yet the shoes will cost the same to the U.S. consumer. This means the producers will make less. So you are suggesting what's going to eventually happen in The Shoe Thing is that the producers, the entrepreneurs, the companies are going to make far less money and - by extention - have less money, or - perhaps I'll put it this way - they are going to have less of the money. Yes?
In other words, capitalism - in the long run - is going to make the shoe stitchers wealthier (than they have been) and the owners of the shoe factories less wealthy (than they have been).
In other words, the owners of the shoe factories are going see their wealth decrease so that the shoe stitchers become wealthier and this is going to happen because the 'free market' will dictate it?
The entrepreneurs and owners of capital are going to steadily become relatively less wealthy, while the workers are going to steadily become relatively wealthier?
In other words, "capitalism" is ultimately going to transfer wealth from the wealthy to the poor? The wealth gap is going to close?
This is your prediction?
How come we've seen no sign of this yet? Why, indeed, are things moving in the opposite direction?
Originally posted by rwingettPutting all the blame on Stalin is a bit too convenient. But the problem didn't start with Stalin. Lenin made Stalin possible. The police state, the suppression of dissidents, the emasculation of the soviets, were all started during Lenin's time. And Lenin's authoritarian program got its impetus from Marx. Stalin wasn't the betrayer of Marxism-Leninism, he was the inevitable result of it.
Putting all the blame on Stalin is a bit too convenient. But the problem didn't start with Stalin. Lenin made Stalin possible. The police state, the suppression of dissidents, the emasculation of the soviets, were all started during Lenin's time. And Lenin's authoritarian program got its impetus from Marx. Stalin wasn't the betrayer of Marxism-Leninism, he ...[text shortened]... ss beyond the infantile stage, Marxism-Leninism needs to be overcome and forgotten.
I'm not saying Lenin didn't have flaws. I'm saying, Stalin was the one that turned these flaws into gaping holes that killed over 30 million people. Lenin is Marx's theory applied politically, by the way.
The IWW was not Marxist-Leninist. Your claim that they were demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding on your part. They represented the anarchistic, anti-authoritarian wing of the socialist movement, which stood in stark contrast to the Marxist-Leninists. A few of the anarchists, like Emma Goldman, saw very early that the Bolsheviks and Marxism-Leninism were destroying the revolution. Her analysis of that period is as relevant today as it was in 1919.
You claim that Lenin was 'truly' socialist. This is false. The most fundamental principle of socialism is that "the workers shall control the means of production." In fact, the Bolsheviks came to power with the slogan "All power to the soviets." The soviets, as you should know, were workers' councils. In other words, things were to be run by the workers themselves through their democratic, self-managed organizations. One of the first things Lenin did was to strip the soviets of any real power and instead put it into the hands of the Communist Party hierarchy. Under Marxism-Leninism the workers never controlled the means of production and thus once the Bolsheviks consolidated power, Lenin's Soviet Union was never really socialist. You're clinging to a phantasm.
1. The IWW was cofounded by Eugene V. Debs.
2. From their site:
[The IWW] is a fighting labor union that believes that the interests of labor can be fully served only when working people are united as a class. It wants to see all on the same job united, all in the same industry in one union, all who work for wages in one big union.
The IWW differs sharply from the position of other unions in that, we believe the problems of the working class can not be solved by begging crumbs from employers or praying to politicians for favors. While it fights for better conditions today, the IWW insists that working people are entitled to everything they produce, instead of a meager share.
There will be insecurity and hunger among those who toil for as long as there is an employing class that benefits from low wages and evil working conditions. The IWW holds that there can be no solution to industrial warfare, no end to injustice and want, until the profit system itself is abolished.
In striving to unite labor as a class in one big union the IWW also seeks to build the structure of a new and better social order within the shell of the old system which fails to provide for the needs of all.
So to answer you, I am a socialist. But in order for socialism to make any progress beyond the infantile stage, Marxism-Leninism needs to be overcome and forgotten.
An anti-Marxist socialist. I've never come across that before.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFEntrepreneurs are always chasing after the lowest-cost shoe-stitcher to maximize their profit margin. Me, buying the shoes, I have no idea what they cost to make. But, once made, shoes have to be sold. So if a market is saturated, he may sell excess stock in a different country at much lower cost. Better something than nothing.
Originally posted by spruce112358
Cost of Shoes. They will cost about the same. The companies are not passing savings on to consumers (heaven forbid!) The cost of shoes is based on what the market will bear, and companies are pocketing the difference. But why should we care? If I want those shoes, I decide what price I will pay. I could care less what e've seen no sign of this yet? Why, indeed, are things moving in the opposite direction?
Wages go up when the business can't find anybody to stitch for peanuts anymore. But he can't just pass that cost onto the consumer because he has competitors selling shoes who are not raising prices. So his profit margin gets squeezed. He is still making money -- just not as much. So he is not getting "less wealthy", he is getting "more wealthy, more slowly." Anyway, his profit margin was huge-- so he can afford to increase pay.
One day, though, the entrepreneur finds his margin squeezed to the point where he actually isn't making money -- so he then sells out to United Shoes, which manages on much smaller margins because they have higher volume.
Then the entrepreneur takes his lump sum payment and starts a new business making 'rocket boots' which are the next big thing. Of course, he needs much more skilled workers than his old shoe-stitchers, so he pays them more -- and that cost can be passed on since nobody is making rocket boots yet.
So the level of wages is set by the competition among workers for positions with a needed skill set. And price is set based on what people will pay for a thing.
Originally posted by LundosLimited government, yes, fdic is nescessary, sec is nescessary...
No, of course not. But where do you draw the line? Social Security, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities and Exchange Commission for example?
[b]As you mentioned, even Friedman found use for government (who doesn't, this isn't anarchy being discussed, is a predominantly-capitalist, market-based economy versus a more socialis ...[text shortened]... he other hand have been as liberal as it gets. Or do you just want to argue the last 50 years?
but social security and medicare... not at the current levels. That is extreme consumption at an unaffordable level... and a ponzi scheme.
Neoclassical growth models lead consider that there is an optimum savings rate to maximize production. savings & investments lead to technological innovation. the models may change details or which relationships they're trying to show, but they infer that growth is not achieved by government's spending on consumption...