Originally posted by nsdrguyThere probably are not truly socialist countries left, if there ever were any (assuming you don't want to call the USSR and its satellites socialist countries, which you obviously don't).
3. show me one truly socialist country that economically opresses. We will of course have the argument about whether that country is truly socialist, or merely a totalitatian regime, which regresses a culture to fuedalism, an even worse system than capitalism
There's a reason for that. It's plain as day that "true" socialism doesn't work.
Originally posted by sh76*cough*Norway*cough*
There probably are not truly socialist countries left, if there ever were any (assuming you don't want to call the USSR and its satellites socialist countries, which you obviously don't).
There's a reason for that. It's plain as day that "true" socialism doesn't work.
Originally posted by sh76I disagree. The old USSR (which I don't consider to be true socialism) was very technologically advanced. They beat the US into space for starters. The MIG jets were faster and carried more fire power than US fighter jets, and the AK 47 was and still is the best all around combat weapon. They developed ICBM's, computers, loads of other technology in parallel with western democracy, much of it radically different.
Yes, Marx was all for innovation and technological advancement just like I'm all in favor of myself winning the US Open next year without having to practice or train. But neither are likely to occur.
The engine behind innovation and the engine behind creating new businesses is the desire for profit. A worker whose lifestyle and salary are not influenced by h ...[text shortened]... enough motivation to do so is the prospect of greater rewards to be realized by the individual.
Originally posted by sh76Actually much innovation these days still comes from universities which are usually partly publicly funded. Innovation from companies is important too, of course, but without the fundamental scientific research of universities they would get stuck pretty quickly.
Yes, Marx was all for innovation and technological advancement just like I'm all in favor of myself winning the US Open next year without having to practice or train. But neither are likely to occur.
The engine behind innovation and the engine behind creating new businesses is the desire for profit. A worker whose lifestyle and salary are not influenced by h ...[text shortened]... enough motivation to do so is the prospect of greater rewards to be realized by the individual.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraGreat. Let's have them both.
Actually much innovation these days still comes from universities which are usually partly publicly funded. Innovation from companies is important too, of course, but without the fundamental scientific research of universities they would get stuck pretty quickly.
Originally posted by nsdrguyAnd yet their economy sucked.
I disagree. The old USSR (which I don't consider to be true socialism) was very technologically advanced. They beat the US into space for starters. The MIG jets were faster and carried more fire power than US fighter jets, and the AK 47 was and still is the best all around combat weapon. They developed ICBM's, computers, loads of other technology in parallel with western democracy, much of it radically different.
With all their government pushed technological advancements and military and imperial power they still couldn't achieve more than a 3rd World economy.
In any case, you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. You're saying that USSR was not true socialism but you're pointing out the few positives of the USSR as what socialism can achieve. Which one is it? Is the USSR an example of socialism or not?
Oh; and Norway is not run on a socialistic economy. More socialistic than the US? Yes. Run based on pure Marx socialism? Not even close. I'm sure KN can explain that to you as well.
Originally posted by sh76It depends on how you would define "pure" socialism, of course. Norway's system is clearly capitalist at its core, however it also strives for high equality of opportunity, strong social security and income redistibution and in doing so has been more succesful than any (attempted) socialist system through non-democratic means.
And yet their economy sucked.
With all their government pushed technological advancements and military and imperial power they still couldn't achieve more than a 3rd World economy.
In any case, you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. You're saying that USSR was not true socialism but you're pointing out the few positives of the USSR as what sociali ...[text shortened]... based on pure Marx socialism? Not even close. I'm sure KN can explain that to you as well.
Originally posted by sh76There are no true capitalist countries either. The US (probably the most capitalist country) still has to rely on social security, the army and police, bailouts for a failed banking system, etc. all paid for by the tax payer. If the US were truly capitalist then these things would be paid for by private funds and the banks would have been allowed to collapse. Therefore 'true' capitalism doesn't work either.
There probably are not truly socialist countries left, if there ever were any (assuming you don't want to call the USSR and its satellites socialist countries, which you obviously don't).
There's a reason for that. It's plain as day that "true" socialism doesn't work.
The countries which weathered the economic crisis the best were Australia, China, some in northern Europe and Brasil. All countries with a decent mix of both capitalist and socialist policies.
Originally posted by nsdrguy1. well known fact, look it up
1. well known fact, look it up
2. false. the ruling class control both the income and the cost of living. The laborer works for mere existance, there is no surplus with which to "decide". part 2 is false also, prove your assertion if you can.
3. show me one truly socialist country that economically opresses. We will of course have the argument about wh ...[text shortened]... lism, an even worse system than capitalism
we can only hope it will as crappy as Norway
you're the one making the claim, you're the one who should post it here for all to see.
2. false. the ruling class control both the income and the cost of living. The laborer works for mere existance, there is no surplus with which to "decide". part 2 is false also, prove your assertion if you can.
untrue.
another baseless claim, what laborer are you talking about? are all laborers de facto slaves under capitalism? no. the job you get (usually) depends on your level of education, those who work hard achieve more than others, its simple and its fair.
look at venezuela, and how wonderful it is.
3. show me one truly socialist country that economically opresses.
well it doesn't matter how many examples of oppressive socialist regimes I give you, you're just gonna say "well, they're not true socialists",etc etc, the usual no true scotman fallacy.
we can only hope it will as crappy as Norway
look at the size, and population of norway.
also, it is one example, what about all the other examples that show socialism doesn't work? are you going to ignore them?
is it possible to become a millionaire in norway?
what about the taxes?
aren't people too dependent on the government?
isn't government too big?
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoyou're the one making the claim, you're the one who should post it here for all to see.
[b]1. well known fact, look it up
you're the one making the claim, you're the one who should post it here for all to see.
2. false. the ruling class control both the income and the cost of living. The laborer works for mere existance, there is no surplus with which to "decide". part 2 is false also, prove your assertion if you can.
he taxes?
aren't people too dependent on the government?
isn't government too big?[/b]
http://www.faithcomesbyhearing.com/half-world-lives-2-usd-or-less-day-0
(there are plenty more sites, but you probably won't even look at this one so why bother posting them?)
untrue.
another baseless claim, what laborer are you talking about? are all laborers de facto slaves under capitalism? no. the job you get (usually) depends on your level of education, those who work hard achieve more than others, its simple and its fair.
look at venezuela, and how wonderful it is.
anyone who sells their labor on the market is in some way being oppressed. The capitalist pays the market minimum for labor, then reaps profit from the labor of all workers. Those who work hard do not get ahead. The hardest working people are the labor class, the custodians, factory workers, groundskeepers, trashmen, waitresses etc... It doesn't matter how hard they work, they do not own the means of production, and therefore can never do better than mere existance. hardly simple, hardly fair. My duaghter has been to Venezuela, the news reports are greatly exagerated
well it doesn't matter how many examples of oppressive socialist regimes I give you, you're just gonna say "well, they're not true socialists",etc etc, the usual no true scotman fallacy.
not true. China was pretty close to a true socialist regime (though still oppressive), an amazing fact about China is that they have one of the worlds lowest malnutrition rates in the world (about 7%. ) as opposed to the US which has a malnutrition rate of 15%. They have one of the strongest economies in the world at the moment, but their entree into capitalism has them regressing in many important arenas.
1 edit
Originally posted by nsdrguyhttp://www.faithcomesbyhearing.com/half-world-lives-2-usd-or-less-day-0
you're the one making the claim, you're the one who should post it here for all to see.
http://www.faithcomesbyhearing.com/half-world-lives-2-usd-or-less-day-0
(there are plenty more sites, but you probably won't even look at this one so why bother posting them?)
untrue.
another baseless claim, what laborer are you talking about? are all moment, but their entree into capitalism has them regressing in many important arenas.
(there are plenty more sites, but you probably won't even look at this one so why bother posting them?)
do you expect me to believe in some crappy evangelical website? are they experts on economics?
how is this capitalism's fault? do you think replacing it with a failed system instead of imposing regulations is the right thing to do?
don't bs me, what other (credible) websites confirm your idea?
anyone who sells their labor on the market is in some way being oppressed
only in your definition of oppression.
The capitalist pays the market minimum for labor, then reaps profit from the labor of all workers.
thats how it works, and its not like the workers aren't getting payed,
I don't see how this is a problem.
Those who work hard do not get ahead. The hardest working people are the labor class, the custodians, factory workers, groundskeepers, trashmen, waitresses etc...
they have simple jobs, anyone can do what they do with enough practice. are these people capable of being doctors, lawyers, or any other profession that requires a higher level of education? no, thats why they get paid less.
My duaghter has been to Venezuela, the news reports are greatly exagerated
tell that to the oil workers who were fired because they didn't agree with the indoctrination in the state-owned oil company PDVSA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/16/venezuela-oil-hugo-chavez-politics
an amazing fact about China is that they have one of the worlds lowest malnutrition rates in the world
yes, there are many other amazing facts, such as the number of people killed in its left-wing revolution, and other equally charming facts about censorship and intimidation.
They have one of the strongest economies in the world at the moment, but their entree into capitalism has them regressing in many important arenas.
they do have a strong economy, but at a high price don't you think?
btw, here's another charming fact about workers in the wonderful communist china:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635144,00.html
Originally posted by generalissimoDoes banking require a higher level of education?
Those who work hard do not get ahead. The hardest working people are the labor class, the custodians, factory workers, groundskeepers, trashmen, waitresses etc...
they have simple jobs, anyone can do what they do with enough practice. are these people capable of being doctors, lawyers, or any other profession that requires a higher level of education? no, thats why they get paid less.[/b]
Who needs lawyers?
The world needs more nurses than doctors.
The fact of the matter is: He who produces should control production. When someone else controls resources, then you have no other option but to become a serf.
Now, obviously it's up to the individual to work harder, do better, etc.
And then suddenly when the individuals reckon they're better off acting together... it's communist unionist aggression...
Go figure.
Originally posted by shavixmirthis post is simplistic at best.
Does banking require a higher level of education?
Who needs lawyers?
The world needs more nurses than doctors.
The fact of the matter is: He who produces should control production. When someone else controls resources, then you have no other option but to become a serf.
Now, obviously it's up to the individual to work harder, do better, etc.
And ...[text shortened]... kon they're better off acting together... it's communist unionist aggression...
Go figure.