Communism, Socialism or Capitalism?

[Cecilie1200]

Derogatory name calling, eh?

Do you really think that makes you look like you know what the fuck you're talking about?

Really?!?!

-Joe

Do you really think I care what you think about anything, let alone about me?

Really?!?!

Yes.

If you were truly indifferent to others opinions, including opinions about you and what you think, you wouldn't be here on USMB. Same as me.

The trick is to express your difference of opinions without making personal attacks or resorting to childish name-calling... welcome to the adult world.

Besides, I like your posts, especially your posts in response to my posts... not only do they help me clarify my position to the world, but occasionally I learn something.

-Joe

Oh, yes. Because I choose to chat about issues I care about, that must mean I ALSO care about the other opinions expressed. Keep flattering yourself, dude. And I do care about some people's opinions of me, FYI. You just aren't one of them.

I don't need your advice on how to post, possibly because despite your delusion, my goal is not to impress you or gain your good opinion. It is to express exactly what I think of what's being said. And exactly what I think is that people who worship socialism are brain-dead. And hey! I expressed that pretty clearly, so my posts are just fine.

I have no desire whatsoever to happy mouth and pretend to respect people I don't respect because they don't deserve it. I have no stake at all in trying to be thought of as "nice". Please make a note of that, and don't waste my time in the future "helpfully" advising me on how to achieve something I never wanted.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Yes, China has instituted many market reforms which have led to their growth. The freer the market the better off everybody is, so how much better off would they be if they took an even more hands off approach? Government intervention in the market is always bad because it creates a problem that they try to solve with more government intervention, which leads to more problems and more interventions to solve those, and on and on it goes.

I'm going to disagree dude... Any organization of human endeavor, from a family farm to a world-power nation is going to be more successful with vision and planning based on that vision.

That's why, whether they are elected by the people or appointed by the last king, we call them leaders.

-Joe

The fact is that government interventions in the market and central planners, the Federal Reserve, are the cause of the business cycle which has caused our economy, once again, to go into the toilet.

We're back to "central planning with a vision favoring the future of the entire organization" versus "central planning with a vision favoring what the king and his buddies can put in their pockets now"...

a.k.a. "good government" versus "bad government".

a.k.a. "long term goals" versus "short term goals".

a.k.a. "What can I (as a leader of this organization) do to make sure the organization out lives me?" versus "What can I (as a leader of this organization) do to insure my golden parachute, and if everyone else who contributed to its success gets fucked - what do I care?"

-Joe

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All the central planners believe that what they're doing is good for the future of the nation, and they're always wrong. A market is far too complex to be centrally planned and that is why they fail every time. A free market is what's ideal for the future of the nation, and you can't have a free market with central planning.

 

[Agnapostate]

All the central planners believe that what they're doing is good for the future of the nation, and they're always wrong. A market is far too complex to be centrally planned and that is why they fail every time. A free market is what's ideal for the future of the nation, and you can't have a free market with central planning.

Both free markets and central planning are pipe dreams promoted by utopianists. Neither has any practical application outside of the textbook.

 

[AVG-JOE]

All the central planners believe that what they're doing is good for the future of the nation, and they're always wrong. A market is far too complex to be centrally planned and that is why they fail every time. A free market is what's ideal for the future of the nation, and you can't have a free market with central planning.

Whoa, there brother! I never said that the market should be centrally planned, quite the contrary, my China examples expressed my opinion of what a little free enterprise can do.

My advocation of centralized planning is for infrastructure coordination and education, which will, I admit, have a profound effect on the market. Effect, not control.

Don't make the jump that because I believe that government should have a major role in coordinating the location of the electric grid and in promoting, to the point of investing heavily in them, solar and wind energies over petroleum based energies, that I think Obama should be telling me, or any endeavor small enough to fail without hurting its neighbors, what should be micro-managed in the market place.

Have you ever had a mess so big that the only way to clean it up was to make a bigger mess in the short term? I have.

-Joe

 

[Brainactive]

I prefer capitalism but with capital punishment for anyone found guilty of stealing or swindling money in excess of $1 million.

I know capital punishment is a poor deterrent for those who commit violent crimes, but I have a feeling it would work to deter the Wall St. crowd from ripping us all off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All the central planners believe that what they're doing is good for the future of the nation, and they're always wrong. A market is far too complex to be centrally planned and that is why they fail every time. A free market is what's ideal for the future of the nation, and you can't have a free market with central planning.

Whoa, there brother! I never said that the market should be centrally planned, quite the contrary, my China examples expressed my opinion of what a little free enterprise can do.

My advocation of centralized planning is for infrastructure coordination and education, which will, I admit, have a profound effect on the market. Effect, not control.

Don't make the jump that because I believe that government should have a major role in coordinating the location of the electric grid and in promoting, to the point of investing heavily in them, solar and wind energies over petroleum based energies, that I think Obama should be telling me, or any endeavor small enough to fail without hurting its neighbors, what should be micro-managed in the market place.

Have you ever had a mess so big that the only way to clean it up was to make a bigger mess in the short term? I have.

-Joe

In other words, Kevin, he can't tell the difference between a discussion of economic systems and a discussion of political systems, and is just babbling as though they're the same thing. About what I said before.

Joe, call us when you're on the same topic as the rest of us, okay? You're wasting our time here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I prefer capitalism but with capital punishment for anyone found guilty of stealing or swindling money in excess of $1 million.

I know capital punishment is a poor deterrent for those who commit violent crimes, but I have a feeling it would work to deter the Wall St. crowd from ripping us all off.

Oh, you "know" that, do you? Based on what? You figure criminals don't care if they die or not?

 

[editec]

Proof, eh?

How about China? I think we agree that the central planning done by The United States over the last 50 years has been somewhat lacking in vision, to say the least. Over those same 50 years the Chinese have discovered and implemented freedom in the market place, guided by strict central planning.

Who now owes who more money than God could repay?

Did China create Utopia? Hell no! Nobody will argue that the Chinese Government has done everything right, but they did end up on the correct side of a $13 Trillion mortgage. And they did it by planning for their future as a Nation while we, rich and poor alike, kept asking our government "What's in it for me" and accepted the huge transfer of wealth from our future, using China and the Arabs as the bankers and paying a hefty commission to our "planning committee" in the process.

The sooner we realize how stupid we look from space, the sooner we can start planning, as a Nation, for a better future.

-Joe

Yes, China has instituted many market reforms which have led to their growth. The freer the market the better off everybody is, so how much better off would they be if they took an even more hands off approach? Government intervention in the market is always bad because it creates a problem that they try to solve with more government intervention, which leads to more problems and more interventions to solve those, and on and on it goes.

China has the advantage of education. Through freerer markets and a reasonably educated population, they were able to take advantage of technology transfer. Probably one of the biggest reasons for scrapping their self-imposed, isolation policies.

THEY did not scrap their isolation policies. They didn't isolate themselves, the USA isolated them by refusing to recognize the legitmacy of their government.

NIXON WENT TO CHINA thus finally RECOGNIZING China, and thereby setting the stage for them to become a trading partner.

 

[editec]

All the central planners believe that what they're doing is good for the future of the nation, and they're always wrong. A market is far too complex to be centrally planned and that is why they fail every time. A free market is what's ideal for the future of the nation, and you can't have a free market with central planning.

I think you're overstating what is going on somewhat.

Central planning is planning the economy totally, as in the Soviet centralized planning.

While I can certainly understand people's objections to this bailout, to describe THAT as "central planning" is an overstatement of enormous proportions.

Now as to the central planning of the FED? That is to say their ability to change rates for money?

That's NOT central planning.

It may be a bad idea, it may be arrogant and foolish, but central planning it's not.

 

[editec]

All the central planners believe that what they're doing is good for the future of the nation, and they're always wrong. A market is far too complex to be centrally planned and that is why they fail every time. A free market is what's ideal for the future of the nation, and you can't have a free market with central planning.

Whoa, there brother! I never said that the market should be centrally planned, quite the contrary, my China examples expressed my opinion of what a little free enterprise can do.

My advocation of centralized planning is for infrastructure coordination and education, which will, I admit, have a profound effect on the market. Effect, not control.

Don't make the jump that because I believe that government should have a major role in coordinating the location of the electric grid and in promoting, to the point of investing heavily in them, solar and wind energies over petroleum based energies, that I think Obama should be telling me, or any endeavor small enough to fail without hurting its neighbors, what should be micro-managed in the market place.

Have you ever had a mess so big that the only way to clean it up was to make a bigger mess in the short term? I have.

-Joe

In other words, Kevin, he can't tell the difference between a discussion of economic systems and a discussion of political systems, and is just babbling as though they're the same thing. About what I said before.

Joe, call us when you're on the same topic as the rest of us, okay? You're wasting our time here.

Well actually if Kevin is decribing the monetary policy of the FED as central planning, then he is overstating the case.

Central planning is when everything that is produced in the nation is decided by the central government.

 

[garyd]

So Agna you don't like state sponsored socialism or as you call it state run capitalism. Tell me what do you propose?

 

[Agnapostate]

So Agna you don't like state sponsored socialism or as you call it state run capitalism. Tell me what do you propose?

I'm in favor of libertarian socialist economic organization, wherein individual regional federations of collectives and communes are able to democratically operate their preferred variety of socialism, whether it be communism, collectivism, mutualism, or some associated individualist form of market socialism. I personally advocate a communist economic structure in a broader anarchist societal framework.

 

[garyd]

And that will give you eventually a return to capitalism. And likely thugism or authoritarianism as in the current Russia. And what if their prefered methoid of organization doesn't fit the socialist paradigm as it almost certainly will not in the majority of cases.

The thing I find most interesting about the left is their peculiar willingness to give people either far more credit than they ought or far less than they should. You seem to fit into the former class. This fits in with you being fairly young.

 

[Agnapostate]

And that will give you eventually a return to capitalism. And likely thugism or authoritarianism as in the current Russia. And what if their prefered methoid of organization doesn't fit the socialist paradigm as it almost certainly will not in the majority of cases.

The thing I find most interesting about the left is their peculiar willingness to give people either far more credit than they ought or far less than they should. You seem to fit into the former class. This fits in with you being fairly young.

Of course. Robert Nozick expressed a far similar concern, which, while utterly pointless, was preferable to his ramblings about utility monsters.

mall factories would spring up in a socialist society, unless forbidden. I melt some of my personal possessions and build a machine out of the material. I offer you and others a philosophy lecture once a week in exchange for yet other things, and so on . . . some persons might even want to leave their jobs in socialist industry and work full time in this private sector. . . [This is] how private property even in means of production would occur in a socialist society.

The obvious problem with that analysis is that capitalism is dependent on the utilization of wage labor to survive. There would be no need to "prohibit" capitalism in a libertarian socialist economy because of the irrationality of subordinating oneself under an employer (which is a necessary condition of wage labor), instead of participating in a democratically managed enterprise, which tends to produce greater efficiency. A capitalist employer would need to provide greater benefits than an anarchist collective, and considering that the financial class would not be able to hoard access to productive assets and resources in an economic scheme wherein the means of production are collectively owned, any attempt to do that would likely jeopardize the capitalist employer's profit, thereby ruining his attempt at "enterprise." In short, as I've said previously, "[f]or people to attempt to establish capitalism in a libertarian socialist economy is akin to an untalented entrepreneur going to a public park and attempting to sell water next to a drinking fountain."

I also see no purpose for reference to "authoritarianism." The first and foremost critics of authoritarian state capitalism have traditionally been anarchists, which is a critical element of the anarchist/Marxist schism.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Whoa, there brother! I never said that the market should be centrally planned, quite the contrary, my China examples expressed my opinion of what a little free enterprise can do.

My advocation of centralized planning is for infrastructure coordination and education, which will, I admit, have a profound effect on the market. Effect, not control.

Don't make the jump that because I believe that government should have a major role in coordinating the location of the electric grid and in promoting, to the point of investing heavily in them, solar and wind energies over petroleum based energies, that I think Obama should be telling me, or any endeavor small enough to fail without hurting its neighbors, what should be micro-managed in the market place.

Have you ever had a mess so big that the only way to clean it up was to make a bigger mess in the short term? I have.

-Joe

In other words, Kevin, he can't tell the difference between a discussion of economic systems and a discussion of political systems, and is just babbling as though they're the same thing. About what I said before.

Joe, call us when you're on the same topic as the rest of us, okay? You're wasting our time here.

Well actually if Kevin is decribing the monetary policy of the FED as central planning, then he is overstating the case.

Central planning is when everything that is produced in the nation is decided by the central government.

So we should just ignore it until it gets to the point of EVERYTHING, rather than trying to head it off at the pass while it's at the stage of "just taking over THIS part". Good plan.

 

[Agnapostate]

Goodness, you're quite the regular Niemoller, aren't you?

 

[editec]

In other words, Kevin, he can't tell the difference between a discussion of economic systems and a discussion of political systems, and is just babbling as though they're the same thing. About what I said before.

Joe, call us when you're on the same topic as the rest of us, okay? You're wasting our time here.

Well actually if Kevin is decribing the monetary policy of the FED as central planning, then he is overstating the case.

Central planning is when everything that is produced in the nation is decided by the central government.

So we should just ignore it until it gets to the point of EVERYTHING, rather than trying to head it off at the pass while it's at the stage of "just taking over THIS part". Good plan.

That isn't what I wrote, Cecile, and what I wrote doesn't remotely IMPLY that either.

If you want to argue with a straw man communist or socialist, I'm not that guy, sweetie.

 

[AVG-JOE]

All the central planners believe that what they're doing is good for the future of the nation, and they're always wrong. A market is far too complex to be centrally planned and that is why they fail every time. A free market is what's ideal for the future of the nation, and you can't have a free market with central planning.

Whoa, there brother! I never said that the market should be centrally planned, quite the contrary, my China examples expressed my opinion of what a little free enterprise can do.

My advocation of centralized planning is for infrastructure coordination and education, which will, I admit, have a profound effect on the market. Effect, not control.

Don't make the jump that because I believe that government should have a major role in coordinating the location of the electric grid and in promoting, to the point of investing heavily in them, solar and wind energies over petroleum based energies, that I think Obama should be telling me, or any endeavor small enough to fail without hurting its neighbors, what should be micro-managed in the market place.

Have you ever had a mess so big that the only way to clean it up was to make a bigger mess in the short term? I have.

-Joe

In other words, Kevin, he can't tell the difference between a discussion of economic systems and a discussion of political systems, and is just babbling as though they're the same thing. About what I said before.

Joe, call us when you're on the same topic as the rest of us, okay? You're wasting our time here.

Cecilie, go back and read the original post - here I'll make it easy for you...

OK Fellow American's which do you prefer for our country, Communism, Socialism or Capitalism? and what is the reason for your preference?

What is 'Communism'? Political system, Economic system or a way to describe both?

What is 'Socialism'? Political system, Economic system or a way to describe both?

Ergo and therefore, in the context of this thread, we are discussing the interaction of government in the marketplace. In other words, the discussion is both political and economic.

Please try to keep up...

-Joe

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well actually if Kevin is decribing the monetary policy of the FED as central planning, then he is overstating the case.

Central planning is when everything that is produced in the nation is decided by the central government.

So we should just ignore it until it gets to the point of EVERYTHING, rather than trying to head it off at the pass while it's at the stage of "just taking over THIS part". Good plan.

That isn't what I wrote, Cecile, and what I wrote doesn't remotely IMPLY that either.

If you want to argue with a straw man communist or socialist, I'm not that guy, sweetie.

Sorry, "sweetie", but to say that something isn't central planning because it isn't COMPLETE central planning is very much to imply that you think movement in that direction should be ignored as such.