Communism v Socialism

[Wry Catcher]

I'd rather this not evolve into the typical showdown between ideologies as much as a practical look at the evolution of American policy.

If you'd have a practical look with an audience that has no idea they are espousing Marxism, I'm more than happy to leave and you can have a nice "talk" with the ignorant.

Note: Frank usually leaves when he has exhausted his talking points. He will appear on another thread making the same lame argument and calling everyone who disagrees with his talking points a Marxist.
What is truly sad is that others around the world read his messages. His ignorance reflects poorly on all Americans.

 

[Wry Catcher]

for the avoidance of doubt, frank, classical economics proposed capital and labor (and land) as distinct factors of production in advance of marx.

Marxism is the fundamental misunderstanding of an economy being a "Struggle" or "Strife" between Kapital and Labour .

industrialization is the struggle or strife between capital and labor. this struggle brought about our civil war; it brought about socialism and communism in the US after the great depression. both marx and adam smith recognized this struggle, but each had clearly different solutions.

marxism is the misunderstanding that the government will be a better arbiter of capital's role in industrialized economies than would private corporations.

And as we have seen neither government nor private corporations have (or are capable?) of finding a solution.

 

[Greenbeard]

Note: Frank usually leaves when he has exhausted his talking points. He will appear on another thread making the same lame argument and calling everyone who disagrees with his talking points a Marxist.
What is truly sad is that others around the world read his messages. His ignorance reflects poorly on all Americans.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...you mean Adam Smith wasn't a Marxist? Shocking stuff!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If you'd have a practical look with an audience that has no idea they are espousing Marxism, I'm more than happy to leave and you can have a nice "talk" with the ignorant.

Note: Frank usually leaves when he has exhausted his talking points. He will appear on another thread making the same lame argument and calling everyone who disagrees with his talking points a Marxist.
What is truly sad is that others around the world read his messages. His ignorance reflects poorly on all Americans.

I leave when the Liberals who go up against me are a smoldering wreck, unable to come up with anything more coherent than yet another personal attack against me.

Have you figured out that you're spouting Marxism?

We can't make progress unless you admit where you are

Oh, and Adam Smith was not a Marxist, nice try Green

 

[Liberty]

the problem the USA is in now is caused by left wing entitlement and nanny state ideologies.

 

[georgephillip]

the problem the USA is in now is caused by left wing entitlement and nanny state ideologies.

There are also Conservative Nanny State entitlements in play here.

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.

"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on government.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."

It seems to me government's response to the recent Wall Street implosion proves conclusively how little faith conservatives and liberals have in market outcomes.

Is it possible American Capitalism is at a stage where there will never be enough private jobs to prevent stubborn unemployment and shrinking economic growth?

 

[code1211]

the problem the USA is in now is caused by left wing entitlement and nanny state ideologies.

There are also Conservative Nanny State entitlements in play here.

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.

"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on government.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."

It seems to me government's response to the recent Wall Street implosion proves conclusively how little faith conservatives and liberals have in market outcomes.

Is it possible American Capitalism is at a stage where there will never be enough private jobs to prevent stubborn unemployment and shrinking economic growth?

American regulated free market capitalism is based on the idea that the pie is always growing. This can only occur when the risk takers and the investors do what they do.

As long as government tells them that the return on their effort will be little or nothing, their efforts will not be expended. The pie will not grow and the dream of the marxists will come true. A pie of stable size that must be divided into smaller and smaller pieces.

No wealth creation and no increased opportunity for those who just work hard and follow the rules. Growing the economy is a dangerous task and can cost a person his entire fortune so most of us are fairly reserved when rolling the dice in that game.

It takes a special person to do this and our current government is trying mightily to scare them out of the game.

 

[ScienceRocks]

i think democrats are becoming communists.

You could make a good case for it...They went to control the entire economy for one and for two your life.

 

[georgephillip]

the problem the USA is in now is caused by left wing entitlement and nanny state ideologies.

There are also Conservative Nanny State entitlements in play here.

"Political debates in the United States are routinely framed as a battle between conservatives who favor market outcomes, whatever they may be, against liberals who prefer government intervention to ensure that families have decent standards-of-living.

"This description of the two poles is inaccurate; both conservatives and liberals want government intervention.

"The difference between them is the goal of government intervention, and the fact that conservatives are smart enough to conceal their dependence on government.

"Conservatives want to use the government to distribute income upward to higher paid workers, business owners, and investors. They support the establishment of rules and structures that have this effect.

"First and foremost, conservatives support nanny state policies that have the effect of increasing the supply of less-skilled workers (thereby lowering their wages), while at the same time restricting the supply of more highly educated professional employees (thereby raising their wages)."

It seems to me government's response to the recent Wall Street implosion proves conclusively how little faith conservatives and liberals have in market outcomes.

Is it possible American Capitalism is at a stage where there will never be enough private jobs to prevent stubborn unemployment and shrinking economic growth?

American regulated free market capitalism is based on the idea that the pie is always growing. This can only occur when the risk takers and the investors do what they do.

As long as government tells them that the return on their effort will be little or nothing, their efforts will not be expended. The pie will not grow and the dream of the marxists will come true. A pie of stable size that must be divided into smaller and smaller pieces.

No wealth creation and no increased opportunity for those who just work hard and follow the rules. Growing the economy is a dangerous task and can cost a person his entire fortune so most of us are fairly reserved when rolling the dice in that game.

It takes a special person to do this and our current government is trying mightily to scare them out of the game.

If it's true one of the original talking points on behalf of the Industrial Revolution was that the machine would free humanity from the wage-slavery of daily toil, that day has come and gone for millions of blue-collar US workers.

If the price of post-industrial America includes making subsistence a human right and that entails a corresponding decline in the number of billionaires and millionaires, do you think that's a price most Americans are ready to pay?

What are the alternatives in the absence of millions of middle-class manufacturing jobs already given to India and China?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They're the same thing. Communists around the world also call themselves Socialists. So it's easy to understand why so many get confused about the two terms. Socialism is Communism and Communism is Socialism. Some just like to shy away from the term Communism and instead use the term Socialism. They are the same thing in the end though.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know what you're talking about. Socialism is an economic theory. Communism is a form of government.

 

[georgephillip]

I'd rather this not evolve into the typical showdown between ideologies as much as a practical look at the evolution of American policy.

In your previous post you mention capital and labor as distinct factors of production and land parenthetically.

Maybe it's the ownership of land that's one key to any practical look at the evolution of American policy.

During the 19th century private corporations building railroads received valuable land concessions. In some cases miles of land on either side of the tracks were ceded to the corporations.

If there's to be a similar 21st century commitment to high-speed rail, do you think the land along side these high-speed trains could be developed as part of "the commons" instead of private rent-producing property?

 

[Liberty]

they are both left wing ideologies, so whatever.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd rather this not evolve into the typical showdown between ideologies as much as a practical look at the evolution of anti-American policy.

Fixed

 

[antagon]

they are both left wing ideologies, so whatever.

there could easily be right winged or left winged communism or socialism.

for americans inclined to the right wing, reform of the social state should be an object of interest rather than apathy, i'd think. but i think.

 

[antagon]

In your previous post you mention capital and labor as distinct factors of production and land parenthetically.

Maybe it's the ownership of land that's one key to any practical look at the evolution of American policy.

During the 19th century private corporations building railroads received valuable land concessions. In some cases miles of land on either side of the tracks were ceded to the corporations.

If there's to be a similar 21st century commitment to high-speed rail, do you think the land along side these high-speed trains could be developed as part of "the commons" instead of private rent-producing property?

anything is possible. i think that private property which is accessible to all of us has been among the most positive aspects of american development and such an idea of commons or even of publicly-owned rail infrastructure is not likely. i for one would not advise it.

i think that applying extremes of corporate communism as you pointed out with the robber barons or of public communism such as the TVA and much of the New Deal development has taught us lessons which might inspire policy makers to take the best of both worlds. An earlier, and decidedly capitalist concept, but which lends considerably to the concepts of equality which you are endeared is homesteading. some combination of the three of these directions to which neo- should be duly appended, is what i suggest.

i think that high-speed rail is impending and advised. contrary to the romanticized views of h/s rail, i suggest deference to a high-speed freight rail network with a passenger rail system as a secondary concern. The mechanism in the OP is public/private, but with a worker-centric approach to funding which might preclude the zeal of big labor and rail developers to absorb and horde all of the economic returns of the projects.

the vast majority of the world's economic activity is concentrated to metropoli, however, our lack of technology creates the necessity for these cities to be built on the coast, a river, etc. h/s rail would change that dynamic, opening opportunities to develop our heartland and redevelop our domestic industrial sector for another century.

i would suggest neo-homesteading arrangements for individuals and businesses whereby private ownership of land, homes and business facilities might come about in an exchange for the pioneering endeavors required of such projects. i would suggest that this be focused into medium to high density areas - cities - rather than the expansive homesteads of the 19th century.

the tracks might come with an easement, but there's not land unspoken for like there was during the reconstruction. i doubt that the land grants of that era will be even practical now. to bring about what i have proposed with the homesteading will likely require compensation/cooperation of existing land owners, or a better-than-auction utilization of BLM land. it would require government handouts in cash and kind, but in greater exchange for work and merit than our decidedly socialist economic underbelly is currently based on.

 

[georgephillip]

they are both left wing ideologies, so whatever.

there could easily be right winged or left winged communism or socialism.

for americans inclined to the right wing, reform of the social state should be an object of interest rather than apathy, i'd think. but i think.

I lack the formal Economics education necessary to evaluate the accuracy of this writer's opinions; however, he makes an interesting analogy between socialism and laissez faire capitalism.

"Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engles was, ideally, where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule...

"Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services.

"At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it.

"In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies.

"And they fail for the same reason: Human perversity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follows the same rules."

Socialism vs Communism

 

[antagon]

I'd rather this not evolve into the typical showdown between ideologies as much as a practical look at the evolution of anti-American policy.

Fixed

you've hardly demonstrated the wherewithal to 'fix' anything, frank.

in the OP, i conjected, 'Times Change'. american policy certainly hasn't been any one straight pathway. in fact, i characterize the advantage of the US to be a willingness to change policies for the betterment of the wider economy and the society. when i hear folks like yourself who operate without this historical insight claim that there's such a thing as american or anti-american policy it begs the question:

what, frank, is this anti-american policy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd rather this not evolve into the typical showdown between ideologies as much as a practical look at the evolution of anti-American policy.

Fixed

you've hardly demonstrated the wherewithal to 'fix' anything, frank.

in the OP, i conjected, 'Times Change'. american policy certainly hasn't been any one straight pathway. in fact, i characterize the advantage of the US to be a willingness to change policies for the betterment of the wider economy and the society. when i hear folks like yourself who operate without this historical insight claim that there's such a thing as american or anti-american policy it begs the question:

what, frank, is this anti-american policy?

I'm agreeing that things have changed.

The Progressives have been on a 100 year jihad against the American founding principles of Individual freedom and limited self government.

They struck a decisive blow in 1913 when they ratified the 16th Amendment which eviscerated the States. The Federal government could now DIRECTLY squeeze the individuals and they've been squeezing non-stop ever since. States can fight back, individuals, not so much. The Federal Government now uses the information from tax returns to continue their Marxist class warfare -- and that's not OK with me, and that's not progress

In the 1930's they took you up on the idea of government subsidies and Progressives Hoover and FDR turned a recession into the worst economy in the history of the world, eclipsing the 7 Biblical lean Years. Yes, the times changed -- for the worse.

American policy has been on a one-way course to Marxism. We, the non-Progressive/Marxist American people have not had a single substantial long term victory against them. We have not turned the government a single inch back toward the Founding Principles.

Reagan cut taxes, turned the economy back over to US Entrepreneurs and defeated the USSR. None of those victories were codified in any way. There were no Constitutional Amendments passed or Cabinet Departments eliminated. And for that Reagan was vilified as if he were the President that used American blacks in an experiment to see how they would die of untreated syphilis.

We now have a $1.5 TRILLION Deficit, that's more that any Reagan Budget!

We have Social Programs all heading to an inevitable, actuarial guaranteed default.

We have a Federal government that runs the car companies, banks, controls 100% of the mortgage market and now controls our health care!

Where the FUCK do you see any "change policies for the betterment of the wider economy and the society" in any of that?

 

[georgephillip]

i think democrats are becoming communists.

You could make a good case for it...They went to control the entire economy for one and for two your life.

If Democrats are becoming communists, why haven't any Wall Street executives faced charges of stock fraud?

Why wasn't Bank of America nationalized?

Is Goldman Sachs also going red?

 

[editec]

I'd rather this not evolve into the typical showdown between ideologies as much as a practical look at the evolution of American policy. We have a massive social state, stubborn unemployment and shrinking economic growth. Rather than paying people who don't work, couldn't we pay people to do work instead? Our nation's New Deal infrastructure is on the blink, among our uncommonly low land utilization for developed nations. Rather than adopt Leninist- or New Deal- styled communism, couldn't the government subsidize labor costs to private employers for domestic infrastructure projects, for example?

If all this sounds far fetched, imagine telling Abraham Lincoln that we would just pay tens of millions to stay home in government or government-subsidized housing, while we import Mexicans to do unskilled labor in our country, then take billions more and subsidize development in Pakistan.

Times change.

Rather than paying people who don't work, couldn't we pay people to do work instead?

Yes, we could.

couldn't the government subsidize labor costs to private employers for domestic infrastructure projects, for example?

Already being done in the form of tax credits and breaks for new hires.