Socialism... A rationalization of escape.

[PubliusInfinitum]

"Civilization has to be defended against the individual, and its regulations, institutions, and commands are directed to that task." Sigmund Freud

I am never sure what to make of these straw arguments? The author hasn't the faintest idea what socialism is and for that matter doesn't even know anything about capitalism. What purpose do these bizarre arguments serve and for whom? There is so much wrong in the post, it would be impossible to correct. In this case it is necessary that one throw the whole thing out as nothing of substance is contained therein.

Look Inside:

Amazon.com: Socialism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Michael Newman: Books

Amazon.com: Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): James Fulcher: Books

Yes, yes... Once again we're treated to the absurdity that Socialism is impossible to define; so COMPLEX is this concept that the only people qualified to define Socialism are the High Preist of Academia... the Advocates of Social Science whose high intellects are the only means to navigate the subtle nuance within this ethereal premise...

I mean even this member who comes to refute my argument can't define Socialism... the best she can do is imply the 'TRUTH' is to be found in the obligatory "Link."

Reason is served by the certainty that IF Midcan had read these books and IF Nidcan believed that the truth was contained in the position advanced in these books... that she would have advanced an argument which expressed the principled truth contained in those books...

Yet that is not what she did is it?

The reason? Well it's obvious...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I laugh at those who scoff at socialism and praise to the end capitalism.

You should spend less time laughing and more time concentrating on valid principle...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Capitalism is great. It harnesses greed and desire for material stuff into a powerful engine of economic growth which IMO should not be not be squelched.

On the other hand, capitalism could give two shits about people.

Capitalism is nothing but the free exchange of fair value for goods and services, to the mutual benefit of both parties...

Now with that said... Where a culture lacks virtue, where the parties lack virtue, the exchange defining Capitalism will reflect that intrinsic corruption.

How this intrinsic corruption is to be resolved through the exponential increase in power of the inherently corruptible, is known to KNOW ONE... as it is impossible.

A person's value in capitalism is his market value. If you are disabled, too old, or for whatever reason just don't have a lot of market value at the moment for whatever reason, capitalism could not care less if you starve to death.

Socialism does not increase the value of the 'person'... IT DEVALUES THE INDIVIDUAL... and it's a rare individual which is not a PERSON.

That's why there's a little room for social programs too. Unless you simply view people as market value units.

Do not even pretend that a social program defines the full scope of socialism... and IF a social program could meet the lofty ambition which it claims to serve and IF a social program were funded by those who VOLUNTEER THE PRODUCT OF THEIR LABOR... Then where COULD BE THE PROBLEM with a social program?

Socialist policy failures do not, EVER, CANNOT, EVER meet their stated goals, because they implement policy which runs counter to human nature and given that those programs serve humans... they must and have always FAILED.

Socialist policy CONFISCATES BY FORCE OF ARMS, the product of the individual's labor... that there may be SOME who falsely believe that they volunteer these funds... is irrelevant. It is immoral... it is theft, plain and simple.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Here's an alternate view for anyone interested.

Why Socialism

Again, the opposition comes to imply an argument...

But that's perfectly understandable... as the odds of having one's implied argument contested is slim, in contrast with the actual argument, which comes with certain risks.

Great job M4... Powerful stuff.

 

[Iriemon]

Capitalism is great. It harnesses greed and desire for material stuff into a powerful engine of economic growth which IMO should not be not be squelched.

On the other hand, capitalism could give two shits about people.

Capitalism is nothing but the free exchange of fair value for goods and services, to the mutual benefit of both parties...

Now with that said... Where a culture lacks virtue, where the parties lack virtue, the exchange defining Capitalism will reflect that intrinsic corruption.

Where lots of people lack virtue, that's a big problem. But you didn't rebut anything I said. If person has little to offer in exchange because she's disabled or aged or her services are just not valuable for whatever reason, capitalism could not care less that the market value of the person's service are less than what is necessary to obtain basic necessities. The "fair" value of the captialist exchange is based only upon supply and demand.

How this intrinsic corruption is to be resolved through the exponential increase in power of the inherently corruptible, is known to KNOW ONE... as it is impossible.

Could be. But it is certainly not impossible to provide for people for whom capitalism ascribes a minimal or non-existant market worth.

A person's value in capitalism is his market value. If you are disabled, too old, or for whatever reason just don't have a lot of market value at the moment for whatever reason, capitalism could not care less if you starve to death.

Socialism does not increase the value of the 'person'... IT DEVALUES THE INDIVIDUAL... and it's a rare individual which is not a PERSON.

I didn't claim otherwise. But for those who have no or little market value, social programs can keep them from living under freeways. Which IMO is not devaluing them. In fact, you could make an argument that a society that leaves its cripples and aged leaving in the streets is devalued. It suggests that society doesn't care about people beyond their market value.

That's why there's a little room for social programs too. Unless you simply view people as market value units.

Do not even pretend that a social program defines the full scope of socialism... and IF a social program could meet the lofty ambition which it claims to serve and IF a social program were funded by those who VOLUNTEER THE PRODUCT OF THEIR LABOR... Then where COULD BE THE PROBLEM with a social program?

Charity is insufficient. See your point above re: lack of virture.

Socialist policy failures do not, EVER, CANNOT, EVER meet their stated goals, because they implement policy which runs counter to human nature and given that those programs serve humans... they must and have always FAILED.

SS has been a tremendous success in reducing poverty among the elderly. Overall poverty rates declined by half after LBJ's "great society" programs. That's pretty successful in my book.

Socialist policy CONFISCATES BY FORCE OF ARMS, the product of the individual's labor... that there may be SOME who falsely believe that they volunteer these funds... is irrelevant. It is immoral... it is theft, plain and simple.

You mean taxes? They're not theft. It's the price to be a member of that society. Move to some other country where you don't have to pay taxes if you want, if such a place exists. No one forces you to live an pay taxes here.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Business and government have been in bed for a very long time. I agree with IF

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Capitalism is great. It harnesses greed and desire for material stuff into a powerful engine of economic growth which IMO should not be not be squelched.

On the other hand, capitalism could give two shits about people.

Capitalism is nothing but the free exchange of fair value for goods and services, to the mutual benefit of both parties...

Now with that said... Where a culture lacks virtue, where the parties lack virtue, the exchange defining Capitalism will reflect that intrinsic corruption.

Where lots of people lack virtue, that's a big problem. But you didn't rebut anything I said. If person has little to offer in exchange because she's disabled or aged or her services are just not valuable for whatever reason, capitalism could not care less that the market value of the person's service are less than what is necessary to obtain basic necessities. The "fair" value of the captialist exchange is based only upon supply and demand.

LOL... No sale pards... CAPITALISM IS A PROCESS BY WHICH PEOPLE EXCHANGE VALUE FOR VALUE... it is not a being; thus it is not more capable of caring about the poor old woman than is Socialism.

Socialism could not give a red rats ass about that poor old woman... but what it CERTAINLY WILL DO is make her feel better about her self, as misery loves company and socialism will exponentially add to those people who can't afford to house themselves, or eat.

Where you find a solution in that is known only to you. You're presently watching the results of socialist policy on the automobile and financial markets ... the same results will come to every market wherein socialist policy is implemented; we can be fairly sure that the Medical market is next.

You want to imply that "Socialism Cares"... it's nonsense.

Charity is insufficient. See your point above re: lack of virture.

Insufficient? Based upon what? As it stands RIGHT NOW... the greatest threat to the nations charities is SOCIALISM which presently seeks to strip the individual's means to deduct from their adjusted income, their charitable contributions.

(I think you're missing the point... The absence of virtue... IS A FUNCTION OF THE INFLUENCE OF SECUALRIST LEFTISM.)

Socialist policy failures do not, EVER, CANNOT, EVER meet their stated goals, because they implement policy which runs counter to human nature and given that those programs serve humans... they must and have always FAILED.

SS has been a tremendous success in reducing poverty among the elderly. Overall poverty rates declined by half after LBJ's "great society" programs. That's pretty successful in my book.

Well all that conclusion establishes is your ingorance of the simple fact that poverty did not decline in the slightest as a result of LBJs "The Great Society..." farce... To the contrary, in point of fact povert increased exponentially through the creation of a permanent underclass, CRIPPLING the black culture in America... Dr. Sowell lays out the math in indisputable terms in his book, "Visions of the Anointed."

What's more, SS is bankrupt... and will inevitably bankrupt the US Treasury. This was a mathematical certainty, BEFORE the 10 trillion dollars in liabilities for which the Lord of the Idiots is presently advocating.

How that correlates to a 'success' is anyones guess... Your position is tantamount to Declarig Maydoff's investment scheme a success, because people was continuous streams of revenue being paid out; UNTIL IT COULD NO LONGER SCAM ENOUGH PEOPLE TO FUND NEW ACCOUNTS AND WENT BUSTED, COSTING EVERYONE WHO "INVESTED" 100% of their PRINCIPLE.

Now you've been promised a retirement income from SS... you FALSELY BELIEVE that you're ENTITLED to that money... In fact: YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ONE RED CENT. EVERY PENNY WHICH YOU PAID INTO SS HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM YOU... IT IS NO LONGER YOUR MONEY AND WHEN AND WHERE THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES FOR WHATEVER REASON< YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ONE CENT... and you have absolutely NO RECOURSE.

If you're a baby boomer... or older, YOU MAY get a percentage of what you paid in... If you're a Gen-X or younger... YOU WILL NOT SEE ONE DIME IN SS. PERIOD. You'll forfeit an every increasing percentage of your income to SS... But the thresholds will HAVE to be extended... the qualifiying retirement age increased and finally, the government will simply not have sufficient money coming into the treasury to fund the interests of the national debt and meet their liabilities... IF the Fed tries to print their way out, the $2000 in monthly revenue from SS will not but you a loafe of bread.

Socialist policy CONFISCATES BY FORCE OF ARMS, the product of the individual's labor... that there may be SOME who falsely believe that they volunteer these funds... is irrelevant. It is immoral... it is theft, plain and simple.

You mean taxes? They're not theft. It's the price to be a member of that society. Move to some other country where you don't have to pay taxes if you want, if such a place exists. No one forces you to live an pay taxes here.

Yes that's right, Taxes are immoral... not the redistribution of wealth... Not the invvolutary servitude established through the confiscation of one man's labor to subsidize the life of another... Just "Taxes"...

Sweet red herring...

This is where most of those with whom I've had similar discussions start harping on the necessary infrastructure as the sole purpose of taxation.

Your out of your depth young lady... best swim back closer to the rhetorical shore.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Business and government have been in bed for a very long time. I agree with IF

Checkme if Im wrong here... but the citizens that own those businesses are entitled to advocate for their concerns with their government as much as anyone else...

The issue is the prudent judgment of that goverment... Wouldn't you agree that given the immutable truth which that represents, the problem would be the lack of virtuous, prudent judgment by those in government?

Now given that immutable certainty... where's the potential wisdom in conceding to the socialist and giving that government greater power than it already has?

As it stands right now you're not forced to do business with ANY business... except those which are protected by WHO? Seen your light bill lately? check out your PHONE BILL... In BOTH, each protected by local and or state franchise agreements... add up the taxes which are charged against your account each month.

But with that exception you can decide to change the businesses with whom you choose to trade anytime YOU CHOOSE...

Can you choose to change governments when you find their service or behavior unacceptable? Can you change you government sponsored POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY?

No one, and not the least which is ME, is arguing that the system is not ROTTING... but the system is rotting is because of the inherent corruption of THOSE OPERATING THE SYSTEM... and it was the POWER which they wielded which lent most directly to their corruption...

All I'm seeing from my opposition is the solution which EXPONENTIALLY INCREASES THAT POWER...

The partnership of business and government is FASCISM... they're doubling DOWN on that failure by demanding that we MOVE FROM THE LEAST OFFENSIVE FORM OF SOCIALISM TO A MORE OFFENSIVE FORM OF SOCIALISM...

It's pure insanity... it's akin to trying to fight the fire on the top floor of your home, by lighting a back-fire in your basement... oh sure... that will stop the fire alright... but it will do so through robbing the fire of fuel... by consuming the entire DAMN HOUSE.

 

[Iriemon]

LOL... No sale pards... CAPITALISM IS A PROCESS BY WHICH PEOPLE EXCHANGE VALUE FOR VALUE... it is not a being; thus it is not more capable of caring about the poor old woman than is Socialism.

Socialism could not give a red rats ass about that poor old woman... but what it CERTAINLY WILL DO is make her feel better about her self, as misery loves company and socialism will exponentially add to those people who can't afford to house themselves, or eat.

Where you find a solution in that is known only to you. You're presently watching the results of socialist policy on the automobile and financial markets ... the same results will come to every market wherein socialist policy is implemented; we can be fairly sure that the Medical market is next.

You want to imply that "Socialism Cares"... it's nonsense.

Social security gives that poor old woman a way to live and food to eat; medicare gives her access to health care. IMO that is much more "caring" than living in the street beginning for food at stoplights because her market value is nil.

I personally like living in a country without hordes of disabled and aged living under freeways. I guess that's why I a "socialist".

Insufficient? Based upon what? As it stands RIGHT NOW... the greatest threat to the nations charities is SOCIALISM which presently seeks to strip the individual's means to deduct from their adjusted income, their charitable contributions.

(I think you're missing the point... The absence of virtue... IS A FUNCTION OF THE INFLUENCE OF SECUALRIST LEFTISM.)

LOL! With capitalism all is virtue?

Well all that conclusion establishes is your ingorance of the simple fact that poverty did not decline in the slightest as a result of LBJs "The Great Society..." farce... To the contrary, in point of fact povert increased exponentially through the creation of a permanent underclass, CRIPPLING the black culture in America... Dr. Sowell lays out the math in indisputable terms in his book, "Visions of the Anointed."

What's more, SS is bankrupt... and will inevitably bankrupt the US Treasury. This was a mathematical certainty, BEFORE the 10 trillion dollars in liabilities for which the Lord of the Idiots is presently advocating.

Poverty rates can be found here:

census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

Demostrating poverty rates in the 20% range at the beginning of the 60s following to less than half that by the early 70s.

It's true that the deficit policies of our last three Republican president stole trillions from the SS trust fund that was supposed to be saved for the boomers' retirements. But its not bankrupt, it just needs adjustment. Making it means tested would go a long way. Multi-millionaires don't need the Govt dole.

How that correlates to a 'success' is anyones guess... Your position is tantamount to Declarig Maydoff's investment scheme a success, because people was continuous streams of revenue being paid out; UNTIL IT COULD NO LONGER SCAM ENOUGH PEOPLE TO FUND NEW ACCOUNTS AND WENT BUSTED, COSTING EVERYONE WHO "INVESTED" 100% of their PRINCIPLE.

Again, I call the poverty rate dropping in half a success. Others can make up their own mind.

Now you've been promised a retirement income from SS... you FALSELY BELIEVE that you're ENTITLED to that money... In fact: YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ONE RED CENT. EVERY PENNY WHICH YOU PAID INTO SS HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM YOU... IT IS NO LONGER YOUR MONEY AND WHEN AND WHERE THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES FOR WHATEVER REASON< YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ONE CENT... and you have absolutely NO RECOURSE.

Calm down, you don't have to shout. It really doesn't make your argument more valid, but shows desparation.

PS I don't think I'm entitled -- I've just I think it should be means tested in which case I probably won't be eligible for it.

If you're a baby boomer... or older, YOU MAY get a percentage of what you paid in... If you're a Gen-X or younger... YOU WILL NOT SEE ONE DIME IN SS. PERIOD. You'll forfeit an every increasing percentage of your income to SS... But the thresholds will HAVE to be extended... the qualifiying retirement age increased and finally, the government will simply not have sufficient money coming into the treasury to fund the interests of the national debt and meet their liabilities... IF the Fed tries to print their way out, the $2000 in monthly revenue from SS will not but you a loafe of bread.

Why you figure the conservatives will achieve their goal of killing it? Good luck with that. The "pass the buck" generation won't allow it.

Socialist policy CONFISCATES BY FORCE OF ARMS, the product of the individual's labor... that there may be SOME who falsely believe that they volunteer these funds... is irrelevant. It is immoral... it is theft, plain and simple.

Yes that's right, Taxes are immoral... not the redistribution of wealth... Not the invvolutary servitude established through the confiscation of one man's labor to subsidize the life of another... Just "Taxes"...

Sweet red herring...

This is where most of those with whom I've had similar discussions start harping on the necessary infrastructure as the sole purpose of taxation.

Taxes are necessary to generate revenues for the Govt to cover expenditures. What is immoral IMO has been the decades of the Govt borrowing $11 trillion from our future.

Your out of your depth young lady... best swim back closer to the rhetorical shore.

Interesting to see the unfounded presumptions you'll make. I could have guessed that based on your arguments.

 

[Agnapostate]

Of course... they must be, after all you're inability to do so here is proof of it!

LOL... Leftists...

You can't make this stuff up kids... Luckily, they're HELPLESS to avoid demonstrating it.

The reason that more energy isn't expended on addressing your idiocy is the same reason that I don't waste time arguing with a mentally retarded person who's loath to have temper tantrums. Both of you lack the cognitive abilities to understand the parameters of the discussion.

Regardless, your imbecilic blathering was rebutted elsewhere, so I'm pleased to simply copy and paste the relevant data.

Capitalism is the natural order of economics...

Capitalism is reviled by those with a significant understanding of economics, who are capable of noting the prevalence of information asymmetries, agency costs, and externalities that characterize a capitalist economic structure.

Socialism, which is communism at an early stage of development... is a function of secularism, and the unbridled arrogance of the Social Scientists that they've some means to control the Economy...

Several inaccuracies at an early stage, I see. You retain an explicitly Marxist conception of socialism and therefore the "workers' state." A more objective analysis would include the more accurate definition of socialism not as necessarily transitionary but a form of economic organization that involves the collective ownership of the means of production. Your reference to "secularism" is similarly odd and inaccurate, considering the libertarian communism practiced by the apostles of the early Christian church, as noted by the second and fourth book of Acts.

It's the same arrogance which allows them to believe that they can control the environment.

Of course; we'll all be saved from global warming if the Rapture comes first.

When the left has finally pissed the world off and the inevitable spasm comes which destroys them; what will rise from tha ashes of that extinction will Capitalism... Defined as the free exchange of the goods and services tot he mutual benefit of both parties; capitalism is simply how people trade the value which they possess for the value which they desire, want or need... and it works every time that it is tried...

Such utopian fantasy has no role or record of existence outside of the textbook, nor will it ever. It's effectively akin to assuming that perfect competition can exist.

What I love about the advocates of 'mixed economies' is how they clammer on about how corruption is inherent in capitalism; so they demand that 'just enough Socialism is necessary to keep capitalism in check...' when the socialism is being advanced by the same beings which could not honestly exchange fair value for fair value... So their SOLUTUION is to give those same CORRUPTIBLE PEOPLE MORE POWER... through which their unbridled arrogance can infect far more deeply, and in ways which are far more destructive...

Every form of capitalism (and similarly authoritarian economic systems, such as feudalism and Soviet state capitalism), involves giving power to corrupt elitists. Moreover, all forms of existing capitalism are "mixed," whether a variant of Anglo-Saxon or Rhine capitalism.

Socialism is a lie... it's not an economic system of any kind... it's a ideology... which uses economics as a means to its decietful end...

The socialist is able to comprehend critical facets of economics of which you have little or no understanding; the nature of your jealousy is therefore unsurprising.

Capitalism is great. It harnesses greed and desire for material stuff into a powerful engine of economic growth which IMO should not be not be squelched.

On the other hand, capitalism could give two shits about people. A person's value in capitalism is his market value. If you are disabled, too old, or for whatever reason just don't have a lot of market value at the moment for whatever reason, capitalism could not care less if you starve to death.

That's why there's a little room for social programs too. Unless you simply view people as market value units.

The basis behind comment in support of the mixed economy is the belief that socialism undermines efficiency. On the contrary, I'm of the opinion that socialism increases efficiency in a manner that capitalism cannot due to its democratic and egalitarian nature. For instance, we can extrapolate data about the superior efficiency of worker-owned/managed firms in a capitalist economy to analyses about the nature of a socialist economy.

 

[Iriemon]

Capitalism is great. It harnesses greed and desire for material stuff into a powerful engine of economic growth which IMO should not be not be squelched.

On the other hand, capitalism could give two shits about people. A person's value in capitalism is his market value. If you are disabled, too old, or for whatever reason just don't have a lot of market value at the moment for whatever reason, capitalism could not care less if you starve to death.

That's why there's a little room for social programs too. Unless you simply view people as market value units.

The basis behind comment in support of the mixed economy is the belief that socialism undermines efficiency. On the contrary, I'm of the opinion that socialism increases efficiency in a manner that capitalism cannot due to its democratic and egalitarian nature. For instance, we can extrapolate data about the superior efficiency of worker-owned/managed firms in a capitalist economy to analyses about the nature of a socialist economy.

IMO, the incentives provided by the ability to profit is a crucial element of economic growth, both on the worker side and for the entreprenuer/owner. IMO true socialism does not maintain those incentives. In my view of human nature, without those incentives you eliminate some of the motivation and risk taking that drives the economy.

That's why I favor a social-capitalist system where basic private owernship capitalism is moderated by social programs assisting those who for various reasons have market value less than what we provide for basic human dignity; while still maintaining the incentive structure. It's not an easy system to get perfect, that I will concede.

 

[Agnapostate]

But the belief that socialism removes incentives from its economic structure is an inaccurate one. Incentive problems only exist for "socialist" systems such as the state capitalist one of the Soviet Union, which doesn't even merit the label of socialism. Various forms of socialism retain the profit motive, and even communism retains a profit motive of sorts through its restriction on public goods and services from those who are able but unwilling to work.

 

[Iriemon]

But the belief that socialism removes incentives from its economic structure is an inaccurate one. Incentive problems only exist for "socialist" systems such as the state capitalist one of the Soviet Union, which doesn't even merit the label of socialism. Various forms of socialism retain the profit motive, and even communism retains a profit motive of sorts through its restriction on public goods and services from those who are able but unwilling to work.

I guess we need to define "socialism" first as that label is used a hundred different ways. By socialism in my post I was refering to the system where the means of production is commonly owned in some fashion. But please clarify what you mean.

And then my question is, in your system, how do you incentive a guy to take his life savings put it all into a new venture, work 16 hour days, and do the other stuff that it takes to make a new business or venture successful. Why should he take that risk and make that effort if he is not rewarded by the profit of his successful venture?

 

[AllieBaba]

Vague, useless rhetoric that relies upon jargonism and blanket unsubstantiated opinion statements,
is of no value to anybody anywhere.
Can you use it to build a house or fix a car ?
Can you use it to actually run a Capitalist enterprise, the daily setup and operations of a business,
with empty ideological chatter ? No.
It is an adolescent essay that has no utiliatrian real world value, at all.

IF you were ever in the military, Publius, you'd be trained to set aside the theoritical noise
and apply the tactical or strategic lessons that are taught to all officers and non-coms.
They don't mention Theory all that much or Ideology. They shut that talk down as wasted time and as deadly distraction from the mission and tasks at hand.
The military schools and fieid commanders focus on the Reality they face, rely upon Facts to guide their actions, to get REAL results, by any means - whether it fits neatly into a Theory pigeonhole, or not.
And so it is in Business. You won't hear corporate managers using words like "Socialism" and "Capitalism" to direct their decisions. They look for results. Real tangible results from procedures they know or think or hope will work.
Empty Theoretical Political rhetoric is for ignorant pundits who love to hear themselves talk,
and for theory addicted academicians, or for space cases who ponder their navel and look for pretty patterns in the stars and are certain they are a genius.
Go back to junior high school professor.

Well in that case, it sounds like you are an ignorant pundit who loves to hear herself talk.

In fact, in reviewing this meaningless, droning drivel, I'd count on it. If you want to see empty theoretical political rhetoric, check out Boob's, editec's or any of the lefty windbags who post on here all the time.

Doctor heal thyself....I'd say the best description of you would be "pseudo intellectual" who is so certain of her own superiority she doesn't have to bother with actually making a point, other than "I'm really much smarter than everyone else."

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

But the belief that socialism removes incentives from its economic structure is an inaccurate one.

Of course this would have been a terriific opportunity to have spoken to some PRINCIPLE where Socialism would strike high efficieny...

Yet all we're left with is employee ownership of enterprises which SOCIALISM WOULD STRIP THEM OF THEIR OWNERSHIP... of their profits and of their dream for something far beyond the mediocrity of Socialism.

LOL... Leftists.

 

[N4mddissent]

Here's an alternate view for anyone interested.

Why Socialism

Again, the opposition comes to imply an argument...

But that's perfectly understandable... as the odds of having one's implied argument contested is slim, in contrast with the actual argument, which comes with certain risks.

Great job M4... Powerful stuff.

I think you'll find that you are making an assumption rather than I am making an implication. But close-minded individuals often have trouble with the idea that someone could put forth information about a topic for the benefit of others absent any connection between the information and their personal stance. Usually this is because closed-minded individuals operate in a bubble where the only relevant information, in their opinion, is information with which they already agree.

I wanted to provide information for those who might visit this thread. Just consider it a public service. I also wanted people to be able to read and see what a well-developed, articulate argument from a rational individual looked like whether they agree with the conclusions or not. This is so they could contrast that rational style with the tin-foil hat, on- the-sidewalk-with-a-megaphone style you have developed.

 

[Agnapostate]

I guess we need to define "socialism" first as that label is used a hundred different ways. By socialism in my post I was refering to the system where the means of production is commonly owned in some fashion. But please clarify what you mean.

Socialism is indeed the collective ownership of the means of production. My purpose was merely to clarify that the economic system of the Soviet Union, for instance, was not socialist. It's just that I hear that all too often.

And then my question is, in your system, how do you incentive a guy to take his life savings put it all into a new venture, work 16 hour days, and do the other stuff that it takes to make a new business or venture successful. Why should he take that risk and make that effort if he is not rewarded by the profit of his successful venture?

Socialism retains the profit motive. Indeed, it's necessary for socialism to retain the profit motive to function.

Of course this would have been a terriific opportunity to have spoken to some PRINCIPLE where Socialism would strike high efficieny...

Yet all we're left with is employee ownership of enterprises which SOCIALISM WOULD STRIP THEM OF THEIR OWNERSHIP... of their profits and of their dream for something far beyond the mediocrity of Socialism.

LOL... Leftists.

They could use your posts at Guantanamo...sleep deprivation has nothing on the pure tortuous aspect of this idiocy.

 

[Iriemon]

And then my question is, in your system, how do you incentive a guy to take his life savings put it all into a new venture, work 16 hour days, and do the other stuff that it takes to make a new business or venture successful. Why should he take that risk and make that effort if he is not rewarded by the profit of his successful venture?

Socialism retains the profit motive. Indeed, it's necessary for socialism to retain the profit motive to function.

You have said that. Please explain how, if the person who took the risk and made the effort to start the business is not the owner of it.

 

[Agnapostate]

You have said that. Please explain how, if the person who took the risk and made the effort to start the business is not the owner of it.

It depends on the nature of productive assets that they've used to "start a business." I personally don't believe that there's a need for traditional market competition, and that collective ownership of the means of production could endow decentralized community assemblies to engage in democratic economic planning. Incentive motives are retained within a firm structure inasmuch as workers who shirk may be deducted shares or vouchers, as was the case in the Spanish anarchist collectives. A market socialist structure might incorporate competition between small firms and enterprises subject to workers' ownership and management, thus furthering the profit motive that way.

 

[Iriemon]

You have said that. Please explain how, if the person who took the risk and made the effort to start the business is not the owner of it.

It depends on the nature of productive assets that they've used to "start a business." I personally don't believe that there's a need for traditional market competition, and that collective ownership of the means of production could endow decentralized community assemblies to engage in democratic economic planning. Incentive motives are retained within a firm structure inasmuch as workers who shirk may be deducted shares or vouchers, as was the case in the Spanish anarchist collectives. A market socialist structure might incorporate competition between small firms and enterprises subject to workers' ownership and management, thus furthering the profit motive that way.

What I hear you saying is you don't think we need entrepreneurs starting businesses, or competition, and incentives can be accomplished by deducting vouchers from shirkers, which I guess will be decided by the collective ownership of the business.

IMO that is a far cry from the incentives and motivation that profit and capitalism provide for enterprise, which is why a socialistic system such as you describe would never be as productive or efficient.