Can ANYONE name a SUCCESSFUL country with a LIBERTARIAN ECONOMY??

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So far, we have NO libertarian economies. Cmon, there must be one somewhere. We have plenty of successful socialist countries, the us is a capitalist country. And yes, of course, most are a mix of socialist to capitalist. The US is about as far to the right as you can find. But there are lots well to the left. But nothing out there to the right of the us that looks at all like the great libertarian dream.

Name one successful socialist country. No, the U.S. is a mixed economy.

Well, me boy, did you think someone said the us was not a MIXED economy. Because it was not me. I simply said that the us is about as far to the right as there is out there, arguably. Yep, you could argue that some have certain libertarian characteristics more than the us.
But overall, probably none further to the right.
Successful primarily socialist nations:

Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Peerform Blog

There are no perfectly socialist nations. But there are many that are far to the left of the US and consider themselves to be socialist nations overall. Now, where are those anywhere Close to being a Libertarian nation??

Well, bud, you said the U.S. is a capitalist country, which is not correct. The U.S. is a mixed economy. They are not the same thing. The countries you've listed are also all mixed economies. Not socialist.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not biased at all. Just asking a question. The fact that you are irritated at me is interesting. I just brought up the question. If it were me, I would be pissed at the person telling you that libertarianism is a great idea, but can not name a country where that economy is working.

The "fact" that I'm irritated? The only thing I'm feeling towards you and this thread is boredom.

Cool. You can not discuss, may as well leave.

Discuss what? I've already debunked your nonsensical argument. That you don't like what I say is not evidence that I have nothing to say.

 

[AmazonTania]

Very common mistake to assume that if a country has some modicum of a warfare system that means it's a socialist economy. That's really the only think I see this 'Peerform Blog' going.

And nice to see you around Kennedy. Didn't really know you discussed economics...

 

[Auteur]

Genghis Khan made a run at it. But then, he left all those burned out cities and dead bodies. I don't think even the Koch Brothers could market that.

 

[AmazonTania]

Here is another example:

So this means that I'm 2/2 for countries with successful Libertarian variations.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Very common mistake to assume that if a country has some modicum of a warfare system that means it's a socialist economy. That's really the only think I see this 'Peerform Blog' going.

And nice to see you around Kennedy. Didn't really know you discussed economics...

There's no discussion to be had here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early 21st century is organized along libertarian lines?
The Breakthrough Institute - The Failure of Libertarianism

Plenty of those who voice what a great idea libertarianism is. But no libertarian country. Hell, we even have a libertarian devote who is having islands MAN MADE to be run as libertarian entities. Now, if that is not devotion, not sure what is.

So, it would seem obvious that being a libertarian is an exercise in futility. Why does that Libertarian utopia never happen??

But it does have a purpose. If I can make the ignorant believe, why, hell, I could get RICH!!! Who cares about libertarianism.

Could it be because governments hate not controlling everything, and idiots like you are afraid?

 

[Papageorgio]

Guys the chicken flew, he got completely shown up by you and took flight.

 

[Rshermr]

Name one successful socialist country. No, the U.S. is a mixed economy.

Well, me boy, did you think someone said the us was not a MIXED economy. Because it was not me. I simply said that the us is about as far to the right as there is out there, arguably. Yep, you could argue that some have certain libertarian characteristics more than the us.
But overall, probably none further to the right.
Successful primarily socialist nations:

Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Peerform Blog

There are no perfectly socialist nations. But there are many that are far to the left of the US and consider themselves to be socialist nations overall. Now, where are those anywhere Close to being a Libertarian nation??

None of those countries are socialist. Not even primarily. They all have market economies.

Partially. But they believe themselves to be primarily socialist. You may want to go argue with them. No one argues that they have some capitalist characteristics.
But all, for instance, have as their primary health care, single payer systems. None have primarily private health insurance. Their hc insurance is public.
But the point is not that they are pure socialist nations. But that their economies are more socialist in nature than that of the united states. That they are more toward the left, or socialism, than the US is. And arguably, that there is no nation MORE to the right than the us.

 

[AmazonTania]

Well, me boy, did you think someone said the us was not a MIXED economy. Because it was not me. I simply said that the us is about as far to the right as there is out there, arguably. Yep, you could argue that some have certain libertarian characteristics more than the us.
But overall, probably none further to the right.
Successful primarily socialist nations:


There are no perfectly socialist nations. But there are many that are far to the left of the US and consider themselves to be socialist nations overall. Now, where are those anywhere Close to being a Libertarian nation??

None of those countries are socialist. Not even primarily. They all have market economies.

Partially. But they believe themselves to be primarily socialist. You may want to go argue with them. No one argues that they have some capitalist characteristics. But all, for instance, have as their primary health care, single payer systems. None have primarily private health insurance. Their hc insurance is public.
But the point is not that they are pure socialist nations. But that their economies are more socialist in nature than that of the united states. That they are more toward the left, or socialism, than the US is. And arguably, that there is no nation MORE to the right than the us.

They may 'believe themselves [sic]' to be primarily socialist economies, but that is not what they are. They may be welfare states, but they're not socialist.

Socialism by a text book definition is (1) defined as the primary means of production being collectively owned. Socialism by the Marxist-Leninist theory (2) are the economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism in the scheme of materialism. In other words, economies grow and become fully developed capitalist states, and then evolve out of the political and economic circumstances created by capitalism, into socialism.

Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea are the only countries which describes the first definition. Contrary, according to the second definition, a socialist economy has never existed on earth. Ever.

Also, Karl Marx opposed the welfare state. He believed it discoursed the working class from taking the revolutionary steps necessary to achieve a socialist economy. By this standard, none of the countries listed are socialist states.

 

[Politico]

Shit, can you name a successful country following Republican policies?

Didn't think so. They weren't even successful here.

Republican is not an economy. Leftytoon fail.....

 

[Rshermr]

None of those countries are socialist. Not even primarily. They all have market economies.

Partially. But they believe themselves to be primarily socialist. You may want to go argue with them. No one argues that they have some capitalist characteristics. But all, for instance, have as their primary health care, single payer systems. None have primarily private health insurance. Their hc insurance is public.
But the point is not that they are pure socialist nations. But that their economies are more socialist in nature than that of the united states. That they are more toward the left, or socialism, than the US is. And arguably, that there is no nation MORE to the right than the us.

They may 'believe themselves [sic]' to be primarily socialist economies, but that is not what they are. They may be welfare states, but they're not socialist.

Socialism by a text book definition is (1) defined as the primary means of production being collectively owned. Socialism by the Marxist-Leninist theory (2) are the economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism in the scheme of materialism. In other words, economies grow and become capitalist states, and then transitions into a socialist state.

Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea are the only countries which describes the first definition. Contrary, according to the second definition, a socialist economy has never existed on earth. Ever.

Also, Karl Marx opposed the welfare state. He believed it discoursed the working class from taking the revolutionary steps necessary to achieve a socialist economy. By this standard, none of the countries listed are socialist states.

Again, you need to argue that with them. And a whole lot of economists, who believe what they say. I was not refering to marxist socialism, or communism. That is a different subject. Socialism, we can nearly agree, is the gov ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Such as insurance. And, welfare is generally considered a socialist attribute. You know, the whole safety net thing. But again, should you be able to concentrate for a moment, I did not say they were socialist. The source I provided did. But if you read it, and apply just a bit of logic, you would see that they have MORE SOCIALIST CHARACTERISTICS than the US. If you do not agree, then great. That would be your opinion. Most would prefer a much more experienced source. You know, one with economic credentials. Which leaves us both out.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Partially. But they believe themselves to be primarily socialist. You may want to go argue with them. No one argues that they have some capitalist characteristics. But all, for instance, have as their primary health care, single payer systems. None have primarily private health insurance. Their hc insurance is public.
But the point is not that they are pure socialist nations. But that their economies are more socialist in nature than that of the united states. That they are more toward the left, or socialism, than the US is. And arguably, that there is no nation MORE to the right than the us.

They may 'believe themselves [sic]' to be primarily socialist economies, but that is not what they are. They may be welfare states, but they're not socialist.

Socialism by a text book definition is (1) defined as the primary means of production being collectively owned. Socialism by the Marxist-Leninist theory (2) are the economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism in the scheme of materialism. In other words, economies grow and become capitalist states, and then transitions into a socialist state.

Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea are the only countries which describes the first definition. Contrary, according to the second definition, a socialist economy has never existed on earth. Ever.

Also, Karl Marx opposed the welfare state. He believed it discoursed the working class from taking the revolutionary steps necessary to achieve a socialist economy. By this standard, none of the countries listed are socialist states.

Again, you need to argue that with them. And a whole lot of economists, who believe what they say. I was not refering to marxist socialism, or communism. That is a different subject. Socialism, we can nearly agree, is the gov ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Such as insurance. And, welfare is generally considered a socialist attribute. You know, the whole safety net thing. But again, should you be able to concentrate for a moment, I did not say they were socialist. The source I provided did. But if you read it, and apply just a bit of logic, you would see that they have MORE SOCIALIST CHARACTERISTICS than the US. If you do not agree, then great. That would be your opinion. Most would prefer a much more experienced source. You know, one with economic credentials. Which leaves us both out.

Note the backtracking. First he says the U.S. has a capitalist economy, then he says he never said they didn't have a mixed economy despite the fact that capitalist economies and mixed economies are not the same thing. Now after having put forth these countries as examples of having socialist economies he says he meant a different kind of socialist than what anybody else would have meant. Seemingly par for the course given the illogical premise of the thread to begin with.

 

[AmazonTania]

Again, you need to argue that with them. And a whole lot of economists, who believe what they say.

Aside from the fact that I hardly believe this countries are self-proclaimed socialist and there are economist who actually believe it, that is hardly relevant. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are the original developers and advocates of the idea of socialism. These are the only two people one needs to refer to when it comes to the subject, unless you are references other devote/former socialist.

I was not refering to marxist socialism, or communism. That is a different subject.

Marxian Socialism is the standard socialism. The only variations which are even close this standard are Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism and Anarchism. Any other variations are sub-standard versions which no devote socialist would support. Which means these variations are not socialist economies.

Socialism, we can nearly agree, is the gov ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Such as insurance. And, welfare is generally considered a socialist attribute. You know, the whole safety net thing.

Welfare requires a redistribution of goods and services, which would entail some modicum of private property. Under a socialist economy, all private property is abolished and everything you once owned is assumed by the community. Under Socialism, there is no Welfare State.

But again, should you be able to concentrate for a moment, I did not say they were socialist. The source I provided did.

You've listed a bunch of countries and said that they were "Successful primarily socialist nations." That's not what your source says. That's what YOU have said. Perhaps you should really take my advice and start proofreading what you write.

But if you read it, and apply just a bit of logic, you would see that they have MORE SOCIALIST CHARACTERISTICS than the US.

Being a bigger Welfare State doesn't make these nations any more socialist. What you don't seem to understand that a Welfare State is highly depended upon Property Rights and a Market Economy, which no socialist supports. These countries listed have the strongest protection of property rights; they enforce contracts and have somewhat lower regulations on most businesses. These countries are considered among the Freest Economies on Earth.

List of countries by economic freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are trying to argue that these countries are Social Democracies that I can agree with but there is still two different versions of the term: The Historic Correct Term and the Modern Term. The historic and correct definition of democratic socialism is a grassroots, anti-authoritarian socialism that wants to get rid of capitalism by labour organisation, elections, and other democratic, decentralised means (Eugene Debs). Then, you have the modern redefinition that inaccurately calls democratic socialism a mixed economy between capitalism and socialism (Sweden, Denmark, etc).

If you do not agree, then great. That would be your opinion. Most would prefer a much more experienced source. You know, one with economic credentials. Which leaves us both out.

It leaves you out, not me. Believe me, I would provide a source if I honestly believe you would read it thoroughly. Studying hundreds of writings from devote Marxist is very tedious, and if you are not willing to go through all of these documents, you are not going to learn very much.

 

[Rshermr]

They may 'believe themselves [sic]' to be primarily socialist economies, but that is not what they are. They may be welfare states, but they're not socialist.

Socialism by a text book definition is (1) defined as the primary means of production being collectively owned. Socialism by the Marxist-Leninist theory (2) are the economic development and its corresponding set of social relations that eventually supersede capitalism in the scheme of materialism. In other words, economies grow and become capitalist states, and then transitions into a socialist state.

Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea are the only countries which describes the first definition. Contrary, according to the second definition, a socialist economy has never existed on earth. Ever.

Also, Karl Marx opposed the welfare state. He believed it discoursed the working class from taking the revolutionary steps necessary to achieve a socialist economy. By this standard, none of the countries listed are socialist states.

Again, you need to argue that with them. And a whole lot of economists, who believe what they say. I was not refering to marxist socialism, or communism. That is a different subject. Socialism, we can nearly agree, is the gov ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Such as insurance. And, welfare is generally considered a socialist attribute. You know, the whole safety net thing. But again, should you be able to concentrate for a moment, I did not say they were socialist. The source I provided did. But if you read it, and apply just a bit of logic, you would see that they have MORE SOCIALIST CHARACTERISTICS than the US. If you do not agree, then great. That would be your opinion. Most would prefer a much more experienced source. You know, one with economic credentials. Which leaves us both out.

Note the backtracking. First he says the U.S. has a capitalist economy, then he says he never said they didn't have a mixed economy despite the fact that capitalist economies and mixed economies are not the same thing. Now after having put forth these countries as examples of having socialist economies he says he meant a different kind of socialist than what anybody else would have meant. Seemingly par for the course given the illogical premise of the thread to begin with.

Please. Get your head out of your ass. The echo is bothersome.

This is a simple concept. For most.
What I said was that the US is considered a capitalist economy.
That does NOT mean to those with actual brain activity that it is totally capitalist in nature. We do have socialist components in out economy.
So, we have it. You can not name a successful primarily libertarian economy. Seems to be making you irrational, me boy. It is ok. No need to get all pissy.
And I hardly said that what some would call marxist socialism does not exist. But I do not consider them for one primary reason, dipshit. It is because they really do not matter. They are hardly successful economies. Though, as you must admit, the fact that they DO EXIST, even though they are considered successful by almost no one, that is more than you can say for a predominantly libertarian economy. There is no predominantly libertarian economy that even makes it to the level of an unsuccessful existing economy

 

[Rshermr]

Well, Amazon. I am sure you will never understand this. Becouse you choose not to.
But here is what the rational world thinks Marx did:


Next, you need to know that socialism and communism are distinct. Here is a common definition of Communism:
" [/QUOTE]a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. [/QUOTE]
And here is a common definition of Socialism:

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Socialism is, and was considered by Marx, as a stage in the development of Communism. But socialism is not socialism. Communism, however, does entail socialism.

So, you can define socialism any way you want. It's a free country. But you will be wrong. They are two separate economic, and social, systems.


So, you stated:

Marxian Socialism is the standard socialism.

Says you. Which makes no difference. And is a really stupid statement.

The only variations which are even close this standard are Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism and Anarchism.

Yes and no.
But that has NOTHING to do with trying to find a successful libertarian economy.

Any other variations are sub-standard versions which no devote socialist would support. Which means these variations are not socialist economies.

What is a devote socialist?? Who, besides you, defines socialism as substandard to communism, except you? And sorry, but you saying they are not socialist is comical, but not a serious statement.

Then, the following:

Welfare requires a redistribution of goods and services, which would entail some modicum of private property. Under a socialist economy, all private property is abolished and everything you once owned is assumed by the community. Under Socialism, there is no Welfare State.

Again, you are conflating socialism and communism. Under communism, there is gov ownership of property. Under socialism, not so. Citizens OWN property under socialism. You are making a mess of this. Looking really stupid. Are you simply stupid??? This is an easy concept to understand.

You've listed a bunch of countries and said that they were "Successful primarily socialist nations." That's not what your source says. That's what YOU have said. Perhaps you should really take my advice and start proofreading what you write.

That is, me dear, what the source called most socialist countries in the world. That they are successful is obvious. Take a look again. If you want to call some or all unsuccessful, knock yourself out. But such a statement would be stupid:
Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium

If you look around the net, you will see much more scholarly sources than this one that will list these countries, and others, as socialist. NONE will say they are marxist. And there are other nations that would be included in different links.

funny, me dear, how you are trying so hard to change the subject. Do you think that the US is to the left, as in more socialist, than these nations??

If you are trying to argue that these countries are Social Democracies that I can agree with but there is still two different versions of the term: The Historic Correct Term and the Modern Term. The historic and correct definition of democratic socialism is a grassroots, anti-authoritarian socialism that wants to get rid of capitalism by labour organisation, elections, and other democratic, decentralised means (Eugene Debs). Then, you have the modern redefinition that inaccurately calls democratic socialism a mixed economy between capitalism and socialism (Sweden, Denmark, etc).

No, me dear. But it is nice to see that you know how to use the google. I am talking about economic socialism. And the fact that these countries have MORE SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS THAN THE US. In other words, they have more gov ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. So, things like gov provided higher education, health care, etc.

So, sorry to have to try to educate you about marx and communism. Hope it took. But this is simply another of your side trips. The question is can you name a successful libertarian economy?? So I see we can register your response as NO.

For your further education:

Revolutionary, historian and economist Karl Marx published The Communist Manifesto
Karl Marx Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com

A really simple one to get you started.

Below is a more scholarly treatment of marx, and marxism, and communism. It will help you even more.
http://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/KARLMARXANDMARXISM.pdf

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Shit, can you name a successful country following Republican policies?

Didn't think so. They weren't even successful here.

USA 1919-1928; 1981-2000

Now STFU

 

[AmazonTania]

Well, Amazon. I am sure you will never understand this. Becouse you choose not to.
But here is what the rational world thinks Marx did:

Socialism is, and was considered by Marx, as a stage in the development of Communism. But socialism is not socialism. Communism, however, does entail socialism.

So, you can define socialism any way you want. It's a free country. But you will be wrong. They are two separate economic, and social, systems.

I'm defining Socialism how Marx and Engels defined it. They are the sole arbiters of the term. And no, socialism and communism are not distinct. Socialism is part of the proletarian movement towards Communism. It's a transition process from a Fully Capitalist State, towards a Socialist State and eventually Communism. There only variants is that Communist assert that both capitalism and private ownership of the means of production must be done away as soon as possible in order to achieve a classless society (Maoism, Stalinism). Socialism uses capitalism as a necessary stepping stone towards evolving out of a capitalist economy, towards a classless society. This is what Lenin did with his 5 year plan, and then Stalin abandoned it once he died.

Says you. Which makes no difference. And is a really stupid statement.

Says Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Arguing with the fathers of this social and economic science is tantamount to arguing father of relativity. You just don't do it. It's beyond dumb, and there is never any shortfall of stupidity in your responses.

True Socialism by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Yes and no.

There is no 'yes and no.' The closest thing towards Socalism are those variants I have listed. Every other economy involve market economies with private property and private means of production.

But that has NOTHING to do with trying to find a successful libertarian economy.

It's not about trying to find a successful libertarian economy. It's about correcting your inaccuracies... Again. I've already cited two libertarian economies in earlier post. If you would like to refute this, simply refer to those post.

What is a devote socialist?? Who, besides you, defines socialism as substandard to communism, except you? And sorry, but you saying they are not socialist is comical, but not a serious statement.

How about you actually read what I am writing carefully, and if you deem it necessary, read it four times.

Marxian socialism is the standard, as outlined in the Communist Manfesto. The closest forms of this were adaptations of socialism provided by Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Joesph Stalin and Mao Zedong. All of which deviated from the principles of the Communist Manifesto in developing a fully capitalist state the transition and very few of which actually adopted a democracy.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 3)

Again, you are conflating socialism and communism. Under communism, there is gov ownership of property. Under socialism, not so. Citizens OWN property under socialism. You are making a mess of this. Looking really stupid. Are you simply stupid??? This is an easy concept to understand.

There you go again employing ad homeniems without getting the facts straight. A Rshremr response isn't complete without a post showing that he never looks before he leaps.

First of all, there is no government ownership of property under Communism, because under Communism, there is no government. It's a classless, stateless society. Communism entails the common ownership of property. Socialism can either entail common ownership or state ownership. My god, all you have to do is just Wikipedia it, or Google it if you're lazy.

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, there is no private property in Socialism or Communism. At all. You are probably confusing this with personal property. Marx already makes a clear distinction between personal property and private property. Personal Property is consider, well, personal, and an extension of one's self under the Communist Manifesto. Under the Communist Manfesto, only private property should be done away with.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

That is, me dear, what the source called most socialist countries in the world. That they are successful is obvious. Take a look again. If you want to call some or all unsuccessful, knock yourself out. But such a statement would be stupid:
Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium

If you look around the net, you will see much more scholarly sources than this one that will list these countries, and others, as socialist. NONE will say they are marxist. And there are other nations that would be included in different links.

Except for China, there is really nothing socialist about any of those nations. They have market economies. Not a single input for production is publicly own.

funny, me dear, how you are trying so hard to change the subject. Do you think that the US is to the left, as in more socialist, than these nations??

Terms have meaning. What you have asked has zero meaning. What is that suppose to mean? Left ideologically, economically? At least have some understanding of what you are trying to ask.

No, me dear. But it is nice to see that you know how to use the google. I am talking about economic socialism. And the fact that these countries have MORE SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS THAN THE US. In other words, they have more gov ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. So, things like gov provided higher education, health care, etc.

You have a very poor understanding of what you are trying to debate. Ownership of the means of production entails the physical, non human inputs regarding the means of production. Foreign Governments have the same ownership of the Means of Production as the United States Government, which is essentially near zero. Means of production involves the inputs of production, which involves land and capital. Ownership of this means that the Government would either have to own the land, as well as the capital necessary the inputs for production.

This involves factories and machines. In terms of Health Care, this would involve pharmaceutical companies and their equipment. It terms of education, it involves publishing companies. The Ownership of the Means of Production doesn't involve government financing or providing these things. The Means of Production involves 'producing,' not providing.

=Marxian Glossary]

The tools (instruments) and the raw material (subject) you use to create something are the means of production.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/e.htm

So, sorry to have to try to educate you about marx and communism. Hope it took. But this is simply another of your side trips.

You educated someone? That's laughable. You've just shown that you're way over your head... Again.

The question is can you name a successful libertarian economy?? So I see we can register your response as NO.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...with-a-libertarian-economy-2.html#post7777502

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...with-a-libertarian-economy-2.html#post7777541

For your further education:

Revolutionary, historian and economist Karl Marx published The Communist Manifesto
Karl Marx Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com

A really simple one to get you started.

Below is a more scholarly treatment of marx, and marxism, and communism. It will help you even more.
http://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/KARLMARXANDMARXISM.pdf

You wouldn't know a scholarly document if you wrote one yourself. You gave me a 'scholarly' paper with no author, no citations and you want me to take your words seriously? Google is not an effective research tool. It really isn't.

 

[Rshermr]

Well, Amazon. I am sure you will never understand this. Becouse you choose not to.
But here is what the rational world thinks Marx did:

Socialism is, and was considered by Marx, as a stage in the development of Communism. But socialism is not socialism. Communism, however, does entail socialism.

So, you can define socialism any way you want. It's a free country. But you will be wrong. They are two separate economic, and social, systems.

I'm defining Socialism how Marx and Engels defined it. They are the sole arbiters of the term. And no, socialism and communism are not distinct. Socialism is part of the proletarian movement towards Communism. It's a transition process from a Fully Capitalist State, towards a Socialist State and eventually Communism. There only variants is that Communist assert that both capitalism and private ownership of the means of production must be done away as soon as possible in order to achieve a classless society (Maoism, Stalinism). Socialism uses capitalism as a necessary stepping stone towards evolving out of a capitalist economy, towards a classless society. This is what Lenin did with his 5 year plan, and then Stalin abandoned it once he died.

Says you. Which makes no difference. And is a really stupid statement.

Says Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Arguing with the fathers of this social and economic science is tantamount to arguing father of relativity. You just don't do it. It's beyond dumb, and there is never any shortfall of stupidity in your responses.

True Socialism by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels



There is no 'yes and no.' The closest thing towards Socalism are those variants I have listed. Every other economy involve market economies with private property and private means of production.



It's not about trying to find a successful libertarian economy. It's about correcting your inaccuracies... Again. I've already cited two libertarian economies in earlier post. If you would like to refute this, simply refer to those post.



How about you actually read what I am writing carefully, and if you deem it necessary, read it four times.

Marxian socialism is the standard, as outlined in the Communist Manfesto. The closest forms of this were adaptations of socialism provided by Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Joesph Stalin and Mao Zedong. All of which deviated from the principles of the Communist Manifesto in developing a fully capitalist state the transition and very few of which actually adopted a democracy.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 3)



There you go again employing ad homeniems without getting the facts straight. A Rshremr response isn't complete without a post showing that he never looks before he leaps.

First of all, there is no government ownership of property under Communism, because under Communism, there is no government. It's a classless, stateless society. Communism entails the common ownership of property. Socialism can either entail common ownership or state ownership. My god, all you have to do is just Wikipedia it, or Google it if you're lazy.



Also, there is no private property in Socialism or Communism. At all. You are probably confusing this with personal property. Marx already makes a clear distinction between personal property and private property. Personal Property is consider, well, personal, and an extension of one's self under the Communist Manifesto. Under the Communist Manfesto, only private property should be done away with.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)



Except for China, there is really nothing socialist about any of those nations. They have market economies. Not a single input for production is publicly own.



Terms have meaning. What you have asked has zero meaning. What is that suppose to mean? Left ideologically, economically? At least have some understanding of what you are trying to ask.



You have a very poor understanding of what you are trying to debate. Ownership of the means of production entails the physical, non human inputs regarding the means of production. Foreign Governments have the same ownership of the Means of Production as the United States Government, which is essentially near zero. Means of production involves the inputs of production, which involves land and capital. Ownership of this means that the Government would either have to own the land, as well as the capital necessary the inputs for production.

This involves factories and machines. In terms of Health Care, this would involve pharmaceutical companies and their equipment. It terms of education, it involves publishing companies. The Ownership of the Means of Production doesn't involve government financing or providing these things. The Means of Production involves 'producing,' not providing.





You educated someone? That's laughable. You've just shown that you're way over your head... Again.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...with-a-libertarian-economy-2.html#post7777502

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...with-a-libertarian-economy-2.html#post7777541

For your further education:

Revolutionary, historian and economist Karl Marx published The Communist Manifesto
Karl Marx Biography - Facts, Birthday, Life Story - Biography.com

A really simple one to get you started.

Below is a more scholarly treatment of marx, and marxism, and communism. It will help you even more.
http://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/KARLMARXANDMARXISM.pdf

You wouldn't know a scholarly document if you wrote one yourself. You gave me a 'scholarly' paper with no author, no citations and you want me to take your words seriously? Google is not an effective research tool. It really isn't.

It is great that you have defined socialism and communism to be the same. Good for you. And it is good that you say that there is no private property under socialism. Good for you.
It is good that you believe that the only arbitrators of socialism are marx and engles. Good for you.
Now, none of that has any place in the real world. Period. Only among the bat shit crazy con sites who want to holler about the evils of marxism. And you.

Every single thing you have said is patently untrue. And I am sure you know it. Typical of you, tania.

So, where is the link saying that there is no personal property under socialism????? You are wasting people's time. Your statements are only true in your little mind. They have no support outside of your little mind. Except among those who like to rail about marxism. You know, where you spend your time. The bat shit crazy con web sites.

But maybe you can start the Tania school of economic thought. Where socialism is communism, socialism has no private property rights, and you can go to Engles and marx to mediate all disagreements.

This involves factories and machines. In terms of Health Care, this would involve pharmaceutical companies and their equipment. It terms of education, it involves publishing companies. The Ownership of the Means of Production doesn't involve government financing or providing these things. It involves the Government Ownership of what 'Produces' these things.

Sorry. Nice try at making up something, me dear. Socialism means ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Services often do not require factories or machines. But, you see, they are producing services that are utilized by people, and have value. Their factories are the buildings in which the services are provided. You know, walls, rooms, desks, chairs, computers, networks, bank accounts, etc. All owned and controlled by the gov. All producing services which are paid for. But again, you may be able to set up that Tania school of economic thought. Because you would be laughed out of a contemporary economics class.

You educated someone? That's laughable.

You are correct, of course. You learn nothing. You can not be educated. Because you only believe what you want to believe. Fact, evidence, that kind of thing is of no interest to you.

So, again, thanks for your input. We how know that tania can not name a successful primarily libertarian economy.

 

[AmazonTania]

It is great that you have defined socialism and communism to be the same. Good for you. And it is good that you say that there is no private property under socialism. Good for you.

No, it's not good. It's a disgusting, and morally bankrupt system. There right about the abolishment of private property and the force of common ownership. There was nothing good that Marx inspired, but at least I understand it. And to be fair, Karl Marx tried to understand economic theories regarding Supply and Demand.

You, on the other hand, choose not to understand a thing while passing yourself off as knowledgeable.

It is good that you believe that the only arbitrators of socialism are marx and engles. Good for you.

Who else knows better than the developers of the social science and the economic system You? That's a riot!

Now, none of that has any place in the real world. Period. Only among the bat shit crazy con sites who want to holler about the evils of marxism. And you.

Now MARXIST.ORG is a 'bat shit crazy con site' ROFLMAO!

Every single thing you have said is patently untrue. And I am sure you know it. Typical of you, tania.

Then explain why everything I have said is untrue.

So, where is the link saying that there is no personal property under socialism????? You are wasting people's time. Your statements are only true in your little mind. They have no support outside of your little mind. Except among those who like to rail about marxism. You know, where you spend your time. The bat shit crazy con web sites.

What the hell is your purpose here? Seriously? Did anyone say that personal property should be abolished under the Communist Manifesto? Karl Marx only advocates for private property (which is essentially bourgeois property) to be abolish.

But maybe you can start the Tania school of economic thought. Where socialism is communism, socialism has no private property rights, and you can go to Engles and marx to mediate all disagreements.

I already told you I do not support nor advocate socialism or communism. I understand it in the sense that I like to keep my economic reading material as balanced as possible. It's interesting how you're supposed to be the open minded on, but you don't understand anything outside your world view.

Grow up.

Sorry. Nice try at making up something, me dear. Socialism means ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Services often do not require factories or machines. But, you see, they are producing services that are utilized by people, and have value. Their factories are the buildings in which the services are provided. You know, walls, rooms, desks, chairs, computers, networks, bank accounts, etc. All owned and controlled by the gov. All producing services which are paid for. But again, you may be able to set up that Tania school of economic thought. Because you would be laughed out of a contemporary economics class.

I see where your understanding falls short. It's your lack of the understanding of the terminology. What is actually funny is that you think the 'Means of Production' is taught in a contemporary economics class, when the 'Means of Production' is actually a Marxian term. So, let's start off with some basic definitions of the terms:

=Means of Production](Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in Marxist theory) the raw materials and means of labour (tools, machines, etc.) employed in the production process.

means of production - definition of means of production by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production—the factories, machines, and tools used to produce wealth[1] — along with both infrastructural capital and natural capital. This includes the classical factors of production minus financial capital and minus human capital. They include two broad categories of objects: instruments of labour (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labour (natural resources and raw materials). If creating a good, people operate on the subjects of labour, using the instruments of labour, to create a product; or, stated another way, labour acting on the means of production creates a good.[2]

Means of production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In no way do the 'Means of Production' actually include services. In fact, services are no where mentioned at all when it relates to the 'Means of Production.' The 'Means of Production' are the inputs used and employed in the production process. It's the capital and the hardware required to produce. Providing a service is not part of the production process in any way, rather, which class owns the production and which class works (services, develops, etc) are sells the production.

In order for the Government to own 'The Means of Production,' this would mean the Government needs to own all the tangible inputs (raw materiels, semi-finished goods, sub assemblies) required to produce. Having the government provide your Health Care does not entail that the government owns the 'Means of Production' in that sector. UNLESS the government owns the medical equipment, owns the raw materials used to create drugs as well as other medical innovations. Aside from Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and portions of the Chinese economy, this does not describe any other economy.

Well, maybe it describes the United States in the case of Horne vs. United States Department of Agriculture where the USDA assumed ownership of the raisin grown by the California raisin farmers and the land used to grow their crop. You really need to learn your terms before discussing things way over your head.


Marvin D. Horne, et al., v. Department of Agriculture | LII / Legal Information Institute

You are correct, of course. You learn nothing. You can not be educated. Because you only believe what you want to believe. Fact, evidence, that kind of thing is of no interest to you.

That's not true. I can be educated (and I am educated). I'm just not educated by you. You virtually have zero knowledge and understanding of anything you try to discuss. You have zero facts, as well as evidence.

There is not a single thing you can feasibly teach me, or anyone else for that matter.

So, again, thanks for your input. We how know that tania can not name a successful primarily libertarian economy.

I see we are pretending the facts don't exist again.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/economy/economy/econom...ml#post7777502

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/economy/economy/econom...ml#post7777541