[Spoon Poetic]

I really don't like the idea of putting our stupid and/or corrupt government in charge of MORE stuff. Hands off, please.

This post has been edited by Spoon Poetic: 01 October 2008 - 12:12 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Socialism is a philosophy of government intervention in order to manage the means of production and to prevent capital from being controlled by a few elite members of society. Some socialists want all product to be nationalised, while others believe that the government should handle some aspects while leaving a market economy to handle the rest. In the US, things like the Police Force, the Department of Transportation and the Army to name a few, are controlled by the government and run with funds collected from the general population. There are also many socialised hospitals, but these don't much compete with the private sustem run on insurance funds. Generally the US is called a Capitalist society, and geneally this is true, but there is Socailism in the mix as well.

To say that a country is practising Socialism one need not be able to say that it is universally Socialist, ie one where every factory, farm, or firm is owned by its workers or by some external Nationalising body. That is a simplification of the complicated philosophy of government, and one generally used by people trying to make some point other than the one being discussed. Generally the direction intended is to railroad the conversation into something like "Socialised healthcare in France means that they will soon be deporting political undesirables just like in Stalinist Russia," which is generally not helpful to any discussion, not even one on Stalinist Russia.

A government bailout of business is essentially an refusal to admit that Capitalism is a giant Ponzi scheme, that any closed system (and this has been know for some time) whose success is measured in terms of continual growth will enjoy periods of market boom and will also suffer periods of terrible recession. The market economy works, but one must allow these periods of death and regrowth. The desired scenario of perpetual harmony and prosperity (or at least comfort) requires more than an "unseen hand" to guide it. It requires a degree of Socialism.

[Deucaon]

I really don't like the idea of putting our stupid and/or corrupt government in charge of MORE stuff. Hands off, please.

You would rather the government give money to stupid and/or corrupt clerks who do not answer to the American people or simply allowing the American economy to come to a standstill and possibly collapsing?

Russel Crowe had the idea of giving every person in America 1,000,000 to solve their mortgage woes and I would support that (perhaps 100,000 instead of 1,000,000) if it wouldn’t create hyperinflation... which it would.

Socialism is a philosophy of government intervention in order to manage the means of production and to prevent capital from being controlled by a few elite members of society. Some socialists want all product to be nationalised, while others believe that the government should handle some aspects while leaving a market economy to handle the rest. In the US, things like the Police Force, the Department of Transportation and the Army to name a few, are controlled by the government and run with funds collected from the general population. There are also many socialised hospitals, but these don't much compete with the private sustem run on insurance funds. Generally the US is called a Capitalist society, and geneally this is true, but there is Socailism in the mix as well.

To say that a country is practising Socialism one need not be able to say that it is universally Socialist, ie one where every factory, farm, or firm is owned by its workers or by some external Nationalising body. That is a simplification of the complicated philosophy of government, and one generally used by people trying to make some point other than the one being discussed. Generally the direction intended is to railroad the conversation into something like "Socialised healthcare in France means that they will soon be deporting political undesirables just like in Stalinist Russia," which is generally not helpful to any discussion, not even one on Stalinist Russia.

A government bailout of business is essentially an refusal to admit that Capitalism is a giant Ponzi scheme, that any closed system (and this has been know for some time) whose success is measured in terms of continual growth will enjoy periods of market boom and will also suffer periods of terrible recession. The market economy works, but one must allow these periods of death and regrowth. The desired scenario of perpetual harmony and prosperity (or at least comfort) requires more than an "unseen hand" to guide it. It requires a degree of Socialism.

In essence, Socialism/Communism is collectivisation on a state or global level (depending on which version of Socialism/Communism you wish to follow.) That is the fundamental tenet of Socialism/Communism and that is what all Socialists/Communists wish. If a person doesn’t wish collectivisation on a state or global level or only wish for it to be implemented on a smaller scale then they aren’t Socialists/Communists.

And when you reduce the value of the individual as Socialists/Communists tend to do then locking people up for speaking their mind is not that far off.

Also, the economic, legal and political systems in most (if not all) Western, Northern and Central European nations are based on the Napoleonic system and not the Marxist system.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 01 October 2008 - 02:56 PM

[Ninja Duck]

Guys, stop being silly. Socialism is when the ruling class forces 90% of the population to work (while it lives in luxury) for next to nothing while it sends all dissidents (which would include people who refuse to work) to concentration camps so they can be brainwashed, shot or starved. Read the party platform.

Russel Crowe had the idea of giving every person in America 1,000,000 to solve their mortgage woes and I would support that (perhaps 100,000 instead of 1,000,000) if it wouldn’t create hyperinflation... which it would.

No no no no no no no no. People will use the money to pay off their debt, the same conditions that lead them into debt continue, then they go back into debt, except this time the lenders are super-ultra-mega rich because they collected all the money that was given to everyone else.

[Deucaon]

No no no no no no no no. People will use the money to pay off their debt, the same conditions that lead them into debt continue, then they go back into debt, except this time the lenders are super-ultra-mega rich because they collected all the money that was given to everyone else.

What type of conditions would make everyone lose 700,000$ (lets assume the average mortgage is 300,000) and get back into debt?

[J m HofMarN]

I really don't like the idea of putting our stupid and/or corrupt government in charge of MORE stuff. Hands off, please.

The reason that a democratic government nationalizing things is considered to be useful is that the government is theoretically more accountable to the people than, say, the head of Lehman Bros who still has his million dollar salary and his bank accounts even though his company is now fucked.

Generally the direction intended is to railroad the conversation into something like "Socialised healthcare in France means that they will soon be deporting political undesirables just like in Stalinist Russia," which is generally not helpful to any discussion, not even one on Stalinist Russia.

-Civ

And when you reduce the value of the individual as Socialists/Communists tend to do then locking people up for speaking their mind is not that far off.

-Deuacon

If a person doesn’t wish collectivisation on a state or global level or only wish for it to be implemented on a smaller scale then they aren’t Socialists/Communists.

Yes, yes they are. I love arguing over what socialism or communism is. Socialism, as I said, is the more liberalized form of communism and the two terms are based within traditional Marxist dogma. Socialism intends to take society to the first stage of communism, the Socialist stage, and this requires less force and control. Communism has as its stated goal to completely remake society, attain socialism, and then move on to pure communism and then Anarchy.

Socialism demands that the value of the individual be secondary to that of the majority, but that's true of all governments except for monarchies and dictatorship if by individual you mean the ruling class.

Also, the economic, legal and political systems in most (if not all) Western, Northern and Central European nations are based on the Napoleonic system and not the Marxist system.

Do what? Napoleon was not an economist, and Marx was, beyond being a Socialist, also an economist. I would say that Das Kapital is far more influential than......... whatever it is you claim Napoleon did. Adam Smith is a well known capitalist economist from that period, maybe you're thinking of him. As for legal and political, no, no it is not.

No no no no no no no no. People will use the money to pay off their debt, the same conditions that lead them into debt continue, then they go back into debt, except this time the lenders are super-ultra-mega rich because they collected all the money that was given to everyone else.

I don't know if the US government could really do that anyhow. The problem is that lending is such a huge industry here. Everyone is in debt, and the interest on that debt creates profit which leads to jobs and business for a lot of people/companies. So if the government did help people pay off their debts all in one go, it would still overturn the money changers tables because they wouldnt get the interest on it they'd recieve if the debts continued longer.

[civilian_number_two]

And when you reduce the value of the individual as Socialists/Communists tend to do then locking people up for speaking their mind is not that far off.

When you create a system where profit is placed above people, then locking people up, or deporting them, or blacklisting them from trade organisations, for allegedly considering alternate political options is not far off. Look into what happened in the McCarthy period, in the land of free assembly and freedom of speech.

Kudos to JM for pointing out that you did exactly what I said most people do. Note please that I said it hoping that instead of just doing it, you'd do something more interesting. I'd have considered it more interesting, for instance, if you had tried to deal with my claim that Capitalism is just a giant Ponzi scheme. Because if you can deal with that claim, you will have the world's economists beat, and you should publish.

[J m HofMarN]

By the way, something I've noticed is that Deuacon's argument for nationalization and so forth, and his simultaneous insistence that it can't be called socialism because no one is being exiled to Siberia, is actually a fairly accurate prism of the US' mindset in general.

The government, particularly democrats, seem to want to move in the right direction of socialism, but they must water it down so thoroughly that it would be very hard for anyone to call it that. Hence the privatized national healthcare for all, maybe plan. I think if we got over the whole bloodthirsty communist thing, we could take the steps necessary to solve some of the chronic problems of social justice in the nation.

Instead the government is sort of, almost, placing banks under sort of an agreement with the government, which in no way implies control, and is definately not socialism, if you're ok with that.

[civilian_number_two]

I just thought I'd mention that Russell Crowe must be an idiot if he actually said that thing quoted earlier about giving every person in the country a million dollars. There are 300 million people in the country, so that's 300 TRILLION dollars. Using the $700 000 000 000 in the proposal, and distributing it equally, each person would get a little over $2000. So, take note: a $700B bailout wouldn't help many people. Either it'd be a small amount for everyone, and loads of mortgages would fail anway, or it's be a load of money specifically targeted in unequal ways.

You know what? You should just take your lumps, America. Fall into a decade-long recession and then emerge into new prosperity. You've done it before.

[Deucaon]

Guys, stop being silly. Socialism is when the ruling class forces 90% of the population to work (while it lives in luxury) for next to nothing while it sends all dissidents (which would include people who refuse to work) to concentration camps so they can be brainwashed, shot or starved. Read the party platform.

Yes, yes they are. I love arguing over what socialism or communism is. Socialism, as I said, is the more liberalized form of communism and the two terms are based within traditional Marxist dogma. Socialism intends to take society to the first stage of communism, the Socialist stage, and this requires less force and control. Communism has as its stated goal to completely remake society, attain socialism, and then move on to pure communism and then Anarchy.

Socialism demands that the value of the individual be secondary to that of the majority, but that's true of all governments except for monarchies and dictatorship if by individual you mean the ruling class.

Look, if you don't believe that everything in your state/country/whatever should be confiscated and collectivised then you aren't a Socialist/Communist. If you believe with heavy handed government enforcement on an economic system that is privatized then you are a Capitalist.

Do what? Napoleon was not an economist, and Marx was, beyond being a Socialist, also an economist. I would say that Das Kapital is far more influential than......... whatever it is you claim Napoleon did. Adam Smith is a well known capitalist economist from that period, maybe you're thinking of him. As for legal and political, no, no it is not.

BITCHES DONT KNOW BOUT MAH CODE!

Thanks to Napoleon and his expansionist tendencies, most of Western and Central Europe states eradicated Serfdom. Thanks to Marx, Engel, Lenin and their political jargon, Serfdom in Russia/USSR lasted until 1991.

When you create a system where profit is placed above people, then locking people up, or deporting them, or blacklisting them from trade organisations, for allegedly considering alternate political options is not far off. Look into what happened in the McCarthy period, in the land of free assembly and freedom of speech.

Kudos to JM for pointing out that you did exactly what I said most people do. Note please that I said it hoping that instead of just doing it, you'd do something more interesting. I'd have considered it more interesting, for instance, if you had tried to deal with my claim that Capitalism is just a giant Ponzi scheme. Because if you can deal with that claim, you will have the world's economists beat, and you should publish.

What does McCarthyism have to do with individual determination? It seems to me that McCarthyism was strongest when American ideals placed the state ahead of the individual.

[Deucaon]

I just thought I'd mention that Russell Crowe must be an idiot if he actually said that thing quoted earlier about giving every person in the country a million dollars. There are 300 million people in the country, so that's 300 TRILLION dollars. Using the $700 000 000 000 in the proposal, and distributing it equally, each person would get a little over $2000. So, take note: a $700B bailout wouldn't help many people. Either it'd be a small amount for everyone, and loads of mortgages would fail anway, or it's be a load of money specifically targeted in unequal ways.

You know what? You should just take your lumps, America. Fall into a decade-long recession and then emerge into new prosperity. You've done it before.

Russell Crowe wants to give everyone $1 million.

Oscar-winning actor Russell Crowe owns the Sydney Rabbitohs rugby team.

And he thinks he's figured out a cure for the U.S. financial crisis.

"I have been intently watching the political process,'' Crowe told talk show host Jay Leno. His plan? For the U.S. government to give each American $1 million.

He figured the U.S. has a population of about 300 million, and a $300-million outlay was a fraction of the $700-billion financial bailout package.

"I was thinking If they want to stimulate the economy and get people spending so they can look after their mortgage ... give everyone $1 million.''

Crowe is in the U.S. to promote his new spy thriller with Leonardo DiCaprio and director Ridley Scott, “Body of Lies.”

Crowe will team up with Scott in “Nottingham,” based on Robin Hood, and he's has grown his hair past shoulder length for the film.

"I'm going to play Maid Marian" and Friar Tuck, Crowe, twirling his long hair, told Leno. "It's gonna be a challenge."

Kidding. Actually, Crowe will play the sheriff of Nottingham. Sienna Miller has been cast as Maid Marian.

Oh-oh.

Sienna husband-stealer Miller? Somebody better tell Crowe’s wife Danielle Spencer to visit the set a lot.

He obviously miscounted (its not like you can take out a calculator while you're on a talk show) or was misquoted.

[J m HofMarN]

Look, if you don't believe that everything in your state/country/whatever should be confiscated and collectivised then you aren't a Socialist/Communist. If you believe with heavy handed government enforcement on an economic system that is privatized then you are a Capitalist.

Sorry, not how it works. The CPUSA, of which I am a dues paying member, and therefore quite clearly a communist, does not require you to say that you support confiscating everything. If they did they would have no members. So, yes, you can be a socialist/communist without wanting whatever it is you say we want. Also, I have not yet put anyone in a gulag, but once I have the power and my agents can locate Snake Logan or Use The Force.......

And there is a grey area. A lot of countries have adopted at least some measure of socialism to make things better for their people. Socialized medicine is considered to be a socialist ideal.

Thanks to Napoleon and his expansionist tendencies, most of Western and Central Europe states eradicated Serfdom. Thanks to Marx, Engel, Lenin and their political jargon, Serfdom in Russia/USSR lasted until 1991.

Ummm. No. I read your link. It says nothing about his economic policies. I don't know why he was brought into this. I doubt he gave a good sweet goddamn whether people were serfs or not, but he did have to pay lipservice to egalitarianism since in his first reign France was still full of fun Republican sentiment. However I think it was more the, you know, massive fuck war he started that destroyed feudalism, if anything. Napoleon aint Lincoln. Marxism helped Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, and other nations to free themselves from imperialism's grasp and industrialize, same with Russia. Napoleon didnt do much for any of those countries.

What does McCarthyism have to do with individual determination? It seems to me that McCarthyism was strongest when American ideals placed the state ahead of the individual.

This is about a lot more than McCarthyism. Did you know that as a Party member I cant be in the upper hierarchy of a union? To be a union rep you have to state that you're not a Communist. Why is this? Because it was the communists who had the idea to unionize in the first place (Workers of the world unite!) and the government passed the Smith act to get communist agitation for worker rights to stop and to weaken the party.