Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ike 2K# on January 09, 2003, 11:52:34 PM
-
post something that is "the good", "the bad", "the ugly", and the reality about socialism.
-
Children love socialism...
-
That's communism, Grunherz, which is to socialism what facism is to conservatism.
I could equally post a picture of Hitler, receiving flowers from children on his birthday, with the caption "Children love conservatism".
-
Uhhm no. Conservatism is not like fascism. Fascism has always had lack of individual choice and responsibility, largely state run economies, socialist economic and welfare policies, attacks on religion, etc etc. In fact fascism is very close to socialism/communism, the key difference fascism is more concerned with isolated nationalism where communism/sociaism tries harder to spread its filth due to an internationalist bent.
-
Hitler was a radical and at first even a mild communist- though that was always kept very quiet , but he was always nationalstic. So was Musollini first a socialist/communist.
Socialists are just cowardly communists.
-
Fascism has always had lack of individual choice and responsibility..
Depends on what individual choices/responsibilities you are talking about. Censorship, the rights of the mother versus the unborn child, racial segregation as an historical custom - conservatism has plenty of examples where the freedoms of the individual are inhibited.
largely state run economies
Untrue. If you had the right connections in Nazi Germany, your company could make a lot of money. Completely different to communism which advocates the nationalization of all private endeavour.
...the key difference fascism is more concerned with isolated nationalism...
Yeah, Hitler was a true isolationist. Especially when it came to annexing the whole world.
Mussolini only wanted a little lebensraum, that extended to the whole of the African continent.
Try again Grunherz.
Socialism is not communism like conservatism is not facism.
-
And nobody got rich in the soviet union. BS BS BS.... And dont go for second thinking any of those german industrialists were free to produce just what they wanted as would be in a free economy. It was a planned economy.
Every political leaning has some different personal freedom limits. Fascism simply has limits that are against conservatie ideals like individual responsibilty and accountability.
Isolated nationalism just means they were very much focused on the specific single country and ethnic group as opposed to internationalist bent of the commonists. It has nothing to do wih invasions etc.
Socialists are just cowardly communists, they want to steal the money from middle and upper classes and take it for themselves and their interests or use to gain power among ignornt poor people or those with childish understanding of economics.
-
And nobody got rich in the soviet union. BS BS BS....
Point out where I denied it.
And dont go for second thinking any of those german industrialists were free to produce just what they wanted as would be in a free economy. It was a planned economy..
Compared to communism, they had much more freedom. If they had the right connections, they could do pretty much as they pleased.
Fascism simply has limits that are against conservatie ideals like individual responsibilty and accountability.
In some areas, yes. In others, no. Does that mean conservatism and facism are the same? No.
And the same token, socialism and communism are not the same.
Isolated nationalism just means they were very much focused on the specific single country and ethnic group...
You are effectively admitting to the misnomer then. There is nothing isolated about the Nazi flavour of nationalism; the principal idea was to unite the Aryan race and subjugate the 'lesser' races of the world.
...as opposed to internationalist bent of the commonists.
You almost make them sound like free-thinking internationalists. Russian Soviet Communists didn't really believe in the brotherhood of man - it was all abut subjagation.
Socialists are just cowardly communists...yada, yada, yada
Conservatives are just cowardly fascists...
What a pair of imbecillic arguments.
-
Hi,
agree to Dowding, and for I have my knowledge about Germany in '33-'45 not only from books, I might have a little deeper insight.
-
Getting back to the intent of the thread…
The Good: The intentions of socialism are to care for and cooperate with our fellow man: A noble sentiment.
The Bad: In practice, one needs to follow a policy that uses more base instincts than the altruism that is the hallmark of socialism. When power is concentrated in those who decide what is good for us, then that power corrupts. That centralized power structure decides many things that are not based on the best economic sense. When an individual has responsibility for his own existance, he has more self worth, more control over what happens in his own life and faster response to changing conditions. In a tribal society, socialism is a viable system. When we became industrialized, we require capital, and that is most easily developed by capitalism.
The Ugly: When the socialist system fails, as it is destined to do, much hardship ensues. Russian Mafias, corruption, starvation, etc. all are most easily built in the breakdown of the society that occurs when the economic system fails.
The Reality: All systems today are some mixture of capitalism and socialism. The portions of that mixture and the freedom of the populace to elect its leaders are the variables. The USSR was not a communistic society, as pure communism would have trusted its populace to a much larger degree than the dictatorial system of the old communist bloc.
The best economic system would be closer to the capitalistic side of the spectrum, with a minimal socialist side to help people recover from setbacks, and get back into the productive workforce as quickly as possible.
Holden’s Ursa Theory of Human existence.
For man to achieve his utmost, he needs to be challenged. People can be analogous to bears in Yellowstone. Feed the bears, and they become problem bears. They live at the landfill, getting fat and lazy, then they raid the campgrounds, and develop “criminal” behavior. If not fed, and challenged to live the hard life, they dine on wild berries, elk, and venison.
-
GRUNHERZ: Uhhm no. Conservatism is not like fascism. Fascism has always had lack of individual choice and responsibility, largely state run economies, socialist economic and welfare policies, attacks on religion, etc etc. In fact fascism is very close to socialism/communism, the key difference fascism is more concerned with isolated nationalism where communism/sociaism tries harder to spread its filth due to an internationalist bent.
Not really true. All collectivist totalitarian states necessarily become nationalistic. All of them did - Russia, China, Yugoslavia, Germany, etc. Read Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" for more complete explanation.
Hitler did not build collectivism in Germany - it had 80-year old Prussian tradition of collectivism that he inherited. Hitler's "revolt", if any, was not aganst liberals but against some socialists (industrial trade-unionists) who had power in favor or other socialists - intellectuals and non-large industry workers. Just conflict over the spoils, not fundamentals.
That's why communists and trade--unionilst so readily joined nazi party. hey had the same ideology.
Ugly thing about collectivism in any form - despotism, communisn, fascism, socialism is that a person has no freedom but is a servant of the "state" and must live according to arbitrary decisions of others.
Also, planned economy cannot work and you have strife and famine.
Also, any system based on goal is incompatible with having even a concept of morals. There cannot be anything fundamentally good or evil - everything is judged in how it helps the current goal set by a ruler. So freedom of thought cannot be allowed.
Other than that, it's fine.
miko
-
You mean nobody in the soviet union had fancy houses and vacation homes and servants and cars and fancy clothes and jewelry and......
Everyone had the same income?
lazs
-
Ask Sweden. (Hint: 70% taxation of your income)
-
man- anyone take the middle path around here? such polarity :)
-
mrfish: man- anyone take the middle path around here? such polarity :)
Ever tried to get half-way pregnant? Same with collectivism. Either abort it or let it develop to it's necessary conclusion. No middle.
Can't have rulers with arbitrary power and not being able to exercise it - it would not be arbitrary otherwise. Cant't have any degree of socialism without having people exercise arbitrary power.
miko
-
just say no to socialism... say "but out" to the (lol) "home office".
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You mean nobody in the soviet union had fancy houses and vacation homes and servants and cars and fancy clothes and jewelry and......
Everyone had the same income?
lazs
in the former USSR, the working class had big apartments but 2 or 3 families live in the same apartment (eww).
-
Either way, when you get far enough out on the left or right political spectrum, you end up with totalitarian states that are not going to be very concerned about individual rights.
-
Ike 2K#: in the former USSR, the working class had big apartments but 2 or 3 families live in the same apartment (eww).
Each family had a room in a 2-3-6 room appartment and shared teh kitchen and bathroom and lavatory (which is separate from the bathroom in normal countries). What's wrong with it? Isn't it what socialism is all about - sharing? :rolleyes:
miko
-
Montezuma: Either way, when you get far enough out on the left or right political spectrum, you end up with totalitarian states that are not going to be very concerned about individual rights.
There is no left or right - it's just propaganda bor ignorants. There is individualism and collectivism.
Either a state serves a free individual or an individual serves a state.
Left and right fight each other for the spoils, not principle. Both wish to control production or distribtion for "common good" and "state". None allows individual to have a choice. So they are the same in all respects but some minor rhetoric.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Each family had a room in a 2-3-6 room appartment and shared teh kitchen and bathroom and lavatory (which is separate from the bathroom in normal countries). What's wrong with it? Isn't it what socialism is all about - sharing? :rolleyes:
miko
And would you abridge the precious private property rights of a slum lord who wanted to own the same kind of building in the US?
-
Socialism is a noble goal used as an excuse to exert power over more productive citizens.
-
im fairly sure that norway (or some country around there) is socialist...
heres a diagram
soviet union/china(communist|-------|(socialism)---------|------------|partail control (like canada)------|usa (free market)
hope that helps
-
Montezuma: And would you abridge the precious private property rights of a slum lord who wanted to own the same kind of building in the US?
You either have a government that can abrige people's rights arbitrarily or the one that cannot. Someone will always find a good reason to abrige more and more of them.
In this case there is not even a good reason. You can do whatever you want with your property and if people are willing to rent it, it must be worth it to them. Slums are rarely built around families - most move to it from some place where they are worse off in order to achive something. By preventing them from doing so you necessarily keep them where they were - in a worse place than a slum - you heartless self-deluding bastard. It's not like they have a Hilton suite ready if a slum is not available. People move into slums fro opportunities they do not have where they came from!
You've just failed to apply primitive math. The pre-capitalist population was stable despite high birth rate because lack of resources (land) killed excess children and prevented adults from forming families.
Once a capitalist (a fellow who used some of his savings to open a production facility) provided an income/living conditions in the city, however bad those were, they were worth than death in a village or inability to procreate.
So capitalism created proletariat - literally. Without capitalism those people would never exist, period. Developed society outgrows slums. Productivity growth and increase of capitalisation inevitably increase real wages of the workers.
Only if you have inflow of new people from terrible rural conditions or foreign countries into the better conditions of the slums could slums exist in a modern society.
Liberals would bar such unfortunates entrance into the cities preferring them to die out out of sight rather than spoil their view with temporary slums. And if it involves violation of freedom of prospective tenants and landlord - so much for the better. An excuse to exercise power, do evil while pretending to strve for good. Typical liberal crap.
miko
-
vorticon - you are severely deluded if you believe that USA is a free market. Such delusions actually give free market a bad name. We have mostly socialist economy here.
Add up percentage of government spending in GDP - direct influence, control of property through laws and regulation which is really ownership - and you will see that our market is at most 10% free, probably less. Don't forget fiscal and monatary policies, trade controls, etc. Just plain ownership. When you control few trillions of debt into market or (unconstitutionally) own huge tracts of land everybody else is a small fish, no matter how free. Besides government you have unions which is a monopoly on labor supply. So you can take another cut off it.
All the problems we have that are blamed on non-existing free market are really the fault of the socilaist control.
Maybe USA in 1850 had more or less (50% ?) free market but it was going downhill ever since. Free market never had a chance to prove itself completely since it never existed. Social development towards it was diverted back to command-style collectivism by "progressives".
miko
-
I hope your next-door neighbor decides to let his building become a squalid tenement... or maybe turn it into a pig farm ;)
-
what kind of "peoples car" did the soviets used in their country?
-
Didn't Mark Twain once say that "Communists are just Socialists in a Hurry."
-
Read Ayan Rand.
-
Montezuma: I hope your next-door neighbor decides to let his building become a squalid tenement... or maybe turn it into a pig farm ;)
As long he does not violate my property with odor, noise, objects or risk, he can build a space shuttle launchpad for all I care. :)
It's not like the current state cares much about protecting us from such things like pollution - it's "only" a property damage. Much more important to have cops catching seat-belt violators.
Also, it's the state that is trying to build a homeless shelter in my nice area, not an evil landlord.
Bussing people from some areas into school next door - also not a landlord but a state.
Preventing affordable housing from being built by stupid zoning - or workplaces close to where people actually live instead of across town - also state's fault, not landlord's.
Public housing in Downtown Manhattan or Jersey City - which had to be blown up, so bad they were - not a private enterprise.
Ike 2K#: what kind of "peoples car" did the soviets used in their country?
Mostly a model of Fiat that was called "Zhiguli" built at a plant bought from Italians. The same model was produced for about 25(?) years without significant changes. Which was good since you registered to buy one with a wait of 10-15 years, so you had a good idea what you were getting. Not a color though - that required paying a bribe to arrange.
There were also two more "domestic" brands/models - Volga and Moskvitch. Also produced for decades without changes.
miko
-
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, u get a car that is way worse than the AMC's Gremlin for 10 to 15 years??????? i bet ya the people who are processing the papers are only working once a month lol
(http://poster.s.cz/big/0402.jpg)
(translation on the picture) That's it, boys! Shoddy goods won't fly!
-
(http://poster.s.cz/big/0403.jpg)
translation............
Democracy means not only rights, it also means responsibilities, obligations, discipline.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ask Sweden. (Hint: 70% taxation of your income)
wow, no wonder the swedes have the new JAS Grippen fighter:D
-
Milko, a question--
In a pure free-market economy, how do you prevent corporations from abusing their workers? In 1800 (when this nation was very nearly a free market as the federal and state governments were quite weak), 14-hour workdays/6 days a week were the norm, 12 was the standard age to start a job (even younger was not uncommon), and job security was non-existant. Job safety was thought of as unnecessary (if a guy gets hurt just fire him) and the environment (air/water quality/sanitation) in industrial cities tended to be worse than it is now. While a market-driven economy is good from a purely economic standpoint (in other words looks good on paper), from a social standpoint it has a LOT of problems because corporations are not concerned with their workers, but with profitability.
The problem with the free market is in this world there is no such thing as a truely free market, because corporations don't exist in a void. Without regulation, corporate entities communicate with each other and even plot with each other in ways which aren't always for the good of society (price-fixing, blacklists, trusts, etc). In other words, in the absence of the government regulating the corporations, they will start to regulate themselves (often to the detriment of the general populace) which is the end of the truly free market. So at the very least you need some sort of regulation just to make sure that the free market STAYS free--yet such regulation is itself a perversion of a purely free market. It's a catch-22.
I do not believe a purely free market can work. Some controls are required. However I would also say that in many cases, the current USA either goes too far or focuses on the wrong problems. US government tends to make one poor half-baked law to fix a problem (which doesn't work), then a second poor law to fix the problems caused by the first, then a THIRD law to fix the problems made by the second, and so on, with government constantly getting more and more bloated and costly yet no more beneficial to the general populace.
Your thoughts?
J_A_B
-
Finland has higher taxation than sweden.
According to recent OECD price comparison inside euro currency area, finland was 17% more expensive than germany and 37% more expensive than the cheapest mediterranean eurocountry.
This is directly because of huge taxation on everything. Prices here are 10% higher than US on average, which is a hell lot considering our average annual income is around $19k compared to average of $32k in the US.
Two comparisons: Radeon 9500 in US: $150 here €230
(Euro and $ are about the same value.)
Nissan Maxima 3.5 in US: $25k
Nissan Maxima 3.0 here: €38k
Why am I still living here? lol.
-
mrsid2 - but Finland has to import everything doesn't it?
I think it's an unsafe comparison to make between the US and Finland.
Besides, we had a similar situation in the UK (although not to that extent, ouch) - it turned out it had nothing to do with high taxes. It was the manufacturers (Ford, GM owned Vauxhall and a few others) artificially pegging prices at a value often as much as 40% above continent values. This was despite the fact that many of the cars were actually built at factories within the UK itself.
-
No... I think in the soviet union some people had even more luxury than most westerners. There weren't many (nd they pretty much kept it a secret but they lived like hedonistic despots.
lazs
-
Dowding if I would buy a car from germany for $10k I would have to pay another $10k in taxes before I could register it here.
Just recently a finnish skijumper won the tour and he was awarded a brand new Audi as a present in Austria.
It's value is $82 000 here. He couldn't accept the present because he would have had to pay over $40 000 tax for the car if he wanted to register it in finland. How diddlyed up is that?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
No... I think in the soviet union some people had even more luxury than most westerners. There weren't many (nd they pretty much kept it a secret but they lived like hedonistic despots.
lazs
Gorbachev (General secretary of the USSR) lived in a dacha that is big and it even had an elevators?
-
I think the venerable Winston Churchill said it best:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
-
J_A_B: Milko, a question--
JAB, first, please be assured that I mean no disrespect. You seem to be ignorant in this subject - economy and history - and thus come to it from a completely wrong perspective. That is perfectly fine and can be remedied by reading books found in any decent bookstore. I advise you to do so rather than rely on the boards. I'd advise to start with Hayek "The Fatal Conceit" and then read his supporters and opponents - Mises, Friedman, Adam Smith, Keynes(ians). I am afraid I cannot do justice to this topic, not being an economist and historian. So please take the following as just the roughest indication for future study.
In a pure free-market economy, how do you prevent corporations from abusing their workers?
Corporations compere for labor same as they compete for any other resource. As capital-intensity of the production increases, every unit of labor and material produces more value - marginal utility of a labor unit increases. It makes sense to pay more for either and still be profitable.
Saying that all labor would be minimum wage is the same as saying all raw materials would be zero cost (plus shipping and handling :)). The latter is patently absurd. It is not a good will of coirporations or desire to show off in front of socialist countries that causes increase in real wages of workers but the objective principles of the nature.
A company hires a worker if his marginal utility exceeds/equals the marginal cost. The utility cannot be afected by legislature - so any attempt to set a limit on minimum wage would exclude some workers from labor pool, reduce production and increase price of the product to the customers. Since the worker accepts the however abysmal wage voluntarily as the best choice he has, by denying him that choice you cause him into even worse conditions.
In 1800 (when this nation was very nearly a free market as the federal and state governments were quite weak), 14-hour workdays/6 days a week were the norm, 12 was the standard age to start a job (even younger was not uncommon), and job security was non-existant.
You are being anachronistic - judging the times according to 2002 standards and morals. The workers in 1800 were coming from the rural area where they had even worse conditions - not enough food to live and procreate - which explains why the population was not growing once all the available land was settled, even longer working day/week, work outside in cold/rain, etc, no job safety, no job security, no guarantee of selling the created product, etc.
The capitalist used/risked his savings to provide a worker with a steady job sheltered from the elements in a heated building, often with some living space, not having to worry about many things a peasant does, etc. It was a voluntary choice for the better, not worse for a worker. The times were tough and there was constant supply of desperate hungry people from the countryside willing to take minimum job that would provide sustenance. Socialists often forget that the workers were really human beings capable of deciding, not mindless cattle.
The choice was for that 12-yar old to work or have him stay home and see his younger siblings die and probably himself.
It's a lie that government regulations and or unions and rather than natural accumulation of capital, technical progress and decrease in fertility caused increase in real wages and shorter work day.
Job safety was thought of as unnecessary (if a guy gets hurt just fire him)
It started on the same principles and norms that existed in farming in command-style societies for millenia without change - and then improved, along with society's standards of acceptable. It's credit to capitalism, not blame that the order of millenia was changed to the better. It just couldn't happen overnight.
and the environment (air/water quality/sanitation) in industrial cities tended to be worse than it is now.
It was new stuff and people did not have enough experience with new methods and technology - which is a self-correcting problem. Also, pollution can be dealt with much better on a free-market principles that socialist ones. If your pollution affects someone's private property/body, you are in violation, period. Lax environmental regulations are failure to protect private property rather than otherwise.
While a market-driven economy is good from a purely economic standpoint (in other words looks good on paper), from a social standpoint it has a LOT of problems because corporations are not concerned with their workers, but with profitability.
That's the beauty of a system. It works to common good through competition and everyone pursuing private gain. There is a quite complex theoretical proof for that but compatition is essential and only known mechanism for the optimal allocation fo resources.
So at the very least you need some sort of regulation just to make sure that the free market STAYS free--yet such regulation is itself a perversion of a purely free market. It's a catch-22.
Not really. Any regulation that restricts competition - including labor competition - perverses free market. Any regulation that increases or does not affect the competition is compatible with a free market.
Regards,
miko