Socialism

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Monday, August 26, 2024 16:07
VIEWED: 8502
PAGE 9 of 12

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:42 PM

XPOSTED. Somewhat redundant.

Actually, been there, done that. The diesel engine was invented to give farmers a chance to use waste food oil so they would have an alternate sources of fuel. My understanding is that it was killed - actually, outcompeted- by the petroleum industry, long before any biodiesel regulations were in place.

what do you have to say about chip manufacturing, software, food processing, retail sales, communications media, factory farming, petroleum refining, health insurance, and other examples of consolidation? Can you find me the regulations which "forced" this consolidation? Or will you just have to agree (which BTW you already did) that consolidation is a persistent, inbuilt, phenomenon within capitalism, which is sometimes abetted by government intervention, but which is primarily driven by free-market economics? What I dispute is the trend to STAY at monopolism.

Quote:
I say if left alone, the trend is a cycle, where the monopoly breaks when new revolutionary technology is introduced.

And what I say is that consolidation happens very quickly. Look at Google. Ten years ago it was a startup. Now its a near-monopoly. So in every cycle you might have 10- 15 years of ferment, and 60 years of stagnation. Not enough benefit in there for me.

'Bye for now.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 4:51 PM

Quote:
But what do you think about how recently major corporations that were dying were bailed out and gulped up by the government? Necessary government intervention to save the economy, or a scary sign of just how closely interrelated government and corporations are? Or something else?

Complete corruption of the government by moneyed interests. Unlike Sarge, however, I blame moneyed interests and a somnolent people, not the government. In a democracy, where peaceful change is always possible, people generally get the government they deserve.

----------------------
If you want change, the first thing you have to do is change your mind and the minds of the people around you..

GEEZER

Monday, June 29, 2009 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I actually knew you were going to mention Roman Bread, but since that's actually rather unlike the concept of Social Welfare, I really can't see where you why it would prove anything.

So what's your concept of Social Welfare this time around? Apparently you believe (contrary to most definitions) that it has nothing to do with providing services (like the Roman Bread) to those who need them.

Quote:
It seems to me the crux of your argument depends on only applying it to one side and not the other.

The economic test of Socialism versus Capitalism/Free Market is the ownership of The Means of Production (TMOP). In Socialism, the State owns TMOP. In Capitalism/Free Market, investors or individual entrepreneurs own TMOP. Since Capitalism/FM is only an economic system, you can't compare it to anything but the economic definition of Socialism. Looking at who owns TMOP in most reasonably free countries the private sector, investors or individual entrepreneurs, holds more - mostly much more of TMOP. Therefore, from an economic standpoint, most countries are more Capitalist/FM than Socialist.

Quote:
Beyond that, I'm fairly confident I have shown that the modern concept of Social Welfare, at it's maximum the Welfare State, came from Socialism through Social Democracy.

Well, you've said it, but I'm still waiting for some other evidence that Social Welfare originated in classical Socialist thought.

And again, it'd be interesting to know how you define Social Welfare, since it seems you don't agree with any of the definitions available.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BYTEMITE

Monday, June 29, 2009 5:21 PM

Interesting. Can I blame all three?

The full effect of the seizure of corporations isn't known yet. Nor is whether or not the government will give up GM and other companies it has taken over. Government has a tendency to take and keep, so I believe this is where a number of fears in regards to this stems from. If the government gives up the power it has seized, the dangers of government control will seem lessened, but I doubt government will willingly give up control.

I have no evidence that government has been angling for a take-over of corporations to centralize them... Or, on the other side, if corporations have deliberately triggered economic hardship and moved to become centralized so as to secure longevity. Or if both sides have been working towards that goal.

Yet I think that one of those three conspiracies is what has happened. And I find that scary as all hell. All hail the Fascist Corporate United States of America.

A bad government may be enabled by it's people, but I defy anyone to show me that a bad government is not responsible for it's actions because of that. I would even go so far as to say that bad governments often manipulate their people into enabling them in the first place.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 29, 2009 6:25 PM

Sometimes it's a conspiracy, sometimes it's just a club of like-minded people. It's a little hard to tell where one leaves off and the other begins. Because money is SO important for elections, almost every single person in politics (and I don't care what level you're talking about) is either (1) financed by one wealthy interest or another or (2) independently wealthy in their own right. That doesn't mean there's a "quid pro quo" at work as I'm sure that many politicians are sincerely pro-business. But the PTB have simply filtered out the "objectionable" candidates via non-support. Then there is the revolving-door between government and business. Finally, there is money under the table, and all of the expensive lobbying efforts that business undertakes to present their POV. What it all boils down to is that the interests of those without huge sums of money... ie most of us... are simply not uppermost on the minds of politicians.

Take Tim Geithner, for example. He is part of the Goldman contingent, and due to his hx of working there, he has more knowledge of... and more concern about... the interests of investment banks. So he convinced Obama that due to the "multiplier effect" it was more cost effective to bail out the banks, without realizing that the multiplier effects cuts both ways and that it would have been far simpler to back the initial investments (mortgages) than try to make up for their liabilities which had "multiplied" through the entire system.

And don't forget that MANY American are pro-business. I personally think that most of us have our heads stuck so far up the corporate ass that we're nothing more than hemorrhoids.

But undoubtedly, there are politicians who DO "know better"... and I include many Dems in that category... who are simply afraid to vote against their financial supporters.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
which is sometimes abetted by government intervention,

ALWAYS abetted by government intervention. The intervention may not have to be specifically targeting the product in question. The fact that all income and sales are taxed is government intervention. Minimum wage laws are government intervention. Child labor laws are govt intervention. I'm not saying all these laws are bad. But all these laws prevent FREE market from existing and allowing the cycle of competition to gain momentum.

Quote:
but which is primarily driven by free-market economics?

There has always been government intervention in recent history, so there hasn't been any FREE market in the last 100 years or more. None of these things you're talking about are driven by free market economics. They are driven by govt enabled-business economics.

I really wish people wouldn't use the adjective "free market" to describe ALL capitalist dynamics, especially the ones that they dislike. Free market exists only in absence of govt interference in all things financial, labor related, trade related, technological, and environmental. When was the last time that happened?

Free market is completely a theoretical construct. Nothing remotely resembling a free market has existed anywhere on earth for more than a century.

Quote:
And what I say is that consolidation happens very quickly.

When there is government intervention.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:26 AM

mmm... when I said "abetted" I meant "abetted", not "intervened in". Government intervention usually abets monopolization but sometimes opposes it. AFA "free market" is concerned... the drive within capitalism, if you will, is towards monopolization, with or without government help.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

GEEZER

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA "free market" is concerned... the drive within capitalism, if you will, is towards monopolization, with or without government help.

You keep saying this, but I'd be interested in cites by reputable sources.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:34 AM

I've given a half-dozen examples. That isn't enough for you? (Just checking to see if you can think for yourself, or if you have to hear it from an "authority")

Economies of scale
www.investorwords.com/1653/economy_of_scale.html

The corporate reconstruction of American capitalism, 1890-1916
By Martin J. Sklar p157

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So what's your concept of Social Welfare this time around? Apparently you believe (contrary to most definitions) that it has nothing to do with providing services (like the Roman Bread) to those who need them.

Since when was the distribution of Roman Bread really about that?

But really, I find it strange you'd need me to point out the difference between Social Welfare, paid for by the state, and Roman Bread, paid for by rich private citizens out of their own pocket, who were seeking office. Even in the later era's when it was a formalised responsibility of the Aedile, it wasn't paid for by the Roman State. By the time of the Roman Empire, the Grain was still paid for by the Emperor's own pocket, not the Roman State.

Roman Bread was a charity paid for by Private Roman Citizens directly, who were seeking or cementing political power and office.

That's not even getting into the differences of the ethos of the two.

Quote:
The economic test of Socialism versus Capitalism/Free Market is the ownership of The Means of Production (TMOP). In Socialism, the State owns TMOP. In Capitalism/Free Market, investors or individual entrepreneurs own TMOP. Since Capitalism/FM is only an economic system, you can't compare it to anything but the economic definition of Socialism. Looking at who owns TMOP in most reasonably free countries the private sector, investors or individual entrepreneurs, holds more - mostly much more of TMOP. Therefore, from an economic standpoint, most countries are more Capitalist/FM than Socialist.

No, that's your personal test. How come you now rely on the fact that Socialism is a social and economic system in your argument, when before you were rather willing to ignore it and only deal with the economic side of things?

Anyway. Private ownership of the means of production has been the watch word of of many economic systems. People owned and operated their own shops, smithies and farms under Feudalism. Mercantilism was all about private ownership. The Roman Economy was dominated by private ownership, even in Imperial times.

Yet if there's any example of Private Ownership, you're ready to call it Capitalist. So China is Capitalist is it? Because I'm fairly sure it is Leninist Corporatist, moving away from Communism. The Nazi's were Capitalist were they? Fascism is Capitalist? All of those systems have private ownership, albeit mixed in with government ownership and control, but as we see even a tiny bit of private ownership means it's all Capitalist.

Perhaps, before I take this at face value, you can explain how Private Ownership, which is a constant through most economic systems, can be taken as definition of Capitalism?

Apparently you find Roman Bread, one example with some major differences to modern social welfare, proof that the modern concept of social welfare isn't from Socialism, while at the same time happily proclaiming Private Ownership of the means of production a working definition of Capitalism, despite nearly every other economic system there has ever been displaying private ownership of the means of production. Please don't wonder why I lay the charge that you're using two different arguments and criteria at the two opposite sides.

Quote:
Well, you've said it, but I'm still waiting for some other evidence that Social Welfare originated in classical Socialist thought.

And again, it'd be interesting to know how you define Social Welfare, since it seems you don't agree with any of the definitions available.

I don't think you have all that much right to demand I respond to questions or portions of your posts, when you've spent the entire thread ignoring much of what I've said. Earlier, from a post of 309 words, you respond to 13 of them. Just because you ignore things I've shown, doesn't mean that I haven't shown them.

Regardless, modern social welfare are systems enacted and paid for by the state, usually with some level of state ownership, for the ultimate purpose of improving social equ

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE