~ The Case For Socialism ~

[bobevenson]

No...No. My post above does not refer to you. My post was directed to the member who attacked you, I, and indirectly all other members here at the PhilosophyNow Forums.

Oh, my apologies.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



.....................................Accepted...




................................................







.

[Ansiktsburk]

Let's see, both of you guys are total pricks, and I guess I'll just let it go at that.

Exactly the attitude I was referring to. You are of course entitled to have your opinions on separate persons, and it can feel good to let some steam off. But really, wouldn't be even more rewarding to have a fruitful discussion on the subject matter? Don't you agree that this is a complicated question?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



...STILL waiting for you to add something of substance to this thread.


I give you my permission, if that is what you have been waiting for, go ahead. Add SOMETHING of value - instead of personal attacks -




.

[bobevenson]

Focusing directly on socialism, free-market capitalism has demonstrated the ability to maximize the standard of living for the greatest number of people without forcing one person to be in the service of another.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Interview by John Veit in High Times, April 1998

The "corporatization of America" during the past century has been an attack on democracy—and on markets, part of the shift from something resembling "capitalism" to the highly administered markets of the modern state/corporate era. A current variant is called "minimizing the state," that is, transferring decision-making power from the public arena to somewhere else: "to the people" in the rhetoric of power; to private tyrannies, in the real world.

~ Noam Chomsky ~




The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations.

~ Noam Chomsky ~
Z Magazine, May 1998






.

[bobevenson]

Democracy is great for political elections, but you sure as hell wouldn't want a democracy, a majority vote of the people, to tell you how to run your private life.

[Ansiktsburk]

Focusing directly on socialism, free-market capitalism has demonstrated the ability to maximize the standard of living for the greatest number of people without forcing one person to be in the service of another.

A lot of truth in that, peoples ability to get paid for good deeds are a big driving force for making progress. But if we leave communist countries aside, countries dominated by revisionism/social liberalism has done pretty good too. People are able to make good profits even though you have social welfare. And smart people from humble beginnings have a reasonable chance to get a good start. But there are mechanisms in a more stringent liberalism that could cope with that too, of course.

The trick, I suppose, is to make success pay and make as many citizens as possible having the feel that success is in the grasp for them as well. And of course, in a humanitarian civilization you will not have people starving. I think that most people, when they accept that they are mediocre in spite of having opportunities gladly will drive Volvos and leave the Mercedeses for the brilliant minds.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Focusing directly on socialism, free-market capitalism has demonstrated the ability to maximize the standard of living for the greatest number of people without forcing one person to be in the service of another.

Complete Croc of shit.

[bobevenson]

Focusing directly on socialism, free-market capitalism has demonstrated the ability to maximize the standard of living for the greatest number of people without forcing one person to be in the service of another.

Complete Croc of shit.

I'd love to hear your explanation if you have one.

[bobevenson]

Focusing directly on socialism, free-market capitalism has demonstrated the ability to maximize the standard of living for the greatest number of people without forcing one person to be in the service of another.

A lot of truth in that, peoples ability to get paid for good deeds are a big driving force for making progress. But if we leave communist countries aside, countries dominated by revisionism/social liberalism has done pretty good too. People are able to make good profits even though you have social welfare. And smart people from humble beginnings have a reasonable chance to get a good start. But there are mechanisms in a more stringent liberalism that could cope with that too, of course.

The trick, I suppose, is to make success pay and make as many citizens as possible having the feel that success is in the grasp for them as well. And of course, in a humanitarian civilization you will not have people starving. I think that most people, when they accept that they are mediocre in spite of having opportunities gladly will drive Volvos and leave the Mercedeses for the brilliant minds.

If a guy wanted to improve his lot in life by converting his old car into a taxi, crony capitalism wouldn't let him do it. He'd need to get an expensive license if it were even available, comply will all kinds of vehicle and insurance requirements, and only charge rates approved by the government. Free-market capitalism has nothing to do with crony capitalism. And I'll tell you another thing, based on the price of a Volvo, most people would love to own one.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Focusing directly on socialism, free-market capitalism has demonstrated the ability to maximize the standard of living for the greatest number of people without forcing one person to be in the service of another.

Complete Croc of shit.

I'd love to hear your explanation if you have one.

There never has been a fully free market except at exceptional times in history.

A free market give a continual upwards pressure on profits, and down wards pressure on wages and prices. It tends to deregulation unsafe work practices and exploitation. This is self implosive.
The pressure for land to be seized for profit robs people of their independence and alienation from their own trades and the inability of small business to compete with an ever growing and polarising economy guarentees growing inequality and poverty.

If you want to go back the the 18thC then fine, but I'd rather invoke democratic power to mitigate against excessive inequality and alienation.

But I do not expect a brain dead kunt like yourself to have the capability to think this through.

[bobevenson]

England was too stupid to learn anything from its free-market colony Hong Kong. Now that England has lost Hong Kong, China is learning the free-market ropes. You, like the rest of England, couldn't figure out economics if it bit you in the ass (oh, I'm sorry, arse, for people who can't spell, and I mean American English, the new standard of the world.)

[Obvious Leo]

Are you seriously claiming that China is an example of free-market capitalism, Bob??? China is a shining example of state-sponsored crony capitalism but you're quite right when you say that they learned the basics of it from the west. The most blatant example of state-sponsored crony capitalism is the US and the biggest recipients of taxpayer largesse in the US are in fact the biggest corporations.

[bobevenson]

Are you seriously claiming that China is an example of free-market capitalism, Bob???

Let me put it this way, Leo, Hong Kong has such a successful economy that China lets it operate autonomously.