Socialism: Dead and Buried?

McDonalds IS evil. Ever had their fries?

As long as people are stupid enough to buy them

Marxist-Communism(Dictatorship of the Proletariat) is NOT dead, Stalinism(Dictatorship of the Bureaucrats) is.

I doesn't seem to be alive either. It is the undead

Nyder, did you say Communism taxes people too much? Tell me you did not say that.

Then who controls the money supply in Communism?

Doesn't the state pay for everything, including education, health, etc.. So does this come out of the worker's pay or not?

As a recovering quasi-socialist, I can tell you that is NOT a feature of Communism. What the he*l would you tax? There is no Private Property, no Private Industry!

If workers are paid the full value of contribution, I want to know who determines their wages. Is it voted on in a committee?

It's all Public-sector. Everyone works for the state(in practice), or works for the people(in theory) There is NO tax because everyone works for the state. Why would the state tax itself? Know Thy Enemy.

I just find the whole thing difficult to contemplate. I would like to know if Marx actually detailed how you could practically apply socialism or communism.

I didn't say that...? It takes away all of your income and redistributes it which could be considered a 100% tax I guess, but I don't recall addressing this particular subject. What did I say that led to this response? I'm perplexed?

Isn't there no ownership in communism - so I assume everyone owns everything equally?

Of course the more socialism you institute in a country the higher the taxes go, but I'm being captain obvious right now. I just wanna know what sparked this response.

How about all income given to the governing body, and redistributed equally among the proletariat???

The inclusion of Indonesia and North Korea on that list is truly bizarre. Perhaps you meant South Korea and Malaysia instead?

Thanks for pointing that out.

There is no "real" income because everything is provided by the state. Because "you", a worker, are a part of the state, you are basically providing for yourself and others simultaneously. The "others" are also working for the state and are providing in a similiar fashion.

Has anyone seen Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

Let me see if I can be more specific. Under Communism, the state means you and everyone else. That's why SB mentions "No government" under communism. Because divisions between owners and workers has been eliminated, the government, as Marxists see it, would no longer be necessary to manage disputes between labor and ownership.

So you couldn't even own your own house under this system, it would be owned by the state! [face_shocked]

Six of one, half dozen of another. The end result is the same. I know how communism works so I don't know what the point of debating this is. I still want to know what sparked this in the first place though??

Ask TheScarletBanner

Some people consistently, and blatantly falsely, assert Hitler was a socialist. Inconsistent with just about every known fact about Hitler, this believe nevertheless exists, largely because of the curious wording of Hilter's party; the National Socialists.

I was referring to how Hitler nationalised the economy. He did things like making laws to stop businesses putting up their prices while he increased the money supply.

So he was expansionary, which could be seen as a form of right-wing socialism..

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party were evil. IMO to try and paint them as either right wing or left wing is wrong. Evil is the correct description.

They just seemed me to be incredibly ideologically driven.... (and did not consider the practical consequences of their actions (?))

Doesn't that make for a limited analysis? You say he's evil, we leave it at that, we don't know why. Stalin was evil, but a communist (left), albeit from the right wing faction of the Communist party. H

 

Nyder there is more to politics than economics! He doesn't have to be econ. left or right, he was socially conservative. Hence why the Holy See initally actively approved of his and il Duce's regimes.

Funny thing I saw, and it realtes to this, was a guy, wearing a "World Domination Goes Better with Coke" t-shirt buying a McDonalds meal. Fight the power!

E_S

 

Nyder there is more to politics than economics! He doesn't have to be econ. left or right, he was socially conservative. Hence why the Holy See initally actively approved of his and il Duce's regimes.

Ender_Sai[/i], Hitler was socially conservative, right? He didn't keep it to himself, he translated it into his policies...

Fiscal policy

...and that means govt. spending (oh the horror [face_shocked] )

But I suppose it was necessary, considering the stagflation Germany went through in that era so nationalising the economy was probably the best thing he could do to get on track... as well as expanding his territory in order to take advantage of extra natural resources (to compensate spending on the military).

Funny thing I saw, and it realtes to this, was a guy, wearing a "World Domination Goes Better with Coke" t-shirt buying a McDonalds meal. Fight the power!

 

Doesn't that make for a limited analysis? You say he's evil, we leave it at that, we don't know why. Stalin was evil, but a communist (left), albeit from the right wing faction of the Communist party. Hitler's philosophy was an extreme form of right wing politics. If the left are blamed for Stalin and Pol Pot, why aren't the right blamed for Hitler? If we're going to blame people, we might as well get it right or get over it. Stalinism is as indicative of liberalism as Nazism is indicative of conservatism.

I'm not saying that they should not be anaylsed further but they should not be labelled as left or right. The left should not be blamed for Pol Pot and Stalin and the right should not be blamed for Hitler. Left and Right are stupid ways of labeling politics anyway.

 

"I would like to know if Marx actually detailed how you could practically apply socialism or communism."

This was his and Engels mistake. They were correct in their assessment of the shortcomings of Capitalism and problems of parliamentary democracy. However, they didn't really give a specific vision for how their alternative would be applied. They were far too vague. That's why Lenin and Stalin were able to appropriate the Marxist language and transform it into their own dogma. Terrible consequences.

EDIT:
Tenor: "However it was in the transitional phase of mercantilism to capitalism at the time of the Revolutionary war. Nationalistic tarrifs were most definetly used to promote the nation's business but this does occur in capitalism as well. Colonialism was on it's way out. Really the biggest difference between the two (economically) is one puts the interest of the nation before the interest of private business; and one focuses on precious metals as the source of wealth. The basic prinicpals of ownership are the same. It's not that far a jump from mercantilism to capitalism in reality."

That's pretty spot on Tenor. Many so-called free-market systems really are a mixture of mercantilism and capitalism. Look at Singapore for instance. Even China seems to be developing a form of Crony Capitalism whereby a level is reached where the corporations who have entered the market attempt to use the government to raise barriers to entry for new ones. This can lead to oligarchy.

 

At the WTO protest

Reporter: Is that a Nike shirt you are wearing?
Protestor: Eh...no....ehhhh...[smokes his joint] I was made to by the opressive capitlaist scum!

 

Getting confused by the crossover of the arguements in this thread, and the Communism one.

Also wishing I had taken more economics classes. Stupid Engineering degree!

 

I wonder if Marx made a profit from the sale of Das Kapital?

 

Nope, he didn't. He was constantly broke and lived off money from Engels.

E_S

 

He was broke, because booksellers kept putting his book into the 'Fiction' section by mistake!!

 

"Stupid Engineering degree!"

Heh, in a capitalist system you'll make a lot of quid with that degree.

"He was broke, because booksellers kept putting his book into the 'Fiction' section by mistake!!"

Heheheheee!

 

He was broke, because booksellers kept putting his book into the 'Fiction' section by mistake!!

Your wit and humour dazzles me.

Just a note to everyone: I haven't deserted the thread. Just doing a little resarch for it, and waiting until I get an odd hour or so, so I can reply to all the posts at once.

- Scarlet.

 

"...and waiting until I get an odd hour or so, so I can reply to all the posts at once."

Uh oh. That post should be really short. I'm sure it won't fill one page by itself.

 

Please, dear God, don't reply a sentence at a time!!

 

ATTENTION ALL SOCIALISTS!!!!!

I have a question(s) for you .........


In socialism, if there is no central authority (ie. government), then who controls the money supply? Who is in charge of printing currency and how much is to be printed?

(Currency cannot be confined to communes, ie. different communes having different currencies, otherwise you could only spend money in your commune, unless the values of the currency were competitive between communes, but that would defeat the purpose of socialism)

And if there is a national provider of currency, who determines it's value?

(This is one question that has every Socialist stumped, as they don't know how prices would be determined.)

In capitalism it is easy: the market determines the prices.

(If you cannot answer this then there is only one way out for socialism: a bartering system, but that requires a coincidence of wants; which means that if I have 12 computers and I want to trade them for 6 dvds, then I need to find someone who has 6 dvds and needs 12 computers. Making it a very inefficient system.)

 

Anybody happen to mention that the U.N. charter (which dictates the way the U.N. is run, and how it structures countries that it "establishes new gov't in") was written by a man named Gerhart Schreoder, who was later convicted as being a communist spy?

 

Please, dear God, don't reply a sentence at a time!!

I think TSB wants to hold the record for the longest post ever. BTW, you're welcome to it.

 

Nyder, why would only socialists know what socialism is?

Are you afraid the more you find out, the more you'll like it?

In order to know where you stand, it's wise to get a sense of the perspectives of others.

 

Anybody happen to mention that the U.N. charter (which dictates the way the U.N. is run, and how it structures countries that it "establishes new gov't in") was written by a man named Gerhart Schreoder, ?

He did? ?

E_S

 

ATTENTION ALL SOCIALISTS!!! (AND THAT INCLUDES SCARLETBANNER)

Let me put to you a hypothetical proposition that proves that the theory that labour is the source of profit or the generator of profit is totally bogus.

If you provide me with a credible counter-argument, then I will join Socialist Resistance, wear a Che Guevara t-shirt and protest against the WTO

Here goes:

Consider we are living under Socialism, where labour is payed the full value of it's product. All profits are re-distributed to the workers.

Let's say there are two companies that produce computers called COMPANY A and COMPANY B.

Let's say COMPANY A produces 1 million Apple Macintoshs and COMPANY B produces 1 million IBMs.

But when both companies put their products onto the market, only the IBMs are sold as they are the superior product (according to the marketplace). Hardly anyone buys the Apple Macs (let's say they are now outdated ).

So COMPANY B makes x profit, while COMPANY A makes no profit.

So accordingly to socialism, COMPANY B redistributes the profits to the workers.

However, COMPANY A lost money, so they cannot redistribute profits, the workers receive nothing but the cost of their production.

The point is, if labour is the source of profit, both workers in COMPANY A and COMPANY B should both be receiving the exact same amount, as they both perform the exact same labour.

So clearly, labour was not responsible for the profits, so why should they receive a profit share? It makes no sense at all.

The ones responsible for the innovation should get the profit share, as it was their input into the product that generated the profit in the first place.

Labour was already paid, in the form of costs of production, they did not contribute anything further.

Care to challenge that?

 

The only thing I'll challenge is that a Big_Blue DOS Monster is better than a USER-FRIENDLY Mac.

 

Get ready to raise the red flag, comrade.

Consider we are living under Socialism, where labour is payed the full value of it's product. All profits are re-distributed to the workers.

Allow me to redefine this:

First, Socialism is too broad a word. Let's redefine to Communism, which is the prevalant form of Socialism which we have been discussing. In that case - labour, yes, is paid the full value of its product and all profits are redistributed to the workers according to how much they produced (with the exception of a community-organised tax levy, which is optional, in order to support the disabled, elderly and infirm).

Let's say there are two companies that produce computers called COMPANY A and COMPANY B.

So far, so good.

Let's say COMPANY A produces 1 million Apple Macintoshs and COMPANY B produces 1 million IBMs.

Ok. I could ask stickling questions like 'over how long?' and so on, but we'll leave that out.

But when both companies put their products onto the market, only the IBMs are sold as they are the superior product (according to the marketplace). Hardly anyone buys the Apple Macs (let's say they are now outdated ).

First, a computer company wouldn't sell obsolete products. Second, let's change "outdated" to "unpopular." Fair?

So COMPANY B makes x profit, while COMPANY A makes no profit.

I find it unlikely that A wouldn't make any profit whatsoever, but que sera sera.

So accordingly to socialism, COMPANY B redistributes the profits to the workers.

Yep, and costs.

However, COMPANY A lost money, so they cannot redistribute profits, the workers receive nothing but the cost of their production.

Correct.

The point is, if labour is the source of profit, both workers in COMPANY A and COMPANY B should both be receiving the exact same amount, as they both perform the exact same labour.

Incorrect.

You're ignoring the full Socialist equation.

Labour + Means of Production = Product

(You got this right)

Profit - Costs = amount going to workers

(You left this bit out)

You are under the impression that profit generation is the same thing as product generation. It is not. If I make a hundred apples and sell them for nothing, my labour is worthless, as it is not being bought. It is the underlying notion of the Communist ideal that workers both burden the costs, and reap the rewards.

So clearly, labour was not responsible for the profits, so why should they receive a profit share? It makes no sense at all.

I know it wasn't. The quality of the product was. However, without labour the product would not have been in existence. Labour is the thing that operates the means of production that turns raw materials (in a broad sense) into marketable products.

The ones responsible for the innovation should get the profit share, as it was their input into the product that generated the profit in the first place.

Nope. Their idea created the 'schematic' that would enter the means of production, but it is the labour itself that powered the means of production, which, in turn, created the product. Thus, while innovation provided the blue-print for the creation of the profit, its the labour itself that CREATED the profit.

Labour was already paid, in the form of costs of production, they did not contribute anything further.

Agreed.

Well, it would appear that your logic was flawed, and that you left out the second part of the equation that underpinned your argument.

Are you willing to concede, comrade, or are you going to try and defend your flawed logic?

*hands Nyder a red flag*

- Scarlet.

 

* Shane takes red flag out of Nyder's hands, blows his nose into it, then hands it back to Scarlet Banner *

 

*respectfully declines Shane's offer*



- Scarlet.

 

Labour + Means of Production = Product

I'll repeat the production function for you (which is an equation that is taught in general macroeconomic theory):

Production = F(labour, capital, technology)

You are being misleading by isolating labour like that as a unit of production. Production is the result of these 3 factors (labour, capital and technology) that has varied inputs into the production function.

Profit - Costs = amount going to workers

If this equation were truly applicable, then Sales would have to be over 200% of Costs otherwise the distribution to workers would be a negative figure!

Think about it. If Costs were 100, and Sales were 100, Sales = Costs. Any Sales figure above 100 is Profit.

So, if Profit - Costs = amount going to workers

Then Sales would have to be at least 200 to avoid giving the workers a negative return

EG. 200 - 100 = 100 = Costs -> worker distributed Profit would be 0. Rarely are Profits at 200%.

You really shot yourself in the foot that time!

I know it wasn't. The quality of the product was. However, without labour the product would not have been in existence.

So explain to me why they should be paid surplus value to their wages which was included in the cost of production. THEY ALREADY WERE PAID!!! WHY DO THEY DESERVE EXTRA MONEY. THEY DIDN'T CONCEIVE OF THE PRODUCT, THEIR JOB IS JUST TO ASSIST IN IT'S PRODUCTION. YOU ARE DEVOID OF ANY REASONABLE LOGIC!!!!

Labour is the thing that operates the means of production that turns raw materials (in a broad sense) into marketable products.

What about CAPITAL and TECHNOLOGY? Labour are paid according to their contribution to the production side, not the sales side.

Nope. Their idea created the 'schematic' that would enter the means of production, but it is the labour itself that powered the means of production, which, in turn, created the product. Thus, while innovation provided the blue-print for the creation of the profit, its the labour itself that CREATED the profit.

Absolutely untrue. I can produce anything I like. But that doesn't mean that it is going to sell...

And if I don't sell the product, then I don't make a dime, do I?

SO HOW DOES LABOUR PRODUCE PROFIT. YOU NEED TO SELL TO PRODUCE PROFIT.

And don't quote that stupid equation of yours, I have already proved it is bogus/irrelevant/obtuse.

Face it, ScarletBanner, this theory of yours is flawed down to the last detail.

Well, it would appear that your logic was flawed, and that you left out the second part of the equation that underpinned your argument.

Oh, that.

Are you willing to concede, comrade, or are you going to try and defend your flawed logic?

MY logic is flawed?



---------
Still, I have not clarified my point fully. I can still bring up many more points and theories that proves that capitalism can work much better than communsim/socialism. 200 years of economic theory can't be wrong.....