Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[wuliheron]

The public sector in all western economies (that I'm aware of, anyway) gets its funding from taxing private sector transactions. As such, these economies are fundamentally capitalist, no matter how extensive their social safety nets.

Countries with an actual socialist economy (Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, pre-reform China and Vietnam, among others) have universally failed.

What a load of extremist crap.

The most commonly used definition of socialism is a government that owns at least some of the fundamental means of production such as the chemical industry, electrical power, etc. The countries you've listed are all more commonly referred to as communist meaning they are an extreme form of socialism.

Extremes such as laze fare capitalism and communism almost always fail. Big surprise. Maybe you'll actually take the hint.

 

[theevilsharpie]

ALL western countries practice taxation, include a welfare state apparatus to some degree with Democratic elections NOT based off weighted votes depending on personal wealth. Worker rights are protected but workers have the choices of toiling for private industries. This is what makes us a "Mixed-Market" economy.

When I say Capitalism, I'm not referring specifically to laissez-faire Capitalism, but to any economy where wealth is generated from the activity of the private sector. This includes modern "mixed-market" Western economies.

 

[nonlnear]

You should probably start your own threads on these matters so as to set the tone of the debate, or something to that effect.

The thing about me and starting threads is that I rarely have a thought that strikes me as original enough to bother starting a conversation about. In fact I'm not sure if I've had an original thought in my life! Perhaps I've never really understood the reason why anyone starts a conversation; I'm much more adept at ending them.

You have established, quit a while back now to my satisfaction, that your thinking is acute, well developed, expansive, and more. Personally, I would rather hear what you have to say in detail and depth than be impoverished by infrequent gems you post here. If you are of the skill set at the level of tens of thousands in 7 billion, and I would not argue at all that you are not, though I am not of a caliber who could really judge, you would have to be, certainly, a real statistical anomaly here. You should have your own forum.

It's not that I have any particularly supreme inherent talent (my innate talent, as measured by such crude tools as are available, would put the number of people more talented than myself at a good deal more than the tens of thousands. ), only that the particular skills for which I am employed are not ones that most people bother to hone. In fact it's quite fashionable for most people to brag about how ignorant they are in my area of expertise.

I have never had the pleasure of focusing at any length of M Foucault but perhaps I will make an effort to put his ideas under my lens. Maybe he has a famous relative. But at any rate the first thought that jumps to my head is that economic and social structure go hand in hand and are within some parameters, one and the same thing.

They do go hand in hand, but the political focus on subtle variations in economics (what to tax, what to subsidize, etc.) and the rhetorical amplification of these "differences" (which really are very slight variations on the same theme) serves to distract from the quite surprising uniformity that we have in our educational institutions. Economics seems to me the study of an ephemeral flame - how to direct the wisps of passion as they take material form in our hands, while the institutions that propagate culture seem more akin to the bowels of the earth wherein the coal is formed. We must all be pressed into the same form so we all come out desiring the latest smartphone, all scorning last year's clothes, and all wanting larger sleeping boxes. So many different flames burn from the same fuel: that the child must come to desire that which is believed to be desirable, and scorn all else.

Do you publish?

Only in academic journals, and not much lately. I just bailed on academia and am about to put myself through a wringer of professional exams. I probably won't be publishing anything for another two years at least.

 

[alkemyst]

There are a lot of simple things in place that promote this...many of which the common idiot will defend to the end thinking it's actually good for them.

With all this talk from business CEO's and leaders about the economy and how layoffs and salary cuts are needed...they don't look at their own wallets first. There was recently a congressman making $174k a year saying while he was cutting other's salaries...his really wasn't so much because he has 4 or 5 kids. LOLZ.

Anyway...the 2000 or so richest saw their net worth rise 1 TRILLION dollars this past year collectively a nice 20% hike.

Just like the government talks of shutting down. All that's going to do is stimulate the people to let whatever is needed fly to get it reopen.

 

[theevilsharpie]

What a load of extremist crap.

The most commonly used definition of socialism is a government that owns at least some of the fundamental means of production such as the chemical industry, electrical power, etc.

Really?

From Merriam-Webster:

so·cial·ism
1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2. a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state​

That doesn't sound like any Western economy I know of.

 

[Steeplerot]

When I say Capitalism, I'm not referring specifically to laissez-faire Capitalism, but to any economy where wealth is generated from the activity of the private sector. This includes modern "mixed-market" Western economies.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a utopian pipe dream like a communist utopia, (same difference really) why even bring it up when speaking of real world governments? It does not exist in real life and has no bearing on explaining our current systems. This sounds like someone sold you a line.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Laissez-faire capitalism is a utopian pipe dream like a communist utopia, (same difference really) why even bring it up when speaking of real world governments? It does not exist in real life and has no bearing on explaining our current systems. This sounds like someone sold you a line.

Did you even read my post?

 

[Steeplerot]

Really?

From Merriam-Webster:

so·cial·ism
1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2. a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state​

That doesn't sound like any Western economy I know of.

Actually if you lose the rhetoric they use it explains us perfectly.


Anyhow, using the term "Socialism" is like getting a new car and telling everyone who ask you about it "IT HAS 4 WHEELS!" not very specific.



Social democracy
Here is a bit more info about S-D and mixed market systems.

The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system. Practical modern social democratic policies include the promotion of a welfare state, and the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers' rights.
Historically, social democracy was a form of evolutionary reformist socialism that advocated the establishment of a socialist economy through class struggle.


The important part right-wingers love to forget to justify their economic extremism.

During the early 20th century, major European social democratic parties began to reject elements of Marxism, Revolutionary socialism and class struggle, taking a moderate position that socialism could be established through political reforms.

Socialism has been around a lot longer then Karl Marx who wrote Das Capital and the Manifesto in the 1860s.

Karl Marx wrote about his ideas of Socialism based off of scientific method of observing the "booms and busts" of human society over the ages in relation to power and wealth accumulation by rulers. Marxist Socialism's actual name is Dialectical Materialism (or historical materialism depending on what kind of POV you are coming from). Even Marx hated the terms "Marxism and Communism" tacked onto his scientific works as he was afraid fundamentalist minded folks would twist his scientific sociological findings and turn them into a "philosophy" instead of a scientific theory that depends on criticism and new fact. *cough Lenin and Stalin*

 

[theevilsharpie]

The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system. Practical modern social democratic policies include the promotion of a welfare state, and the creation of economic democracy as a means to secure workers' rights.
Historically, social democracy was a form of evolutionary reformist socialism that advocated the establishment of a socialist economy through class struggle.

Do you even read your own posts? "Social Democracy" is still Capitalism.

 

[Steeplerot]

Do you even read your own posts? "Social Democracy" is still Capitalism.

Capitalism cannot exist on its own in the real world. This is like saying we are a Utopian communism system also since we have a few government regulations.

There are no extremes in the real world, when you try such things you get a dictatorship of corporations or government. Same difference. It makes a horrible Corporate Fascist State (Mussolini) or State Capitalist system (USSR) which are both dictatorships.

Our mixed market systems depend on Democratic Representation to balance the powers -whether it be people votes or $, not a dictatorship of the extremes.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Capitalism cannot exist on its own in the real world. This is like saying we are a Utopian communism system also since we have a few government regulations.

There are no extremes in the real world, when you try such things you get a dictatorship of corporations or government. Same difference. It makes a horrible Corporate Fascist State (Mussolini) or State Capitalist system (USSR) which are both dictatorships.

Our mixed market systems depend on Democratic Representation to balance the powers -whether it be people votes or $, not a dictatorship of the extremes.

/facepalm

 

[Steeplerot]

/facepalm

I know, I do this everytime one of you guys come in here and start spouting off civics when you cannot even grasp elementary school concepts like the difference between Communism/Socialism/Capitalism/Fascism.

 

[Throckmorton]

/facepalm

He's right... every country in the world is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Developed countries have more socialism than undeveloped ones.

 

[theevilsharpie]

He's right... every country in the world is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Developed countries have more socialism than undeveloped ones.

You can't max capitalism and socialism. They are as fundamentally incompatible as liberalism and authoritarianism. Mixed economies have the government participate in the market, but that doesn't make it a socialist state. It makes it a capitalist state where the government is one of many market participants.

 

[shira]

we don't have a free market. stop blaming free markets.

Stop evading my point. I clearly wrote "our version of a free market." And frankly, I don't care what you call it.

The point I made, and the point you're unable to address because you've got your ideology so far up you ass that your brain is frozen, is that our system - WHATEVER YOU CALL IT - is failing a very large and growing portion of the populace. What's clearly the case is that power and influence and wealth are becoming ever more concentrated in the hands of the few, yet the right can't grovel far or fast enough to change our laws so as to deliver ever more advantage to the wealthy.

 

[Steeplerot]

You can't max capitalism and socialism. They are as fundamentally incompatible as liberalism and authoritarianism.

This is hogwash, Liberals since the age of enlightenment have been the only reason we have fought back authoritarianism and serfdom in the real world by promoting democracies instead of aristocratic wealth accumulation booms and busts which always inevitably lead to people getting fed up with the elites shit so the pitchforks come out and wealth redistribution which has been the norm since society started happens again.

It comes down to this, the rich exploit workers and mass wealth leaving workers to starve. Workers get fed up and rightfully "take what theirs back". A long time ago people figured this was a stupid endless cycle that gets civilization nowhere and is a waste of lives/resources as the "rich" are no better at ruling us then we are.

With a few beheadings of certain kings/queens Liberalism realized what we always knew: rich elites are not entitled to rule us through their religious BS. The last excuse they had to screw us was BUNK the whole time!


Thus democracies were born to more evenly distribute the cyclic nature through people power and votes.

Suddenly the world awakens and western democracies rise to unknown ideas of power throughout history, the industrial revolution begins thanks to workers starting to have a say and the ability to lift themselves out of indentured serfdom to work for their own lot in life.

There has always been taxation. The question is, who knows better how to spend your money? The rich or all of us deciding? Your choice. But we know what the rich do with wealth. They horde it. Think of a rich person you may know. They generally get that way because they DONT SPEND MONEY. Which does not help a economy.

A very famous and shrewd Capitalist once said: "If my workers are going to be able to buy the stuff they make they need to get paid enough to buy the products they make." WELL DUH! That is liberalism summed up. And it is NOT uncapitalistic, if anything Liberalism is the glue that holds Capitalism together and keeps it viable in the long term.

Creating a Democratic concenious of how much "glue" to hold the unstable self destructive machine of Capitalism together and when to add some oil now and again to keep it chugging along healthily is all a mixed market really is. There is nothing authoritarian about it as we all have a say through voting. Welcome to the late 1700s comrades. You may join us in the revolution at anytime. Conservatives (reactionaries) are only 300 years late to the party. :whiste:

 

[shira]

Where the hell did you get this idea?

Where the hell did you get the mistaken idea that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" means "only for the tiny fraction of the population for which these are practicable?"

Do you really think that the Constitution lays out abstract principles that lead us wherever they may, regardless of how bad things get?

 

[wuliheron]

Really?

From Merriam-Webster:

so·cial·ism
1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2. a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state​

That doesn't sound like any Western economy I know of.

I didn't say any western governments were socialist, merely that they have a mixture of socialism and capitalism. And, yes, that certainly does sound like some of the practices of western economies where governments might own some of the means of production, redistribute wealth and property as they see fit, and control the means of production.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Stop evading my point. I clearly wrote "our version of a free market." And frankly, I don't care what you call it.

The point I made, and the point you're unable to address because you've got your ideology so far up you ass that your brain is frozen, is that our system - WHATEVER YOU CALL IT - is failing a very large and growing portion of the populace. What's clearly the case is that power and influence and wealth are becoming ever more concentrated in the hands of the few, yet the right can't grovel far or fast enough to change our laws so as to deliver ever more advantage to the wealthy.

Clearly the case? News like the following would tend to throw cold water on such a spurious claim:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/16/news/economy/millionaires/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- What recession? The millionaire population jumped in the U.S. by 8% last year, fueled by the stock market recovery, according to an industry report on Wednesday.

The number of U.S. households worth at least $1 million rose to 8.4 million in 2010, compared to 7.8 million the prior year, according to a report by Spectrem Group.

...

 

[Moonbeam]

You're not letting them have anything - it's their money. You are simply arguing that you have done more to deserve their property than they have - the fundamental argument of all wealth redistribution policy.

Rubbish, it isn't their money. They can only make money like that because of cheap labor, the work of folk who have to accept low wages to stay alive. Since the rich support the system, they support the maintenance of that poverty, that need, and that ability to exploit people. In a just society the shit jobs would earn the most money because nobody would do them without proportional renumeration.

 

[Throckmorton]

Clearly the case? News like the following would tend to throw cold water on such a spurious claim:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/16/news/economy/millionaires/index.htm

In other words, the rich got richer.

 

[Abwx]

Rubbish, it isn't their money. They can only make money like that because of cheap labor, the work of folk who have to accept low wages to stay alive. Since the rich support the system, they support the maintenance of that poverty, that need, and that ability to exploit people. In a just society the shit jobs would earn the most money because nobody would do them without proportional renumeration.

Totaly true...
If tommorow wage were divided by two, the rich would
symetricaly double their wealth in real value since they
would need to spend half the money to get the same
services/quantity of labor...
So they are forcibly against enrichment of the masses.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

In other words, the rich got richer.

Seeing as the definition of "rich" seems to be rather malleable and subjective in here that can't really be stated with any confidence.

 

[blackangst1]

Let me guess? Cato?

Guess again. Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey. Among others.

 

[manimal]

dont forget Worthingtons law


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aF8wLg5Asgo&feature=related