Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

[EmperorNero]

I agree. When the autonomous states of America founded the federal government of the Unites States, the federal government had few objectives. Why would it? All matters were solved on state level. At first they were one country only on paper.
George Washington had little to do in the first 9 months of his presidency.
What happened? The federal government took over the debt, the individual states had accumulated during the revolution. Now there was a reason to demand federal taxes. It was the federal government taking over government objectives from the states. And from there it went.

[xris]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

The ideal of socialism differs greatly from the practice. No, I don't mean that in the sense that all ideals fall short in an imperfect world. I mean that, while you may be fed visions of a 'worker's paradise,' that is not what the most influential supporters of socialism have in mind. The greatest friends of socialism and communism have always been the financiers, bankers, and international corporations. Why? J.P Morgan once said, "competition is a sin." The free market is good for everyone and all businesses on average, but a monopoly via central planning is best for whichever companies control the monopoly. For example, the Russian revolution from funded by western banks at the same time that the governments of western europe and U.S. were publicly denouncing Bolsheviks. Without subsequent decades of lending to the Soviet Union, it would have collapsed much sooner. Are you familiar with the various 19th century societies in which workers lived in a planned town built, owned and operated by their employers? The workers would earn wages just like any others, but they spent their money in the company store, or on company housing, or at the company theatre, or the company hospital. In effect, this is a feudal system, under which workers do not really sell their labour, but work the lord's land or factory in exhange for the neccessities of life. This is what the people behind the socialist movement, who funded and financed it apparently against their own interests, had in mind. To understand the socialism/capitalism dichotomy you really have to take a long historical view. Before the rise of free market capitlism, there was a more or less feudal system, a system of authoritarian control in one manner or the other, far back into time. In the 18th century, via the free market, the common man for the first time was free and truly controlled his own destiny. Free-market capitalism developed in tanden, naturally, with democracy in various forms. These changes were anathema to the ruling class, which, like any ruling class at any point in history, wants primarily to maintain its power. However, they could do nothing about it directly; the power of the free market and democracy is too great to be reversed by the order of some king or noble. Collectivism, in whatever form, is the solution; it is a means by which the rights of individuals can be abolished in the name of serving the common good. Of course, the rulers determine what best serves the common good. Socialism is not progress toward some ideal, but regression toward feudalism, directed by the ruling class. Think about it.

Its a view of socialism i dont agree with.Once again the excesses of socialism ,communism, is held up as an example.Democratic socialism is nothing like the narrow dogmatic approach communist tried.When ideals are given of the objectives the worst examples of socialism are wheeled out as examples, when i point out the failings of capitalism they are poo pooed as hiccups in a worthy cause.
Id rather the ideas i point out be questioned than the red mist of past fascist regimes.

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by xris

Its a view of socialism i dont agree with.Once again the excesses of socialism ,communism, is held up as an example.Democratic socialism is nothing like the narrow dogmatic approach communist tried.When ideals are given of the objectives the worst examples of socialism are wheeled out as examples, when i point out the failings of capitalism they are poo pooed as hiccups in a worthy cause.
Id rather the ideas i point out be questioned than the red mist of past fascist regimes.

Socialism and communism are the same, its just a matter of method. Socialists are gradualists or Fabians; communists are revolutionairies. I didn't focus much on the horrors of the Soviet system, or Mao's China or Pol Pot, etc. I realize that European socialism or American socialism are a far cry from those historical examples, but my point is that socialism as it exists now in the major western nations is not a static thing. It is progressive. We are moving in a direction towards something more evidently authoritarian, and the pace is accelerating. Do you realize that the corporations and banks that benfit the most from 'socialism' are the same entities whose lobbyists or forrmer employees fill all the important posts in government and lobby for government intervention and control? Why is that I wonder...

Socialism is not what you rhink it is. Yes, the government controls the economy in socialism, but the question is, who controls the government? Those are the people who support socialism and who are driving the socialist agenda, and always have.

[xris]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Socialism and communism are the same, its just a matter of method. Socialists are gradualists or Fabians; communists are revolutionairies. I didn't focus much on the horrors of the Soviet system, or Mao's China or Pol Pot, etc. I realize that European socialism or American socialism are a far cry from those historical examples, but my point is that socialism as it exists now in the major western nations is not a static thing. It is progressive. We are moving in a direction towards something more evidently authoritarian, and the pace is accelerating. Do you realize that the corporations and banks that benfit the most from 'socialism' are the same entities whose lobbyists or forrmer employees fill all the important posts in government and lobby for government intervention and control? Why is that I wonder...

Socialism is not what you rhink it is. Yes, the government controls the economy in socialism, but the question is, who controls the government? Those are the people who support socialism and who are driving the socialist agenda, and always have.

Control of the banking system by moguls is not prerogative of socialism .It is requisite for capitalism but not socialism.Individual failures of government do not take away from the core beliefs of socialism.When men who control our money supply are eliminated we might have a chance.Hitler with all his power was in debt and was manipulated by Swiss bankers.Don't confuse weakness with ideals.I still see the ideals of socialism as the true cause of every freeman and the elimination of power through strength not justice.Come the real revolution brother....

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by xris

Control of the banking system by moguls is not prerogative of socialism .It is requisite for capitalism but not socialism.Individual failures of government do not take away from the core beliefs of socialism.When men who control our money supply are eliminated we might have a chance.Hitler with all his power was in debt and was manipulated by Swiss bankers.Don't confuse weakness with ideals.I still see the ideals of socialism as the true cause of every freeman and the elimination of power through strength not justice.Come the real revolution brother....

Monopolistic control of the monetary system by private interests is not requisite in free market capitalism; it is in fact absolutlely antithetical to the free market. You will have your revolution soon enough, but I don't think it'll be to your liking.

[xris]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Monopolistic control of the monetary system by private interests is not requisite in free market capitalism; it is in fact absolutlely antithetical to the free market. You will have your revolution soon enough, but I don't think it'll be to your liking.

It may not be but it is the case, it has destroyed our economies and attempts to cover its tracks with new shippp paper money..It is a result of capitalism that we see this sickening distortion of the real economy and the unrealistic demands it makes on our societies. Capitalism demands constant growth the earth and its inhabitants can not sustain, with capitalism we are all doomed.Revolution is always better than the status quo, bring it on.

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by xris

It may not be but it is the case, it has destroyed our economies and attempts to cover its tracks with new shippp paper money..It is a result of capitalism that we see this sickening distortion of the real economy and the unrealistic demands it makes on our societies. Capitalism demands constant growth the earth and its inhabitants can not sustain, with capitalism we are all doomed.Revolution is always better than the status quo, bring it on.

If an inflationairy monetary system in private hands is not a part of capitalism, how can you blame capitalism for the ills of an inflationairy monetary system? Non sequitur. Our constant boom and bust is the result, not of the free market as the talking heads would have you believe, but of the credit cycle: i.e. the periodic expansion and contraction of credit by the central bank. Manipulation of interest rates is THE most important reason for the loss of manufacturing in the U.S., the stagnation of wages, etc. Artifically low interest rates encourage risk and malivestment. Every bust is actually an attempt by the 'invisible hand,' i.e. the physical reality of the economy, to correct imbalances, such as investment in derivative products based on mortgages during a housing boom. Every time the government intervenes with stimulus, or the central bank lowers interest rates or acts as the 'lender of last resort' is prevents that correction and in fact increases the magnitude of the imbalances. O, so government intervention prevents downturns, that good. Wrong, its only DELAYS downturns. At some point there is too much debt, too much pent-up inflation and too much inefficiency for the economy to reinflate, no matter how much money the government spends or the central bank lends. Instead of experiencing minor recessions periodically, as are bound to occur, and which actually increase efficiency and prosperity by selection of the fittest, we are going to experience, when the point of no return arrives, all the cumulative damage at once, magnified. In other words, it is a giant Ponzi scheme. My point is that all the ills you attribute to capitalism are not inevitable consequences of a free market, but rather the inevitable consequences of central planning by the government, in coordination with the banks and corporations that control the government. It is fascism that you don't like, not capitalism. And I agree with that sentiment. Permanent growth is also not reqiuired by capitalism, at least not permanent expansion of physical infrastructure, consumption, etc. The insane and insustainable growth in certain areas of the economy, such as consumption, is the result of government central planning. An inflationairy system encourages spending and discourages savings. Essentially, via central planning, we have been able to live above our means and borrow from imagined future prosperity: which won't arrive to save us because of those very policies, which create inefficiency. The only thing that constantly increases in a free market system, with periodioc interuptions of course, is efficiency, at whatever task is needed by members of society. Whether a socialist, communist, or capitalist system, all economies are based on the free market. We have to start with that; it is like a fact of nature. The only question is how that natural process of supply/demand and exhange can be perverted or manipulated, and can a government make decisions about the needs of society better than the society itself, as expressed by the functioning of the natural market. To believe that the government can do this, allocate resources more efficiently than the free market, is founded on two enormous and, IMO, insane asumptions; 1) the government's bureaucrats, sitting in some office building with mountains of statistical data, are better capable of determining and balancing the needs and abilities of the national economy than the economy itself, which is a manifestation of the those needs in reality; 2) the government is benevolent and objective, and never would manipulate the economy to the advantage of special interests. I don't find either of those assumptions at all realistic.

[EmperorNero]

Yes, very true. Great post. In other words: The failures of capitalism are caused by collectivism.
The whole purpose of socialism is interrupting the free market economy, in order to blame the deficiencies on the "internal contradictions" of capitalism. The goal is stealthily introducing Marxism.

Who wants that? Utopian soft-headed professors, who never had a real job in their life and rather live of the productivity of others. They never had to work for anything in their life, so they live in a fantasy world of theory, where they have come to believe that communism can actually work. They think because they got an education and can repeat facts like parrots, they are somehow intelligent. They are only intelligent and educated enough to sway the public in their direction with short-sighted appeals to emotion and prejudge. And don't forget good old soviet style propaganda tactics.

The education system is in the firm grip of liberal propaganda. Which is why young people are lefties, and become more conservative as they deal with the real world. Study.

[xris]

Some very good propaganda in the last two posts but only to be consumed by the faithful.Capitalism has a sickness that is a result of its genes, it will always result in individual greed being the deciding factor.
It cant help itself, you cant have moral standards that say the fittest survives and not expect these occurrences.
The banking system failure is a result of capitalism, those who wield the power by the accumulation of wealth control the economy and governments.The strangle hold is secure.Only a ground swell of revolt against this endemic sickness will change the status quo.
The problem for change in opinions,is it is constantly supported by the media.The media is or in part ,part of the power structure that convinces the populace that capitalism is the only route society can take.It criticises the sickness but not the cause and by its nature will never take a abstract view of the nature of the system that we have all grown to accept.

[EmperorNero]

Originally Posted by xris

Some very good propaganda in the last two posts but only to be consumed by the faithful.

The other sides propaganda got to you first.

Originally Posted by xris

Capitalism has a sickness that is a result of its genes, it will always result in individual greed being the deciding factor.
It cant help itself, you cant have moral standards that say the fittest survives and not expect these occurrences.
The banking system failure is a result of capitalism, those who wield the power by the accumulation of wealth control the economy and governments.The strangle hold is secure.Only a ground swell of revolt against this endemic sickness will change the status quo.

You have to struggle through that last long post by BrightNoon, seriously.
It explains it all. Don't reset the debate to generalizations again, dispute specific points. If you chose to believe in a conclusion, that is not supported by facts, that's called faith.