there are no working models of socialism

[me]

So, in this month, the 100th anniversary of Lenin's Bolshevik revolution in Russia, we can rejoice in the fact that socialism is dead. From a theoretical standpoint, it was never alive. It was a corpse from day one. It was sustained by rhetoric, not logic.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-02/why-socialism-dead

[El Castor]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 18:58:57 -0700 (PDT), me <werner...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>So, in this month, the 100th anniversary of Lenin's Bolshevik revolution in Russia, we can rejoice in the fact that socialism is dead. From a theoretical standpoint, it was never alive. It was a corpse from day one. It was sustained by rhetoric, not logic.
>http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-02/why-socialism-dead

It was also sustained by death -- so much death that Mao, Stalin, Pol
Pot, and Castro made Hitler look like an amateur.

[dullo...@gmail.com]

I think that Cuba is a good example of Marxist economics. Among Cuban exiles of my acquaintance, there is a bitter nickname for Castro's takeover of Cuba: la robolucion. Castro stole all the wealth of the country, including all the real estate. This is Communist economics. In the violent overthrow of a wealthy country, all of the wealth is transferred to the new socialist government.

Eugene FitzAubrey

[Jack Fate]

dullo...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think that Cuba is a good example of Marxist economics. Among Cuban exiles of my acquaintance, there is a bitter nickname for Castro's takeover of Cuba: la robolucion. Castro stole all the wealth of the country, including all the real estate. This is Communist economics. In the violent overthrow of a wealthy country, all of the wealth is transferred to the new socialist government.
>
> Eugene FitzAubrey
>

Try the "new dictatorship". All countries are partially socialist.
Examples in the USA: the military, the police, roads, public schools,
the postal service, garbage collection, firefighters, POLITICIANS, etc.
Did you fail primary school or did you just drink the GOP fake news
again? As far as wealth transfer is concerned, in the USA most of the
wealth is held by by the super rich.

[islander]

On 11/3/2017 6:04 AM, dullo...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think that Cuba is a good example of Marxist economics. Among Cuban exiles of my acquaintance, there is a bitter nickname for Castro's takeover of Cuba: la robolucion. Castro stole all the wealth of the country, including all the real estate. This is Communist economics. In the violent overthrow of a wealthy country, all of the wealth is transferred to the new socialist government.
>
> Eugene FitzAubrey
>

There is a big difference between Communism and communism (small c) and
an even larger difference between communism and socialism. There are
many examples of nations practicing some degree of socialism and
producing a prosperous, healthy, and happy citizenry. I agree that
there are no good examples of socialism in the form of state ownership
of production. There are also no good examples of capitalism in the
form of unrestricted free markets.

Probably not a good idea to think of either socialism or capitalism in
absolute terms. They are not just extremes of political expression.

[dullo...@gmail.com]

Islander, I took care to write Marxist economy because many socialists do not wish to be associated with Communism. But it doesn't seem to work the other way around. The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Cuba refers to itself as a Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist republic. Fidel's favorite slogan was Socialismo o Muerte, which made some Cubans nervous. Cuban wags went so far as to refer to a famous speech as Fidel's Ode to Death. Blame it on Marx.

Eugene FitzAubrey

[El Castor]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT), dullo...@gmail.com wrote:

>Islander, I took care to write Marxist economy because many socialists do not wish to be associated with Communism. But it doesn't seem to work the other way around. The USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Cuba refers to itself as a Marxist-Leninist one-party socialist republic. Fidel's favorite slogan was Socialismo o Muerte, which made some Cubans nervous. Cuban wags went so far as to refer to a famous speech as Fidel's Ode to Death. Blame it on Marx.
>
>Eugene FitzAubrey

Prior to the Internet I strung up a long wire on the roof and listened
to the english language services of several countries -- chief among
them being the USSR. Islander may not have considered the USSR to be4
socialist, but I guarantee that they thought they were -- and
constantly referred to their system as socialist. I suspect that
liberals use the term communism as a means to write off failed
socialist systems as being something other than socialist. Socialism
is by definition, government ownership of the means of production. The
modern liberal welfare state stays away from the means of production,
but wants to own healthcare, public means of transportation, and many
other trappings of a modern society. It leaves production to be
heavily regulated by the liberal government -- just short of actual
ownership. Liberals would deny it, but Germany's National Socialism
was a prototype of the modern liberal state -- minus over the top
nationalism.

[dullo...@gmail.com]

Allá en España, Jack Fate escribió la verdad. I was not a great success in grade school. I did well enough on subjects like spelling and arithmetic, but I used to dread taking home my report cards because of my grades in Citizenship. I was a frequent visitor to the principal's office, where my known misdeeds were all recorded on index cards. Thank God my unknown misdeeds were never discovered.

Eugene FitzAubrey

[mg]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 18:58:57 -0700 (PDT), me
<werner...@gmail.com> wrote:

Some quotes from Bernie Sanders:

“I’ve stayed away from calling myself a socialist,” Sanders
said in the Boston Globe in the aftermath of his win in ‘81,
“because I did not want to spend half my life explaining
that I did not believe in the Soviet Union or in
concentration camps.”

“To me, socialism doesn’t mean state ownership of
everything, by any means, it means creating a nation, and a
world, in which all human beings have a decent standard of
living.”

“Twenty years ago, when people here thought about socialism
they were thinking about the Soviet Union, about Albania.
Now they think about Scandinavia. In Vermont people
understand I’m talking about democratic socialism.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265

[me]

Rationalization. Trying to alter the reality - there are no working models of socialism.

[me]

Rationalization. There may be degrees of socialism. There are also degrees of failed socialism. The more socialist the more the failed working models. Correlation many actually be causation.

[mg]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 15:56:46 -0700 (PDT), me
<werner...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Rationalization. Trying to alter the reality - there are no working models of socialism.
>
>

Okay, switching to your reality, then, what are the world's
working models of government? Are there any working models
of capitalism?

[me]

I’d say red China is a pretty good model of capitalism. Wouldn’t you? Here other suggestions:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-10-most-capitalist-nations-in-the-world-003939024.html
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

[rumpelstiltskin]

El will never accept that, because it doesn't work to
win others over (in his mind) to his own prejudices.
We're all like that to some extent of course, but El to
me seems a strikingly extreme case.

[Tzatz Ziki]

On 11/3/2017 6:27 AM, Jack Fate wrote:

> Try

"...but I will no longer be posting here. No one here is going to change
so, basically, I'm wasting the little time I have left by posting to
this obscure little group full of stupid bigoted and racist Trump
lovers."

[El Castor]

Socialism ... "any of various economic and political theories
advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of
the means of production and distribution of goods"
... Merriam Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

[dullo...@gmail.com]

In about 1954, the Swedish government offered to pay married couples to have children. Sweden was already a famous welfare state, and a steady supply of new workers would be needed to replace old workers who retired. I gather it didn't work. Today Sweden and all the other members of the EU have disastrously low birth rates. There won't be enough new Europeans to support the old ones. What to do? Inflate the currency so there will be enough money for the government to make ends meet. And import young non-European workers from places where the birth rates are higher.

Eugene FitzAubrey

[rumpelstiltskin]

You're fossilized.

.

[mg]

China is typically considered to be a "socialist market
economy" with "some similarities to Western mixed economies,
with some fundamental differences". I think the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam is probably considered to be a socialist
market economy, also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_market_economy
https://www.alternet.org/story/42826/socialism_is_alive_and_well_..._in_vietnam

I doubt if there are any examples, on the entire planet, of
a state government that is pure socialist, or pure
capitalist and I think most people would be in favor a
government with a mixture of "socialism" and capitalism as
described by Bernie Sanders, if they really understood what
Sanders was saying.

[El Castor]

Socialism failed, and it continues to fail to this day in places like
Venezuela. Marx was wrong. It doesn't work. What you worship as
socialism is just the modern welfare state. As far as you are
concerned, as long as the rich get taxed into poverty and you get lots
of free stuff, it's socialism. If I'm fossilized, why do I know what
Bluray and 4G is, the Federal Reserve OMC, and the corporate tax rate,
while you haven't quite figured out how your TV remote works?

[dullo...@gmail.com]

Socialism is fundamentally social in nature, and it contains a suicide pill that is not directly related to economics. A blind devotion to equality is destroying sex and it will destroy western socialist societies.

During WW II, women had to work at jobs to support their families while the men were at the front, if not dead. With consumerism in the 50's, women would work temporarily before starting a family. With feminism in the 60's, woman deserved equal employment and pay, and who needed a stinking husband, anyway? Marriage crumbled, children became bastards, prices rose, and men could no longer support a family. Birth control became popular as a way to 'delay' a family. Birth control was too unreliable, so women demanded legal abortion. Today 1/3 of all European babies are aborted. This is why the EU must import young foreign workers to support its European population, which is becoming increasingly old because so many Europeans are being killed before they are born.

Eugene FitzAubrey

[Bill Bowden]

"El Castor" <DrE...@justuschickens.com> wrote in message
news:m1vqvchan1oin8d8c...@4ax.com...

Suppose 500 people are ship-wrecked on a small pacific island with no access
to the outside world. What form of government would they practice? They
would probably work together to get enough food to feed 500 people until
they were rescued. .That's socialism

.

[El Castor]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 13:42:09 -0700, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 12:16:04 -0700, El Castor

> You depend on Merriam Webster for your idea of socialism.
>I depend on the security of life in Scandinavia for mine.
>
So move to Sweden. By the way, why is Sweden's corporate tax rate 22%,
while ours is 39.5%?

[El Castor]

Nice theory for a small island, but how has it worked in practice?

"Venezuela: How a rich country collapsed
Venezuela is running out of food. Hospitals are overcrowded with sick
children while doctors don't have enough medicine or X-ray machines.
Electricity isn't guaranteed.
About the only thing Venezuela has in abundance is chaos"
http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/26/news/economy/venezuela-economic-crisis/index.html

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 23:13:30 -0700, El Castor

Move to North Korea. Maybe you could be a boss there.

>By the way, why is Sweden's corporate tax rate 22%,
>while ours is 39.5%?

Might as well make it 100% since nobody pays that either.

[El Castor]

Someone pays $355 billion a year, but most would rather pay 12 1/2% to
Ireland or 22% to Sweden, rather than get skinned by the highest
corporate tax rate in the world -- and yes Islander, not counting
Puerto Rico, and 2 emirates that only charge it on oil.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 05 Nov 2017 13:28:09 -0800, El Castor
<snip>

>Someone pays $355 billion a year, but most would rather pay 12 1/2% to
>Ireland or 22% to Sweden, rather than get skinned by the highest
>corporate tax rate in the world -- and yes Islander, not counting
>Puerto Rico, and 2 emirates that only charge it on oil.

Tarrifs on imports. Also, if necessary to protect
(in a REAL sense) American workers, don't allow
Americans who sequester profits overseas to sell
anything in the USA. I'd be open to other suggestions
for "getting" "those bastards" too. The USA should
belong to "the people", not to "the billionaires". Right
now it belongs to billionaires.

[me]

If billionaires are not people who fits your definition of ‘people’? Are you a ‘people’? Why?

As i understand capitalists provide stuff to people - people like you. People like you buy that stuff. The reason some are ‘rich’ people is because other people pay them for what they do for people. What do you provide people? Let me guess. Self-righteousness? Moral dictums? When some people get rich because they get paid for doing stuff other people want are the less ‘moral‘ than other people (millions of them) who do nothing for people (People like you, for example) why does this bother you? What do you provide other people want to pay you for?

How many ‘people’ visit socialist created structures or works of art? You wallow in the very things (fine music) those you disdain supplied and supported. If you wern’t such a fucking self centered fraud you would thank them for what you and millions of ‘people’ enjoy and still value.

[El Castor]

If you favor tariffs, I recommend you sign up for Econ 1a, or read
this ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html

[rumpelstiltskin]

The paragraph below makes me particularly suspicious:

"The third is a make-work bias. People tend to
underestimate the benefit from conserving on labor
and thus worry that imports will destroy jobs in
import-competing industries. Yet long-run economic
progress comes from finding ways to reduce labor
input and redeploying workers to new, growing
industries."

That sounds like the same old crap we get fed
all the time, taking care only of the big guys, with
empty promises for the little guys, like Reagan's
"trickle down" fleece-job. An ability to adjust to
"Long-run economic progress" in "New, growing
industries" is likely beyond the lifetime of Joe
Average who needs to buy food TODAY.

[mg]

On Fri, 03 Nov 2017 23:17:26 -0700, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com>
wrote:

In practice, I don't think it's very useful for people to
argue about socialism vs capitalism and sometimes it doesn't
even make a lot of sense to argue the subject of Republicans
vs Democrats.

Now days, I think it makes more sense to argue about
specific, individual issues. Here are some of the issues
that I care a lot about, for instance:

1. SS. Should we cut benefits for above average earners
only? (Y or N).

2. Obamatrade? (Y or N)?

3. Progressive Income Tax? (Y or N)?

4. Preemptive War (Y or N)? Iraq? Syria? Libya? Yemen?

5. Single Payer Health Care? (Y or N)?

6. Censorship, i.e. censorship of RT? (Y or N)?

7. Cut *ALL* benefits off for ex-Presidents who give paid
speeches (Y or N)?