democratic socialism.
Bruce Rogers
The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
Lenin and Stalin.
ZB
On Mon, 27 Jan 1997 19:13:52 GMT, rog...@sympatico.ca (Bruce Rogers)
wrote:
Better look around a bit, we, as many other western industrialized
nations are governed under such a combination.
F. Prefect
There is a theory that states that if anyone
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it
is here,it will instantly disappear and be replaced
be something even more bizarrely inexplicable. There
is another theory that states this has already
happened......D. Adams
Jack Plant
ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (David Salvador Flores) wrote:
>In article <32ecfd2d...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>,
>Bruce Rogers <rog...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
>>socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
>>democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
>>collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
>>
>>Lenin and Stalin.
>The term "Democratic Capitalism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
>capitalism, you discover that there is no way it can be
>democratic. Capitalism by definition concentrates wealth and
>power in the hands of a few and thus dilutes the political
>power of the many for the benefit of the few, just like Hitler's
>Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of Lenin and Stalin.
The voting population certainly outnumbers the "few", so how can that
be undemocratic. We know for certain however that socilaism
concentrates power in the hands of a few, even though the rulers
purport to serve "the masses". It is most passing strange that people
are so readily able to ignore the facts, their own eyes, the blatant
immorality of socialism, and the readily available historical record,
not to mention the events of the last decade.
Jack Plant
Leader
Freedom Party of Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada
jpl...@wwdc.com
http://www.freedomparty.org
Clayton E. Cramer
Jack Plant wrote:
> The voting population certainly outnumbers the "few", so how can that
> be undemocratic. We know for certain however that socilaism
> concentrates power in the hands of a few, even though the rulers
> purport to serve "the masses". It is most passing strange that people
> are so readily able to ignore the facts, their own eyes, the blatant
> immorality of socialism, and the readily available historical record,
> not to mention the events of the last decade.
>
> Jack Plant
The problem is that money buys advertising, and much of the
population is too stupid, or too lazy, to analyze political
advertising carefully. But because democratic socialism is
based on the notion that the masses will make intelligent
decisions about the economy, they find it easier to blame
capitalism than to admit that much of the population is
stupid, lazy, or both. H.L. Mencken had it right when he
defined democracy as "Jackals leading jackasses."
--
Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane
Communications
email: cra...@dlcc.com web page: http://www.cs.sonoma.edu/~cramerc
Opinions are strictly my own; DLCC doesn't pay me for non-technical
opinions.
David Salvador Flores
Lloyd Lawrence
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
> Jack Plant wrote:
> > The voting population certainly outnumbers the "few", so how can that
> > be undemocratic. We know for certain however that socilaism
> > concentrates power in the hands of a few, even though the rulers
> > purport to serve "the masses". It is most passing strange that people
> > are so readily able to ignore the facts, their own eyes, the blatant
> > immorality of socialism, and the readily available historical record,
> > not to mention the events of the last decade.
>
> population is too stupid, or too lazy, to analyze political
> advertising carefully. But because democratic socialism is
> based on the notion that the masses will make intelligent
> decisions about the economy, they find it easier to blame
> capitalism than to admit that much of the population is
> stupid, lazy, or both. H.L. Mencken had it right when he
> defined democracy as "Jackals leading jackasses."
Money and advertising and a lack of political awareness in the population
are certainly some of the major problems, but none of them is the only
problem and there are many others. Before we get carried away with arguing
which philosophy focuses on what concepts it might be useful to define the
terms we're using. "Democratic socialism" isn't the same as "social
democracy" or "socialism" or "anti-capitalism" or "western democracy",
etc. Each has its own parameters and followers. So perhaps you could be a
bit more specific.
-lloyd
Clayton E. Cramer
Z wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:27:10 -0800, "Clayton E. Cramer"
> <cra...@dlcc.com> wrote:
> >The problem is that money buys advertising, and much of the
> >population is too stupid, or too lazy, to analyze political
> >advertising carefully. But because democratic socialism is
> >based on the notion that the masses will make intelligent
> >decisions about the economy, they find it easier to blame
> >capitalism than to admit that much of the population is
> >stupid, lazy, or both. H.L. Mencken had it right when he
> >defined democracy as "Jackals leading jackasses."
>
> stupid to or lazy to analyze political campaign advertising. What did
> you have in mind, setting up a monarchy and plopping yourself in the
> throne? Gawd.
No. This is one of the arguments for limited government. By
limiting the government's authority, you limit the power of
the masses to do evil, and therefore you limit the interests
of the wealthy in control of the government. "When legislatures
control buying and selling, the first thing to be bought and
sold will be legislators."
H. Mencken
David Salvador Flores wrote:
> >The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
> >socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
> >democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
> >collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
> >Lenin and Stalin.
> The term "Democratic Capitalism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
> capitalism, you discover that there is no way it can be
> democratic. Capitalism by definition concentrates wealth and
> power in the hands of a few and thus dilutes the political
> power of the many for the benefit of the few, just like Hitler's
> Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of Lenin and Stalin.
Agreed. Capitalism can never be truly democratic if a
wealthy man is able to contribute more to a political
campaign than a poor man. Capitalism will never be
democratic if a wealthy man can spend more on his own
campaign than a poor man.
Jack Plant
"H. Mencken" <c...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Agreed. Capitalism can never be truly democratic if a
>wealthy man is able to contribute more to a political
>campaign than a poor man. Capitalism will never be
>democratic if a wealthy man can spend more on his own
>campaign than a poor man.
One man still gets one vote. You are blaming the rich man for the poor
man's choices. A rich man can spend as much as he wants but the poor
man has the same "voting" power as he does.
r...@inetworld.net
>No. This is one of the arguments for limited government. By
>limiting the government's authority, you limit the power of
>the masses to do evil, and therefore you limit the interests
>of the wealthy in control of the government. "When legislatures
>control buying and selling, the first thing to be bought and
>sold will be legislators."
I'm sorry. This makes no sense whatsoever. If you limit government,
you limit the power of the masses to do evil?
=Bob
John Corman
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:50:32 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
(David Salvador Flores) wrote:
>The term "Democratic Capitalism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
>capitalism, you discover that there is no way it can be
>democratic. Capitalism by definition concentrates wealth and
>power in the hands of a few and thus dilutes the political
>power of the many for the benefit of the few, just like Hitler's
>Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of Lenin and Stalin.
You're making the assumption that under capitalism only a few are
capable of creating wealth. That's the socialists few of things.
That is that there is a finite amount of jobs and wealth so the only
solution is to take from someone else.
If you take the other position that only the handicapped are incapable
of creating wealth, then its no contest as to which model is
democratic.
John Corman ******** jco...@island.net
Henry Blaskowski
H. Mencken (c...@geocities.com) wrote:
>
> Agreed. Capitalism can never be truly democratic if a
> wealthy man is able to contribute more to a political
> campaign than a poor man. Capitalism will never be
> democratic if a wealthy man can spend more on his own
> campaign than a poor man.
Actually, the problem is not that the wealthy can spend more on their
own campaigns, since becoming a lawmaker is not really a useful end in
and of itself. The problem is that lawmakers have too much power over
the average person's life -- and that is what makes becoming a lawmaker
valuable to the rich.
hblask
Clayton E. Cramer
You limit the power of the masses to do evil through the
government, and everyone can think of an example of democracy
that *they* would consider democracy run wild: gun control,
sodomy laws, Communications Decency Act, laws against
pornography, laws requiring teacher-led prayer in public
schools.
You also limit the power of the legislators to demand bribes
(whether literal or "campaign contributions") from special
interests. Mike Royko's book _Boss_ mentions that when
Boss Daley was a young legislator in late 1940s Springfield,
Illinois, that it was common practice for legislators to
introduce what were known as "getter" bills. These were
bills that in some injured some business or industry. The
purpose of the regulations was to "get" the business or
industry to pony up money to the legislator, who would
then privately ask committee members to kill the bill.
Robert Sherrill's book _The Saturday Night Special_ claims
that some of the late Senator Dodd's "Saturday Night Special"
bills introduced in the 1960s were done so that manufacturers
would contribute money to Dodd's campaigns, at which point
he would withdraw the bills. It was, according to Sherrill's
interviews with Dodd staffers, a cynical campaign to get
money. (Sherrill, by the way, is a definite and open
proponent of restrictive gun control, which makes his book
so interesting.)
James A. Donald
David Salvador Flores wrote:
>The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
>socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
>democratic.
Well to be strictly correct, the Ukraine is clearly still socialist,
and it has clearly been democratic for a while.
Of course if we define socialism as actually producing something with
the means of production, then I guess you could say that the Ukraine
is not socialist since their economy seems to be collapsing with
amazing and impressive speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
James Doemer
There ya go!! And the more power that becomes inbedded in those
legislators seats, the more attractive they become to the rich, and the
more the rich strive to farther power in those seats! Bravo!! Somone
finally gets it!!
Reduce the Government's power, and you reduce their interest in the
offices.
Intrusionist
In article <5ct0he$4...@van1s03.cyberion.com>, jpl...@wwdc.com says...
>
>"H. Mencken" <c...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>Agreed. Capitalism can never be truly democratic if a
>>wealthy man is able to contribute more to a political
>>campaign than a poor man. Capitalism will never be
>>democratic if a wealthy man can spend more on his own
>>campaign than a poor man.
>
>man's choices. A rich man can spend as much as he wants but the poor
>man has the same "voting" power as he does.
>
>
>
>
>Jack Plant
>Leader
>Freedom Party of Ontario
>London, Ontario, Canada
>jpl...@wwdc.com
>http://www.freedomparty.org
>
All I'm trying to do is educate the poor since the rich control the media.
Unfortunately Schools in poor districts can't afford the same education as
the well-to-do.
So sue me.
Jack Plant
re...@nym.alias.net (Intrusionist) wrote:
>In article <5ct0he$4...@van1s03.cyberion.com>, jpl...@wwdc.com says...
>>
>>One man still gets one vote. You are blaming the rich man for the poor
>>man's choices. A rich man can spend as much as he wants but the poor
>>man has the same "voting" power as he does.
>>
>All I'm trying to do is educate the poor since the rich control the media.
>Unfortunately Schools in poor districts can't afford the same education as
>the well-to-do.
>So sue me.
Sue who?
Chris Faatz
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Jack Plant wrote:
> "H. Mencken" <c...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >Agreed. Capitalism can never be truly democratic if a
> >wealthy man is able to contribute more to a political
> >campaign than a poor man. Capitalism will never be
> >democratic if a wealthy man can spend more on his own
> >campaign than a poor man.
>
> One man still gets one vote. You are blaming the rich man for the poor
> man's choices. A rich man can spend as much as he wants but the poor
> man has the same "voting" power as he does.
>
The question really lies, then, in the power of the media to distort
or amplify certain political positions, and your rich man's ability to
make more of an impact on a seemingly-democratic system, doesn't it?
crs1198
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 18:00:34 -0800, "H. Mencken" <c...@geocities.com>
wrote:
>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> >The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
>> >socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
>> >democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
>> >collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
>> >Lenin and Stalin.
Conformity is *such* a terrible thing too! Imagine having to obey the
law when driving! Who the hell do these guys think they are telling
*you* to pay attention to traffic lights?
[Sarcasm mode off.]
The point that seems to have escaped you entirely is that few of us
live alone. We are all in one community or another, where we are part
of *society*. [Ever notice the connection between "society" and
socialism"?] And that gives us no choice but to to accept a degree
of conformity in almost all aspects of our lives.
You may call for a lower level of conformity than I might be
comfortable with, but to denigrate all conformity as "collectivism",
as you do, is to make yourself sound irrelevant.
Jack Plant
You have a point but I believe the solution lies with individuals
taking responsibility and educating themselves. I was just down in
Sarnia earlier today visiting relatives, and they agreed that too many
people vote for all the wrong reasons.
Let me give you an example. A brother-in-law of mine agrees very
strongly with almost everything Freedom Party stands for,and yet after
the Ontario election where Bob Rae's NDP won the majority I asked him
who he voted for. He told me that he voted Liberal so that the NDP
wouldn't win, which they did.
I work with a Chinese person who believes that the Liberals' policies
are detrimental and destructive to Canada and yet he tells me that he
will always vote for them because if it hadn't been for them and their
immigration policies he would never have been able to live here. And
so we get the government that we support. So many people vote for a
certain party simply because they always have, or their parents did,
or any number of ridiculous reasons. In Sarnia today, a cousin of mine
told me of a fellow worker who voted Conservative because his wife had
voted Liberal and he wanted to cancel out her vote.
A change for the better in government requires education of the
electorate and the exercizing of individual responsibility which
amounts to much more than simply casting a vote.
Steve Kangas
David Salvador Flores wrote:
> > The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
> > socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
> > democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
> > collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
> > Lenin and Stalin.
This is factually wrong, and if you attempted this definition on a political
science test, you would flunk the question. Socialism is the collective
ownership and control of the means of production. And collective means
*everybody* -- not a dictator, not a ruling elite, not a central planning
committee, but everybody. The only way to do this is to give every person
one vote. Socialism is thus ALWAYS democratic. Anything else is non-socialist
BY DEFINITION.
A great many on the far right confuse socialism for central planning.
This is a basic fallacy. Generally, there are two types of socialism.
Social democracy allows workers to vote on their supervisors, their
company policy, and industry representatives to regional and national
congresses. Anarcho-socialism allows workers to vote on their supervisors
and company policies, but nothing more; these firms then compete (or
cooperate) on the free market, absent any central government at all.
The mere existence of an ideology called "anarcho-socialism" is very
problematic for the far right, since it refutes their belief that
socialism is automatically defined as Big Government.
Political scientists generally reject the idea that the Soviet Union
practiced true socialism, despite its use (and abuse) of the socialist
name. Workers are not in control of anything when a dictator tells them
what to do. It is an absurdism to believe that society has "collective"
control over the means of production when only one person does. This is
an indisputable error of logic.
I am amazed at how often "socialism" gets misdefined by the conservatives
and libertarians on the newsgroups. And it depresses me that even basic
political terms are misunderstood and re-interpreted in ways that bear
no resemblance to the original. Obviously, people use terms to score
political points, and in the process pervert the meaning of words. But
if we are to engage in meaningful debate, we must use accurate
terminology.
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
James A. Donald
David Salvador Flores wrote:
> > > The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
> > > socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
> > > democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
> > > collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
> > > Lenin and Stalin.
Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
> This is factually wrong, and if you attempted this definition on a political
> science test, you would flunk the question. Socialism is the collective
> ownership and control of the means of production.
Which is collectivistic, and in practice necessarily requires
conformity enforced by terror in order to work effectively.
> A great many on the far right confuse socialism for central planning.
Not to mention a great many on the center, the left, and the far left.
> This is a basic fallacy. Generally, there are two types of socialism.
> Social democracy allows workers to vote on their supervisors, their
> company policy, and industry representatives to regional and national
> congresses.
They tried that one in Catalonia.
The workers got to control the seating in the Cafeteria. The General
Council got to control what was produced and how it was produced and
to enforce its will at gunpoint.
What you are referring to is called guild socialism or syndicalism or
national syndicalism.
For the real story on how it turned out in practice, try my web page
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/cat/blood.htm
> The mere existence of an ideology called "anarcho-socialism" is very
> problematic for the far right, since it refutes their belief that
> socialism is automatically defined as Big Government.
And the mere existence of an ideology that involves free soup falling
from the sky, and everyone living in a big house full of servants,
including the servants, poses a similar problem.
If people are free to pursue their own happiness, then some will
succeed a whole lot better than others.
If people are not free to pursue their own happiness, a handfull of
all powerful masters must control them with the baton in the face and
the gun to the head.
Lloyd Lawrence
On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Vecher wrote:
> > Unfortunately Schools in poor districts can't afford the same education as
> > the well-to-do.
> >
> > So sue me.
> I don't believe that is true if you look at it correctly:
"correctly" according to whose perception....?
>(1) Teachers
> must be certified. (2) If all the Social Engineering is cut out only
> reading, writing and math need to be taught.
Highly subjective stuff, this. What kind of "social engineering" are you
thinking about at this point of the middle class social control program
that's been going on since the 18th century (in Canada)? For example, is
"science" social engineering? And if it is, why isn't "reading, writing
and math"?
>(3) It only takes 100 hours
> to teach a child to read but the rich public schools can not do it in 12
> years.
Which child did you find that clocked in at 100 hours? What makes you
think that teaching reading is a "widget-making" function? Do you only
have one level of reading ability, i.e. is your comprehension and
analysis exactly the same as it was when you were 6 years old? (You can
refuse to answer that question if you think it may incriminate you.)
>(4) Children are not taught math correctly in the so called rich
> schools.
This is a highly charged and unsubstantiable statement. It's similar to
the myths that proliferate about low standards of education in Canada.
Falsehoods such as these are spread by the ignorant, the prejudiced, and
the corporate. Being taught math "correctly" doesn't depend on whether or
not the school is "rich". Standards of education and curriculum are the
responsibility of the government ministry and its scope of authority isn't
limited to the public school system. Currently the math education
standards being employed derive from the National Council for Teachers of
Mathematics, a U.S. group which published a series of books between 1989
and 1995 on curriculum, assessment & evaluation, teaching, professional
development, and related topics. One of the direct applications of the
NCTM Standards is the Western Protocol documents, which are being
implemented currently.
> Well anyway, the kids don't need computers and TV 1, in grade schools
> ...
>
> And we are not suppose to be living in a "democratic" country but a
> Republic.
>
> Thanks Jim
> New to Netscape so I can not send the attachment I wanted ...
Technology in school is a controversial issue and could take up a thread
of its own. In any case it's not to be dismissed lightly. In fact, most
of the above is taking the issues far too lightly.
-lloyd
J. Iscariot
James A. Donald wrote:
> > This is factually wrong, and if you attempted this definition on a political
> > science test, you would flunk the question. Socialism is the collective
> > ownership and control of the means of production.
> Which is collectivistic, and in practice necessarily requires
> conformity enforced by terror in order to work effectively.
Ever try comparing socialism to a company? Both collective? Yes.
In one brand of "socialism", if you don't work, they throw you
in jail, but they still feed you. If one kind of company, if you
don't work, they fire you, but they still put you on welfare. Is
capitalist unemployment as terrifying as socialist incarceration?
Well, depends on the state of capitalist welfare and socialist
jails.
J. Iscariot
> > On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:24:05 -0800, James Doemer <big...@provide.net>
> > wrote:
> > >> Actually, the problem is not that the wealthy can spend more on their
> > >> own campaigns, since becoming a lawmaker is not really a useful end in
> > >> and of itself. The problem is that lawmakers have too much power over
> > >> the average person's life -- and that is what makes becoming a lawmaker
> > >> valuable to the rich.
> > >legislators seats, the more attractive they become to the rich, and the
> > >more the rich strive to farther power in those seats! Bravo!! Somone
> > >finally gets it!!
> > >Reduce the Government's power, and you reduce their interest in the
> > >offices.
Typical supply-side idiot's excuse to keep the rich rich:
"If they're out of water in New Mexico, hey, let's flood
Arizona with water and some of it will flow to New Mexico!"
"Let's cut government to decrease campaign contributions!
Yeah, that's it! We all know that actually getting rid of
campaign contributions won't work NEARLY as well! -- Why?
...oh, err... ask that other guy, I haven't finished
reading up on all this yet -- it's called Excuses of the
Rich... good stuff."
Steve Kangas
James A. Donald wrote:
>
> David Salvador Flores wrote:
> > > > The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
> > > > socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
> > > > democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
> > > > collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
> > > > Lenin and Stalin.
>
> > This is factually wrong, and if you attempted this definition on a political
> > science test, you would flunk the question. Socialism is the collective
> > ownership and control of the means of production.
>
> Which is collectivistic, and in practice necessarily requires
> conformity enforced by terror in order to work effectively.
Nonsense. There are countless firms in the U.S. that are worker-owned,
and they do not practice terror and bloodshed. Hell, even at my alma-mater,
the University of California - Santa Cruz, there was a university restaurant
that was owned for 15 years by student employees; it was very successful,
profitable, popular and self-supporting. Students actually competed to
work there, because it had great worker benefits. And the last I noticed,
there were no rivers of blood flowing from its doors. :-)
Can such socialism work at a national level? We don't know, because it's
never been tried. (Forget the example of Spain -- that was only a brief and
partial attempt, conducted in the middle of a civil war. You can't assess
systems that receive dramatically sub-standard starts, and are crushed by
the very wars they occur in. Besides, that was only one variant of socialism:
anarcho-socialism.)
> > A great many on the far right confuse socialism for central planning.
>
> Not to mention a great many on the center, the left, and the far left.
Name me a single leftist scholar who advocates dictatorship.
> > This is a basic fallacy. Generally, there are two types of socialism.
> > Social democracy allows workers to vote on their supervisors, their
> > company policy, and industry representatives to regional and national
> > congresses.
>
> They tried that one in Catalonia.
>
> The workers got to control the seating in the Cafeteria. The General
> Council got to control what was produced and how it was produced and
> to enforce its will at gunpoint.
>
> What you are referring to is called guild socialism or syndicalism or
> national syndicalism.
Boy, are you confused. Here are the dictionary definitions of several
types of socialism and anarchism, as defined by socialists and anarchists
themselves:
Anarchism (mutualist): A proposed socialist economic system calling for
businesses to be owned and controlled by employees, not private capitalist
individuals. These businesses would then compete on the free market,
without a central government.
Anarchism (social): A proposed classless, stateless socialist society of
directly democratic self-governing communities and workplaces freely united
in a confederation by a system of mandated, recallable delegates. Decisions
flow from the bottom up and are based upon intensive discussion by those
affected by them. Production is for use, not profit, and the community owns and
workers control the means of production. Anarchists think that direct
democracy within voluntary associations and the abolition of wage slavery is
the best way to maximize individual liberty.
Anarcho-capitalism: A proposed economic system calling for an anarchic society
with sovereign individual property rights and a capitalist free market. Any
public services that are deemed valuable, such as law enforcement, would be
privatized.
Anarcho-socialism: A term which broadly refers to anarchism (social) and
anarchism (mutualist). Most anarcho-socialists deem the term redundant, however,
and prefer to be called "anarchists," not "anarcho-socialists." This is
because they believe that the only true anarchy is socialist, and the only
true socialism is anarchic. However, it remains a useful term, because it
distinguishes them from others who, right or wrong, also consider themselves
anarchists and socialists: for example, anarcho-capitalists and
social democrats.
Anarcho-syndicalism: A political philosophy that proposes that workers
organise into decentralised, self-governing workplace and community organisations
to take over and run the means of production and create a left-libertarian
society. Heavily influenced by social anarchist ideas.
Social democracy: The most commonly proposed form of socialism, calling for
worker ownership of the means of production and centralized democratic
government. In democratic elections, workers would vote for 1) their supervisors,
2) their representatives to a local and national council of their industry or
service, and 3) their representatives to a central congress representing all the
industries and services.
Socialism: A proposed economic system in which workers, not private capitalist
individuals, own and control the means of production. (This includes factories,
stores, farmland, machinery, etc.) Not to be confused with the "socialism"
nominally practiced by the Soviet Union, which was no more than a dictatorship
over workers by a ruling elite. True socialism on a national level has never been
tried anywhere in the world. (It is sometimes practices at the company level,
with employee-owned firms.) Socialism has been proposed in many forms, ranging
from anarcho-socialism to social democracy. However, in those variants where
socialism advocates a centralized government, that government is always democratic.
> For the real story on how it turned out in practice, try my web page
> http://www.jim.com/jamesd/cat/blood.htm
As a liberal (read: democratic capitalist), I am not concerned with defending
anarchism, either left or right. I personally believe that anarchy
quickly leads to the strong subjugating the weak, and this is as true
of right libertarianism as it is of left libertarianism. My point in all
this is that the far right has no grounds for confusing socialism
with central planning, and that the example of wartime Spain is not
terribly convincing as to how large-scale socialism might work,
given the extreme circumstances and obstacles of the time.
> > The mere existence of an ideology called "anarcho-socialism" is very
> > problematic for the far right, since it refutes their belief that
> > socialism is automatically defined as Big Government.
>
> And the mere existence of an ideology that involves free soup falling
> from the sky, and everyone living in a big house full of servants,
> including the servants, poses a similar problem.
Amusingly inconsistent. You seem to claim that theory doesn't matter --
that anarcho-socialists who believe in no government will actually end
up practicing centralized government. But when the same criticisms
are levelled against right-wing anarchists -- namely, that the
historical record shows that monopolies quickly rise in unregulated
markets -- you cry foul. Grow some consistency, guy. People will admire
you for it.
> If people are free to pursue their own happiness, then some will
> succeed a whole lot better than others.
Oh, now we descend to pious platitudes. And I was just beginning to
enjoy the more intellectual debate you offered above, one of the few
actually interesting commentaries I've seen from James Donald in a
long time. Apparently the intellectual effort is too strenuous to sustain.
> If people are not free to pursue their own happiness, a handfull of
> all powerful masters must control them with the baton in the face and
> the gun to the head.
I am sure you got all choked up when you wrote these self-righteous words,
too. Here's another anti-democratic quote that you should agree with:
"By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the
numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of
majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature…"
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
David Salvador Flores
In article <32f23f0f...@news.island.net>,
John Corman <jco...@island.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:50:32 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
>(David Salvador Flores) wrote:
>>The term "Democratic Capitalism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
>>capitalism, you discover that there is no way it can be
>>democratic. Capitalism by definition concentrates wealth and
>>power in the hands of a few and thus dilutes the political
>>Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of Lenin and Stalin.
>You're making the assumption that under capitalism only a few are
>capable of creating wealth. That's the socialists few of things.
>That is that there is a finite amount of jobs and wealth so the only
>solution is to take from someone else.
>If you take the other position that only the handicapped are incapable
>of creating wealth, then its no contest as to which model is
>democratic.
>
>John Corman ******** jco...@island.net
You're not seriously suggesting that in Capitalist societies
wealth is distributed evenly among the whole population are you?
If so that's apretty silly claim. As for you reasing of my post,
no, I'm not suggesting what you seem to think I am. You should
try re-reading with a view to understanding.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <32f2a209...@news.inetworld.net>, <r...@inetworld.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:28:44 GMT, jpl...@wwdc.com (Jack Plant) wrote:
>
>>"H. Mencken" <c...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
[deletia]
>My, you are naive, aren't you? Does everyone in the "Freedom Party"
>hold views that are as far removed from reality as yours?
Probably.
>
>=Bob
>
>
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <5ctp52$1...@nntp1.best.com>,
>>socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
>>democratic.
>
>Well to be strictly correct, the Ukraine is clearly still socialist,
>and it has clearly been democratic for a while.
Careful with the attributions there James, I did not say that.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970203...@merak.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
[deletia]
>Highly subjective stuff, this. What kind of "social engineering" are you
>thinking about at this point of the middle class social control program
>that's been going on since the 18th century (in Canada)? For example, is
>"science" social engineering? And if it is, why isn't "reading, writing
>and math"?
Probably because science teaches that the Earth is round and not flat.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <32F409...@earthlink.net>,
Vecher <mcfar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Sam Hall wrote:
>>
[deletia]
>Blaming the rich person for the mistakes of the masses, dumbed down by
>Goals 2000, OBE and social engineering within the educational system is
>just crap.
Of course, claiming that the politically active masses have been
dumbed down by OBE and Goals 2000 is pretty stupid too, given that
these programs' "victims" are only about five years old today.
You wouldn't happen to be five years old would you?
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <5d320f$8...@news.inforamp.net>,
crs1198 <crs...@inforamp.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 18:00:34 -0800, "H. Mencken" <c...@geocities.com>
>
>>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>>> >The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
>>> >socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
>>> >Lenin and Stalin.
>
>Conformity is *such* a terrible thing too! Imagine having to obey the
>law when driving! Who the hell do these guys think they are telling
>*you* to pay attention to traffic lights?
Jeez, look what happens when I leave a thread unattended for just a few
days... all the attributions get screwed up.
I did not say what I'm quoted as saying above. I challenged it.
-Dave
David Salvador Flores
In article <32F559...@scruznet.com>,
Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> > The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
>> > socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
>> > democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
>> > collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
>> > Lenin and Stalin.
>
>science test, you would flunk the question. Socialism is the collective
And I'd kick the ass of the guy who put my name on the test, too.
Aaaaaaarrrrgh! Once again, somehow the above quote was mistakenly
attributed to yours truly. I did not write it. I challenged it.
-Dave
Clayton E. Cramer
J. Iscariot wrote:
> Ever try comparing socialism to a company? Both collective? Yes.
> In one brand of "socialism", if you don't work, they throw you
> in jail, but they still feed you. If one kind of company, if you
> don't work, they fire you, but they still put you on welfare. Is
> capitalist unemployment as terrifying as socialist incarceration?
> Well, depends on the state of capitalist welfare and socialist
> jails.
Why do you go on welfare? Jobs are in plentiful supply; the
problem is a shortage of workers.
Clayton E. Cramer
J. Iscariot wrote:
> Typical supply-side idiot's excuse to keep the rich rich:
> "If they're out of water in New Mexico, hey, let's flood
> Arizona with water and some of it will flow to New Mexico!"
> "Let's cut government to decrease campaign contributions!
> Yeah, that's it! We all know that actually getting rid of
> campaign contributions won't work NEARLY as well! -- Why?
How do you get rid of them? We've tried that in California,
and the courts, at the request of liberals like Senator
Feinstein, have insisted that this violates the guarantee
of free speech.
James A. Donald
"J. Iscariot" <c...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Ever try comparing socialism to a company? Both collective? Yes.
>In one brand of "socialism", if you don't work, they throw you
>in jail, but they still feed you. If one kind of company, if you
>don't work, they fire you,
Difference is that I am free to join another company, or start my own,
so the company has only limited power over me, whereas those kindly
benevolent socialist do gooders seek total, absolute and unlimited
power over me.
Such power often proves fatal to the recipients of this vast
benevolence.
James A. Donald
Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
> There are countless firms in the U.S. that are worker-owned,
> and they do not practice terror and bloodshed.
"There are countless". Indeed there are.
But if there was only one, and it owned everything, so that its
wonderful socialist benevolence would not be constrained by the
competitive pressures of the free market, then it would commit terror
and bloodshed.
> Can such socialism work at a national level? We don't know, because it's
> never been tried.
What does "At the national level" mean?
If it means "a free market economy with lots of worker owned firms
freely competing", then of course it can work. The form of ownership
makes little difference, as we can clearly see from existing worker
owned firms. And that is precisely what makes socialists unhappy with
existing worker owned firms.
But if "At the national level" means "Let us do away with the free
market with all that nasty cutthroat competition and have some
national coordination", then we have seen that before many times,
usually accompanied by rivers of blood, and always accompanied by
heavy handed repression by these benevolent coordinators.
> My point in all
> this is that the far right has no grounds for confusing socialism
> with central planning,
Then why do you need this general committee elected by the workers to
run the whole economy, that you proposed? Sounds to me like yet
another euphemism for the usual dictatorship of the proletariat. I
have seen more of these euphemisms than I can count.
>> > The mere existence of an ideology called "anarcho-socialism" is very
>> > problematic for the far right, since it refutes their belief that
>> > socialism is automatically defined as Big Government.
>> And the mere existence of an ideology that involves free soup falling
>> from the sky, and everyone living in a big house full of servants,
>> including the servants, poses a similar problem.
> Amusingly inconsistent. You seem to claim that theory doesn't matter --
A theory that apples fall up will not stop apples from falling down.
> that anarcho-socialists who believe in no government will actually end
> up practicing centralized government.
As indeed they did. In 1936 They found that they had to choose
between capitalism and statism, and for the most part they chose
statism because they hated capitalism.
> But when the same criticisms
> are levelled against right-wing anarchists -- namely, that the
> historical record shows that monopolies quickly rise in unregulated
> markets -- you cry foul.
No: We cry LIAR!
There are no examples of monopolies arising in unregulated markets, at
least no examples of any monopolies that were able to successfully
exercise any substantial market power.
This one of the many prophecies of Marx that conspicuously and
spectacularly failed to come true.
Mike Wooding
Steve Kangas wrote:
> David Salvador Flores wrote:
> > > The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
> > > socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
> > > democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
> > > collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
> > > Lenin and Stalin.
>
> This is factually wrong, and if you attempted this definition on a political
> science test, you would flunk the question. Socialism is the collective
> *everybody* -- not a dictator, not a ruling elite, not a central planning
> committee, but everybody. The only way to do this is to give every person
> one vote. Socialism is thus ALWAYS democratic. Anything else is non-socialist
> BY DEFINITION.
And if you attempt this silliness in reality ... ooooooooops?
The collective simply cannot handle all the detail of managing
the means of production. So instead they must "appoint" managers.
This inevitably leads to the sorts of "management" exhibited by
Adolf, Mao, PolPot, Lenin/Stalin/Kruschev/Breshnev/et al etc..
Think carefully. Do you want your food productions made by the
same people/process who/which "collectively" make the decisions
on public education?
Socialism may or not always be democratic, but it is still the
same ugly beast!
> A great many on the far right confuse socialism for central planning.
> This is a basic fallacy. Generally, there are two types of socialism.
> Social democracy allows workers to vote on their supervisors, their
> company policy, and industry representatives to regional and national
> congresses. Anarcho-socialism allows workers to vote on their supervisors
> and company policies, but nothing more; these firms then compete (or
> cooperate) on the free market, absent any central government at all.
> The mere existence of an ideology called "anarcho-socialism" is very
> problematic for the far right, since it refutes their belief that
> socialism is automatically defined as Big Government.
It is not a fallacy. It IS a fact. It is simply impossible for
the collective to control the means of production without central
planning. The ONLY alternative is distributed decision making.
I.e. I do my own planning, you do yours. Where our interests
overlap we negotiate. Only when ALL's interests overlap does the
collective (ALL of us) decide. No?
> Political scientists generally reject the idea that the Soviet Union
> practiced true socialism, despite its use (and abuse) of the socialist
> name. Workers are not in control of anything when a dictator tells them
> what to do. It is an absurdism to believe that society has "collective"
> control over the means of production when only one person does. This is
> an indisputable error of logic.
Then I'd argue that political scientists are much more political
than scientists. In fact, as near as I can tell, there's no science
in politics. Rather it is more akin to the black arts. :-(
> I am amazed at how often "socialism" gets misdefined by the conservatives
> and libertarians on the newsgroups. And it depresses me that even basic
> political terms are misunderstood and re-interpreted in ways that bear
> no resemblance to the original. Obviously, people use terms to score
> political points, and in the process pervert the meaning of words. But
> if we are to engage in meaningful debate, we must use accurate
> terminology.
I understand it perfectly. It seems only socialists don't understand
socialism, else they couldn't possibly propose it and keep a straight
face!
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Mike Wooding
Steve Kangas wrote:
> Nonsense. There are countless firms in the U.S. that are worker-owned,
> and they do not practice terror and bloodshed. Hell, even at my alma-mater,
> the University of California - Santa Cruz, there was a university restaurant
> that was owned for 15 years by student employees; it was very successful,
> profitable, popular and self-supporting. Students actually competed to
> work there, because it had great worker benefits. And the last I noticed,
> there were no rivers of blood flowing from its doors. :-)
I doubt countless, but yes indeed, there are worker owned firms.
Note carefully, that management-wise they differ very little from
non-worker owned companies (NWOC)! If one fails to conform with
company policy one is still disciplined/terminated the same, worker
owned companies pay roughly the same as the NWOC. The management
structure is more or less the same. And they don't seem to have
anymore competitive advantage than the NWOCs.
BTW - this is free market capitalism. I.e. anyone in these WOCs
may leave whenever it suits them. And indeed they do.
> Can such socialism work at a national level? We don't know, because it's
> never been tried. (Forget the example of Spain -- that was only a brief and
> partial attempt, conducted in the middle of a civil war. You can't assess
> systems that receive dramatically sub-standard starts, and are crushed by
> the very wars they occur in. Besides, that was only one variant of socialism:
> anarcho-socialism.)
Absolutely NOT. We do know this! Weknow this because we know that
"collectively" we cannot even make prudent/proper/necessary fiduciary
decisions. I.e. we cannot even manage the gov't!
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Steve Kangas
James A. Donald wrote:
>
> Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
> > There are countless firms in the U.S. that are worker-owned,
> > and they do not practice terror and bloodshed.
>
I am surprised you would resort to this cheap shot, especially
after I provided an example.
> But if there was only one, and it owned everything, so that its
> wonderful socialist benevolence would not be constrained by the
> competitive pressures of the free market, then it would commit terror
> and bloodshed.
How do you know?
> > Can such socialism work at a national level? We don't know, because it's
> > never been tried.
>
> What does "At the national level" mean?
There is no deep mystery here: the entire nation practices socialism.
Now, this might happen in any number of different forms: anarcho-socialism,
guild socialism, social democracy, whatever.
The only candidate of a real world example you have is 1936 Spain -- which
occurred in the middle of a brutal civil war, and was ultimately crushed
by its enemies. Not exactly laboratory conditions to examine the workability
of socialism. Furthermore, it was only one type of socialism.
> If it means "a free market economy with lots of worker owned firms
> freely competing", then of course it can work. The form of ownership
> makes little difference, as we can clearly see from existing worker
> owned firms. And that is precisely what makes socialists unhappy with
> existing worker owned firms.
Well, I must admit I am shocked to see you advocate at least one
form of socialism. Apparently you are more of an "anarchist" than a
capitalist or socialist. Interesting.
Again, I have no interest defending socialism, in that I am not a
socialist. But I think it strange that you would equate socialism
with big government when you acknowledge the existence of
anarcho-socialism.
> But if "At the national level" means "Let us do away with the free
> market with all that nasty cutthroat competition and have some
> national coordination", then we have seen that before many times,
> usually accompanied by rivers of blood, and always accompanied by
> heavy handed repression by these benevolent coordinators.
Historical example, please?
> > My point in all
> > this is that the far right has no grounds for confusing socialism
> > with central planning,
>
> Then why do you need this general committee elected by the workers to
> run the whole economy, that you proposed? Sounds to me like yet
> another euphemism for the usual dictatorship of the proletariat. I
> have seen more of these euphemisms than I can count.
Let me dispel your confusion. In the "pseudo-socialist" country, a
dictator like Stalin sets up a "worker's council" and orders workers
what to do. Lots of historical examples of this type of tyranny, complete
with aforementioned inefficiency and rivers of blood.
In a real socialist country, workers would elect their representatives,
vote on the major policy proposals, and instantly recall their representatives
if they do not carry out the will of the people. No examples of this at all
from history, let alone the aforementioned rivers of blood.
So I repeat: how do you know what the result of a real socialist economy
would be?
> >> > The mere existence of an ideology called "anarcho-socialism" is very
> >> > problematic for the far right, since it refutes their belief that
> >> > socialism is automatically defined as Big Government.
>
> >> And the mere existence of an ideology that involves free soup falling
> >> from the sky, and everyone living in a big house full of servants,
> >> including the servants, poses a similar problem.
>
> > Amusingly inconsistent. You seem to claim that theory doesn't matter --
>
> A theory that apples fall up will not stop apples from falling down.
Yet you yourself admitted just a few paragraphs ago that worker-owned
companies can function on the free market. You need to resolve your
indecision between theory vs. reality.
> > that anarcho-socialists who believe in no government will actually end
> > up practicing centralized government.
>
> As indeed they did. In 1936 They found that they had to choose
> between capitalism and statism, and for the most part they chose
> statism because they hated capitalism.
But up above you said worker-owned companies can operate on a free market.
Which is it?
> > But when the same criticisms
> > are levelled against right-wing anarchists -- namely, that the
> > historical record shows that monopolies quickly rise in unregulated
> > markets -- you cry foul.
>
> No: We cry LIAR!
>
> There are no examples of monopolies arising in unregulated markets, at
> least no examples of any monopolies that were able to successfully
> exercise any substantial market power.
False. The more unregulated economies are, the more monopolies rise in them.
Deregulation has always been accompanied by market centralization and
monopolization, and it doesn't take too much imagination to know what
would happen if we kept deregulating all the way to anarchy. Of course,
you could disingenuously claim that "there are no examples" of monopolies
rising in unregulated markets, because there are no examples of 100 percent
unregulated markets. But this doesn't explain the correlation between
deregulation and market centralization.
Here is an excerpt from my website that touches on the history of monopolies,
located at http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-ausmon.htm
_____________________
The height of monopoly growth and abuse in the U.S. coincided with
its greatest period of laissez-faire, or government nonintervention
in the market. Known as the Gilded Age (the period between the Civil
War and World War I), this period saw the phenomenal rise of the
Robber Barons and their great trusts (monopolies). John D. Rockefeller
monopolized oil under his Standard Oil Company; J.P. Morgan dominated
finance; Andrew Carnegie, steel; James Hill, railroads. Historians
have well chronicled the ruthlessness of these men -- Morgan once
remarked that "I don't know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I
cannot do. I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do."
Rockefeller's father once boasted that "I cheat my boys every
chance I get, I want to make 'em sharp." These men lived for market
conquest, and plotted takeovers like military strategy.
In the late 19th century, trusts formed also in wheat, fruit, meat,
salt, sugar refining, lumber, electrical power, rubber, nickel, paper,
lead, gypsum, iron, cottonseed oil, linseed oil, whiskey distilling,
cord manufacture -- and many others. Once a trust emerged, it
would raise its prices and drop its quality of service, as well as
engage in unfair trading practices that drove other firms out of
business. The abuses of these monopolies became so great that they
became a national scandal. So deep was antitrust sentiment that when
both houses of Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890,
there was only a single dissenting vote! (2) But U.S. presidents
did not bother to enforce it, and the monopoly problem continued to
worsen.
The worst period of monopoly formation was between 1898 and 1902.
Prior to this, there was an average of 46 major industrial
mergers a year. But after 1898, this soared to 531 a year. (3)
By 1904, the top 4 percent of American businesses produced 57
percent of America's total industrial production, and a single
firm would dominate at least 60 percent of production in 50 different
industries. (4) The power of these monopolies easily dwarfed the
governments that oversaw them. As early as 1888, a Boston railroad
company had gross receipts of $40 million, whereas the entire
Commonwealth of Massachusetts had receipts of only $7 million. (5)
And when Rockefeller, Carnegie and Morgan united in 1901 to create
U.S. Steel, the result was an international
sensation. Cosmopolitan magazine wrote:
"The world, on the 3rd day of March, 1901, ceased to be
ruled by… so-called statesmen. True, there were marionettes still
figuring in Congress and as kings. But they were in place
simply to carry out the orders of the world's real rulers -- those
who controlled the concentrated portion of the money supply." (6)
The role of government in all this was to stand back and let this
market process happen. It wasn't until Teddy Roosevelt launched
his great "trust-busting" campaign in 1902 that this process was
reversed. Actual enforcement of the Sherman Act reduced
monopolies until the Roaring 20s, when laissez-faire policies
again returned to Washington. Over that decade, about 1,200
mergers swallowed up more than 6,000 previously independent
companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations controlled over half of
all American industry. (7) The New Deal era ushered in yet
another era of antitrust policy, again reducing the percentage of
monopolies. This was followed by the Reagan era, a period which
saw both massive deregulation and another frenzy of mergers
and takeovers. In 1988, Federal Trade Commissioner Andrew Strenio
remarked: "Since Fiscal Year 1980, there has been a drop of
more than 40 percent in the work years allocated to antitrust
enforcement. In the same period, merger filings skyrocketed to more
than 320 percent of their Fiscal Year 1980 level." (8)
_____________________
>
> This one of the many prophecies of Marx that conspicuously and
> spectacularly failed to come true.
I would argue that you are either completely ignorant of the historical data
on monopolies, or have twisted the data so egregiously to suit your
political beliefs that it no longer represents reality.
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Steve Kangas
Mike Wooding wrote:
>
> Steve Kangas wrote:
> > David Salvador Flores wrote:
> > > > The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
> > > > socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
> > > > democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
> > > > collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
> > > > Lenin and Stalin.
> >
> > This is factually wrong, and if you attempted this definition on a political
> > science test, you would flunk the question. Socialism is the collective
> > ownership and control of the means of production. And collective means
> > *everybody* -- not a dictator, not a ruling elite, not a central planning
> > committee, but everybody. The only way to do this is to give every person
> > one vote. Socialism is thus ALWAYS democratic. Anything else is non-socialist
> > BY DEFINITION.
>
> And if you attempt this silliness in reality ... ooooooooops?
> The collective simply cannot handle all the detail of managing
> the means of production. So instead they must "appoint" managers.
> This inevitably leads to the sorts of "management" exhibited by
> Adolf, Mao, PolPot, Lenin/Stalin/Kruschev/Breshnev/et al etc..
>
> Think carefully. Do you want your food productions made by the
> same people/process who/which "collectively" make the decisions
> on public education?
Wow. Your misconception of socialism is amazing. What I find so tragic is that
someone who understands it so poorly would be so outraged by it. Anger
is a right you have to earn through education.
But anyway, let me expand your horizons. Socialism comes in many forms.
One of the many variables is what type of democracy it is. Some variants
of socialism propose direct democracy, much like you suggest above. And
this approach is criticized even by mainstream socialists themselves, for
the same reasons you criticize it. But the most popular variants of socialism
call for representative democracy. Your supervisor is delegated by his
workers to organize and lead, but only with the permission of the workers.
Once the majority of workers becomes dissatisfied with him, he can be
instantly recalled and replaced.
It goes without saying that this is merely a Republican form of government,
only now applied to the workplace. The United States has had a successful
220-year history with its republic, and nothing in it has led to dictatorship
or the total loss of control by the voter. So what socialists are proposing
is not as radical or as untried as you think. Furthermore, your example of
Stalin "delegating" himself the authority of the collective is inappropriate,
because the workers obviously did not have the same control over Stalin that
we have over our representatives.
And we should keep in mind that there is actually a spectrum of democracy,
with direct democracy on one end, and republicanism on the other. Too
far in the direction of direct democracy, and decision making becomes
unwieldy, just like you said. Too much in the direction of republicanism,
(for example, 20-year election terms) and legislators begin resembling dictators
more than representatives. So you have to strike a balance, one that
neither overwhelms the voter nor allows legislators to escape the
will of the people. Critics of U.S. democracy argue that it has gone
too far in the direction of republicanism; Europe is slightly more
direct than ours is, and they have much better functioning governments.
So that, in a nutshell, is socialism.
> Socialism may or not always be democratic, but it is still the
> same ugly beast!
Socialism is always democratic. If it deteriorates to something else, like
dictatorship, then it is something else. But this is unlikely, given the fact
that political republics last for centuries without transforming into
dictatorships.
> > A great many on the far right confuse socialism for central planning.
> > This is a basic fallacy. Generally, there are two types of socialism.
> > Social democracy allows workers to vote on their supervisors, their
> > company policy, and industry representatives to regional and national
> > congresses. Anarcho-socialism allows workers to vote on their supervisors
> > and company policies, but nothing more; these firms then compete (or
> > cooperate) on the free market, absent any central government at all.
> > The mere existence of an ideology called "anarcho-socialism" is very
> > problematic for the far right, since it refutes their belief that
> > socialism is automatically defined as Big Government.
>
> It is not a fallacy. It IS a fact. It is simply impossible for
> the collective to control the means of production without central
> planning. The ONLY alternative is distributed decision making.
> I.e. I do my own planning, you do yours. Where our interests
> overlap we negotiate. Only when ALL's interests overlap does the
> collective (ALL of us) decide. No?
Now that you see your strawman, does this argument seem as appropriate
to you?
> > Political scientists generally reject the idea that the Soviet Union
> > practiced true socialism, despite its use (and abuse) of the socialist
> > name. Workers are not in control of anything when a dictator tells them
> > what to do. It is an absurdism to believe that society has "collective"
> > control over the means of production when only one person does. This is
> > an indisputable error of logic.
>
> Then I'd argue that political scientists are much more political
> than scientists. In fact, as near as I can tell, there's no science
> in politics. Rather it is more akin to the black arts. :-(
Well, THAT is an ignorant statement. The statisticians constructing the
Correlates of War would be highly amused by your claim.
If you think that behaviorial laws, generalizations, correlations, principles
and theorems cannot be distilled from the study of society, then you must
be illiterate in the field. Hell, trying wading through the math of
The Bell Curve, or any of its rebuttals.
> > I am amazed at how often "socialism" gets misdefined by the conservatives
> > and libertarians on the newsgroups. And it depresses me that even basic
> > political terms are misunderstood and re-interpreted in ways that bear
> > no resemblance to the original. Obviously, people use terms to score
> > political points, and in the process pervert the meaning of words. But
> > if we are to engage in meaningful debate, we must use accurate
> > terminology.
>
> I understand it perfectly. It seems only socialists don't understand
> socialism, else they couldn't possibly propose it and keep a straight
> face!
You understood only your cardboard caricature of socialism. That
is why it seemed so improbable to you.
> mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Lloyd Lawrence
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
> J. Iscariot wrote:
> > Ever try comparing socialism to a company? Both collective? Yes.
> > In one brand of "socialism", if you don't work, they throw you
> > in jail, but they still feed you. If one kind of company, if you
> > capitalist unemployment as terrifying as socialist incarceration?
> > Well, depends on the state of capitalist welfare and socialist
> > jails.
>
> Why do you go on welfare? Jobs are in plentiful supply; the
> problem is a shortage of workers.
> Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane
> Communications
Is that a bit of advertising you're doing there, Clayton? Looking for
employees? How about if all of us in those parts of the continent where
jobs are scarce move down to where you are, eh? Use up that "plentiful
supply". Well, then you'd have to find another outdated platitude to
excuse your willful ignorance, like maybe, "There's plenty of courses to
train you in the skills you need to get the jobs that haven't been
filled". Or is that too long an inanity for you. It doesn't slip easily
off your tongue like the ones above. Well then, try: "You can always find
something; there's always paid work somewhere". For example: work in
fastfood, or office-cleaning, or leaflet distributing, or errand-running,
or sewage-shovelling, or any degrading, low-paid, dead-end,
self-perpetuating, disempowering, demoralising situation that serves
people like yourself who can't even relate to being in such a totally
defeated state. Might as well be on welfare.
By the way, did I get the job?
-lloyd
Steve Kangas
Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
>
> Why do you go on welfare? Jobs are in plentiful supply; the
> problem is a shortage of workers.
Arrgh! Economic ignorance in action.
FYI, the Fed intentionally keeps a 5-6 percent unemployment rate.
When it starts to go below that, inflation starts overheating
the economy, and the Fed has to tighten the money supply to
raise unemployment and bring inflation back in line.
In short, there are 8 million people out there seeking jobs who cannot
get one due to the Fed's intentional policy. What do you propose
to do? Expand the money supply to high heaven, drop the unemployment
rate to zero, and create seven-digit hyper-inflation?
Dope.
> Clayton E. Cramer
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
r...@inetworld.net
On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 16:27:20 GMT, jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
wrote:
>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> > > The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
>> > > socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
>> > > democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
>> > > collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
>> > > Lenin and Stalin.
>
>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>> This is factually wrong, and if you attempted this definition on a political
>> science test, you would flunk the question. Socialism is the collective
>> ownership and control of the means of production.
>
>Which is collectivistic, and in practice necessarily requires
>conformity enforced by terror in order to work effectively.
Under your opinion of human nature. But then again, opinions are like
assholes; everyone has one and they pretty much put out the same stuff
every day.
>What you are referring to is called guild socialism or syndicalism or
>national syndicalism.
You really have no idea what syndicalism is, do you?
>
>For the real story on how it turned out in practice, try my web page
>http://www.jim.com/jamesd/cat/blood.htm
Oh, now there's a great reference. If you don't believe my opinion,
read my website, which is full of my opinions. I mean really.
=Bob
John Corman
================================================
Not only am I not suggesting it, I don't even want it to be true. I
am very content in knowing that there are some out there who work very
hard and achieve great wealth. You suggest that is not democratic. I
take issue with that since I have every right to the same if it suits
me.
Socialism attempts to deprive me of that opportunity or at best,
attempts to stifle it.
John Corman ******** jco...@island.net
Derek Nalecki
In article <32F559...@scruznet.com>, Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> says:
>
>David Salvador Flores wrote:
>> > The term "democratic socialism" is an oxymoron. If you analyze
>> > socialism, you discover that there is no way it can ever be
>> > democratic. Socialism by definition demands conformity and is
>> > collectivistic, just like Hitler's Third Reich or the Soviet Uniion of
>> > Lenin and Stalin.
>
>science test, you would flunk the question. Socialism is the collective
>*everybody* -- not a dictator, not a ruling elite, not a central planning
>committee, but everybody. The only way to do this is to give every person
>one vote. Socialism is thus ALWAYS democratic. Anything else is non-socialist
>BY DEFINITION.
>
"
'Something everybody owns, nobody owns,' Mykhyl objected.
'Oh, no, Mykhyl; it will belong to everybody,' Khreggor told him
earnestly. 'But somebody will have to take care of it for everybody. That,'
he added complacently, 'will be you and me and the rest of us here'.
'I believe,' Yakoop said, almost smiling, 'that this ... is going to be
a wonderfull thing. For us'
"
A conversation among nascent apparatchicks.
H. Beam Piper "A Slave is a Slave".
Thank you for the definition of socialism. I do not see any difference
between that definition and the reality of Soviet Union or the Third
Reich. Nor between the former and any definition of socialism I have
offred. But if you'd rather have you very own definition....
derek n, RdNck, Pen-Arm of the Righteous, esq.
"Never initiate force against another. _That_ should be the underlying
principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate
without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are
sure that he will never wish to harm - or never be capable of harming
- you or yours again."
(F. Paul Wilson - 'THE SECOND BOOK OF KYFHO; Revised Eastern Sect Edition')
********************* MY OTHER COMPUTER IS A LAP-TOP *******************
Clayton E. Cramer
Steve Kangas wrote:
>
> Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
>
> >
> > Why do you go on welfare? Jobs are in plentiful supply; the
> > problem is a shortage of workers.
>
> Arrgh! Economic ignorance in action.
>
> FYI, the Fed intentionally keeps a 5-6 percent unemployment rate.
> When it starts to go below that, inflation starts overheating
> the economy, and the Fed has to tighten the money supply to
> raise unemployment and bring inflation back in line.
>
> In short, there are 8 million people out there seeking jobs who cannot
> get one due to the Fed's intentional policy. What do you propose
> to do? Expand the money supply to high heaven, drop the unemployment
> rate to zero, and create seven-digit hyper-inflation?
>
> Dope.
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. The NAIRU
is based on frictional unemployment -- people out of work for short
periods of time between jobs. This is hardly a problem, and often
not even a serious problem for those who are unemployed.
The structural unemployment problem is quite different, and very
serious. But most of the structural unemployment doesn't show up
in the unemployment rate.
This may be a disapointment to the professional whiners like Mr.
Kangas, but the major problem in this country isn't unemployment
that is related to keeping inflation under control.
There are particular segments of our society that have serious
structural unemployment problems, but that has NOTHING to do with
keeping inflation under control.
--
Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane
Communications
David Salvador Flores
In article <32f7d1ac...@news.island.net>,
John Corman <jco...@island.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:56:41 GMT, ds...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU
>(David Salvador Flores) wrote:
>
>>In article <32f23f0f...@news.island.net>,
[deletia]
>================================================
>Not only am I not suggesting it, I don't even want it to be true. I
>am very content in knowing that there are some out there who work very
>hard and achieve great wealth.
And there are some who work very hard but do not acheive great wealth.
> You suggest that is not democratic.
No I don't. The amount of wealth you possess is irrelevant. *BUT*
your excess wealth will allow you to direct the political process
a great deal more than a poor man can. That's what makes the
system less than democratic.
I
>take issue with that since I have every right to the same if it suits
>me.
You don't have a right to great wealth in a Capitalist society.
You may acheive great wealth if you play your cards right and
are born with the right abilities. But there are always those
who, barring a winning lottery ticket, will never become rich,
no matter how hard they try.
>Socialism attempts to deprive me of that opportunity or at best,
>attempts to stifle it.
Socialism means many different things to many different people.
There are plenty of governments that call themselves socialist
and yet which preside over economies in which capital is largely
in private hands. Socialism, like the word "democracy" is so ill
defined that it would be better if its opponents attacked specific
legislation or economic models as opposed to the bugbear of
"socialism."
>
>John Corman ******** jco...@island.net
-Dave
Henry Blaskowski
Steve Kangas (kang...@scruznet.com) wrote:
>
> >
> > Why do you go on welfare? Jobs are in plentiful supply; the
> > problem is a shortage of workers.
>
> Arrgh! Economic ignorance in action.
>
> FYI, the Fed intentionally keeps a 5-6 percent unemployment rate.
> When it starts to go below that, inflation starts overheating
> the economy
This is funny. You accuse another of economic ignorance, and in
the very next sentence state the low unemployment causes inflation!
Please, feel free to elaborate on this theory. Explain this in the
context of what money actually is and what inflation is.
hblask
Joe
> > FYI, the Fed intentionally keeps a 5-6 percent unemployment rate.
> > When it starts to go below that, inflation starts overheating
> > raise unemployment and bring inflation back in line.
> As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. The NAIRU
> is based on frictional unemployment -- people out of work for short
> periods of time between jobs. This is hardly a problem, and often
> not even a serious problem for those who are unemployed.
> There are particular segments of our society that have serious
> structural unemployment problems, but that has NOTHING to do with
> keeping inflation under control.
Um, um, um.... I am not convinced the FED thinks the way you
do, Cramer. Can you either show to me that I'm wrong... that
the FED does think the way you do... or that your opinion
is better than the FED's?
Inquiring minds wanna know!
Joe.
Joe
> > Why do you go on welfare? Jobs are in plentiful supply; the
> > problem is a shortage of workers.
> Is that a bit of advertising you're doing there, Clayton? Looking for
> employees? How about if all of us in those parts of the continent where
> jobs are scarce move down to where you are, eh?
Probably a good idea, friend.
> Use up that "plentiful
> supply". Well, then you'd have to find another outdated platitude to
> excuse your willful ignorance, like maybe...
I infer from your post, including the parts that I deleted, that
you are unemployed right now and hurting. I am sorry that is the
case. I would like to say "I feel your pain," but if I did that
would be a bit of a lie, because you to me are just another post
in the chaotic place called usenet. But I can certainly sympathize
with your situation, as can many americans.
What I have to ask in return, however, is where on earth do you
draw the right -- where do you get the moral authority -- to physically
take my hard-earned money away from myself and use it to buy your
bread?
I have no idea what your personal situation is, and so please do
not take this as a veiled personal attack, but I am reminded
of this guy I know who works in the corner gas station near my
grandmother's house. I picked up gas there for years, and one day
out of the blue I actually had a conversation with him and learned
that he was an ex-IBM mainframe guy out of work. A little more
conversation yielded the information that he had been unemployed
for 8 years and had been sending out resumes ever since.
I do not know all of his details, but it occured to me after
speaking with him that mainframes have been 'on their way out'
for quite a long time. If retraining was his problem, he had --
and continues to have -- no one to blame but himself. By now,
for him it is probably too late. He'll likely bo doing something
like corner gas station work for a very long time.
I might also add that taking welfare would have made him no
better. No better at all.
...
Joe.
Paul Stafford
Lloyd Lawrence <umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.97020...@pollux.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
> >
> > Why do you go on welfare? Jobs are in plentiful supply; the
> > problem is a shortage of workers.
> > --
> > Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane
> > Communications
>
> Is that a bit of advertising you're doing there, Clayton? Looking for
> employees? How about if all of us in those parts of the continent where
> jobs are scarce move down to where you are, eh? Use up that "plentiful
> supply". Well, then you'd have to find another outdated platitude to
> excuse your willful ignorance, like maybe, "There's plenty of courses to
> train you in the skills you need to get the jobs that haven't been
> filled". Or is that too long an inanity for you. It doesn't slip easily
> off your tongue like the ones above. Well then, try: "You can always
find
> something; there's always paid work somewhere". For example: work in
> fastfood, or office-cleaning, or leaflet distributing, or errand-running,
> or sewage-shovelling, or any degrading, low-paid, dead-end,
> self-perpetuating, disempowering, demoralising situation that serves
> people like yourself who can't even relate to being in such a totally
> defeated state. Might as well be on welfare.
>
I bet all those rotten jobs don't even need to be done. They were just
created by the capitalists to oppress the downtrodden workers.
But seriously. What if everyone who was faced with the prospect of taking
a low-paying, dead-end job opted for welfare instead? Our society would
cease to function.
> By the way, did I get the job?
Doesn't sound like you want it. It sounds like you think yourself to be
"better" than certain kinds of work. Which, to me at least, implies that
you think yourself better than the people who actually take these jobs.
> -lloyd
>
Lloyd Lawrence
On 5 Feb 1997, Paul Stafford wrote:
> Lloyd Lawrence wrote:
Would it really. Well that would be a shame. Since you're so worried about
all those degrading occupations going to waste and creating havoc in
society, why don't YOU do them? Then nobody could cry "Unfair!" when
someone like you said "Someone's got to do it."
> > By the way, did I get the job?
>
> Doesn't sound like you want it. It sounds like you think yourself to be
> "better" than certain kinds of work. Which, to me at least, implies that
> you think yourself better than the people who actually take these jobs.
It would be difficult to find work that I consider myself too good for.
I've likely had more experience of the most demeaning kinds of work than
the average poster. But then it seems that I've had more experience of all
kinds of occupations than the average poster (if responses are anything to
go by)! I don't consider myself above average in many other ways, so it
makes me wonder what some of you did with the first half of your lives!
Maybe you spent too much time playing with computers and telling other
people how they should do the dirty work to support your elitist society.
Oh, and BTW, you're correct. I don't really want the job. I was just
following up on Clayton's bluff.
-lloyd
Steve Kangas
Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
>
> Steve Kangas wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Why do you go on welfare? Jobs are in plentiful supply; the
> > > problem is a shortage of workers.
> >
> >
> > When it starts to go below that, inflation starts overheating
> > the economy, and the Fed has to tighten the money supply to
> > raise unemployment and bring inflation back in line.
> >
> > get one due to the Fed's intentional policy. What do you propose
> > to do? Expand the money supply to high heaven, drop the unemployment
> > rate to zero, and create seven-digit hyper-inflation?
> >
> > Dope.
> > Steve Kangas
>
> is based on frictional unemployment -- people out of work for short
> periods of time between jobs. This is hardly a problem, and often
> not even a serious problem for those who are unemployed.
I'm having a hard time keeping from laughing. You've parrotted the
conservative line, and now you have to do intellectual somersaults to
reconcile all the loose ends of your argument. Let's first take a
look at the official definition of unemployment rate:
"Officially, the unemployment rate is defined as the percentage of
of the total labor force (those with jobs or seeking employment) who
do not have jobs. It does not include *discouraged workers,* those
individuals who have searched for work but have given up becuase of
a lack of opportunities." (Stephen Casler, Introduction to Economics,
p. 55.)
By this definition, the unemployment rate should include everyone seeking a
job, whether they are part of frictional, structural, cyclical or
seasonal unemployment.
Now, it is true that conservative economists attempt to define the
natural rate of unemployment (NAIRU) as only "frictional" (those
who are moving between jobs). But that leaves them in a quandary as
to where to put all the other types of unemployed people, who clearly
exist and clearly seek jobs as well. Their "solution" is to generally
ignore them, by leaving them out of the unemployment rate statistics
entirely.
Yes, there is a long and disreputable history of conservative
economists' manipulation of the unemployment rate and NAIRU. In
the final analysis, what they want is as high a NAIRU as they can get away
with, to drive down employee wages (which makes companies more profitable)
and reduces inflation (which makes their bonds more profitable.) Hence
the reason why conservatives like Alan Greenspan pride themselves for
being "inflation hawks." Dishonest discussion over what
constitutes the "unemployment rate" and "NAIRU" are part of their
agenda.
As for discouraged workers, here is a quote from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics:
"The number of discouraged workers--a subset of marginally attached
workers who were not currently looking for jobs specifically because they
believed no jobs were available for them or there were none for which they
would qualify--was 334,000 in December [96], also down slightly from a year
earlier." BLS, ftp://stats.bls.gov/pub/news.release/empsit.txt
This would tend to refute your argument that there are more jobs than
people.
> The structural unemployment problem is quite different, and very
> serious. But most of the structural unemployment doesn't show up
> in the unemployment rate.
Remarkable. Can you explain to everyone why this is so? Is one type
of unemployed person less "officially" unemployed than another?
> This may be a disapointment to the professional whiners like Mr.
> Kangas, but the major problem in this country isn't unemployment
> that is related to keeping inflation under control.
If you play games with defining unemployment, that is.
> There are particular segments of our society that have serious
> structural unemployment problems, but that has NOTHING to do with
> keeping inflation under control.
A few more rebuttals: the labor participation rate in this country
is at an all-time high. Millions who are seeking full-time work are
accepting part-time jobs because they can't find what they want.
All you need to do is visit the BLS website I've linked above and
take a tour of the statistics. Such a tour would show that your
original statement, "Jobs are in plentiful supply; the problem is
a shortage of workers" is brain-dead, and in complete ignorance
of the facts.
Steve Kangas
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>
> Steve Kangas (kang...@scruznet.com) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Why do you go on welfare? Jobs are in plentiful supply; the
> > > problem is a shortage of workers.
> >
> > Arrgh! Economic ignorance in action.
> >
> > FYI, the Fed intentionally keeps a 5-6 percent unemployment rate.
> > When it starts to go below that, inflation starts overheating
>
> This is funny. You accuse another of economic ignorance, and in
> the very next sentence state the low unemployment causes inflation!
Careful with your phrasing. I didn't say "cause." I merely presented
a correlation.
> Please, feel free to elaborate on this theory. Explain this in the
> context of what money actually is and what inflation is.
>
> hblask
I don't see the inconsistency, and don't understand why you are
confused. As a generalization, when both inflation and unemployment
are at reasonable levels, there is a trade-off between the two.
When unemployment goes down, inflation goes up. When inflation goes
down, unemployment goes up. This concept is accepted by 99.99% of
all economists.
Of course, strange things happen at the extreme ends. If inflation
turns into hyperinflation, then unemployment will eventually soar as
well, creating stagflation. This is why the Phillips Curve was found
to be unstable. But I'm talking about a normally functioning economy.
Maybe you misread my words, or I wasn't clear. But I would be
very surprised if you found this bit of Econ 101 to be controversial.
Given your request to define "money" and "inflation," however, I
suspect you are one of those Austrian nuts or gold bugs who push
crank economic theories. I won't bother with you here, although these
are issues I have tackled in the following essays, if you'd like my
positions on these issues:
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-gold.htm
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm
Steve Kangas
"Because economics touches so much of life, everyone wants
to have an opinion. Yet the kind of economics covered in the
textbooks is a technical subject that many people find hard
to follow. How reassuring, then, to be told that it is all
irrelevant -- that all you really need to know are a few simple
ideas! Quite a few supply-siders have created for themselves
a wonderful alternative intellectual history in which John Maynard
Keynes was a fraud, Paul Samuelson and even Milton Friedman are
fools, and the true line of deep economic thought runs from
Adam Smith through obscure turn-of-the-century Austrians straight
to them."
-- Paul Krugman, Slate
Steve Kangas
Mike Wooding
Steve Kangas wrote:
> Mike Wooding wrote:
> > And if you attempt this silliness in reality ... ooooooooops?
> > The collective simply cannot handle all the detail of managing
> > the means of production. So instead they must "appoint" managers.
> > This inevitably leads to the sorts of "management" exhibited by
> > Adolf, Mao, PolPot, Lenin/Stalin/Kruschev/Breshnev/et al etc..
> But anyway, let me expand your horizons. Socialism comes in many forms.
> One of the many variables is what type of democracy it is. Some variants
> of socialism propose direct democracy, much like you suggest above. And
> this approach is criticized even by mainstream socialists themselves, for
> the same reasons you criticize it. But the most popular variants of socialism
> call for representative democracy. Your supervisor is delegated by his
> workers to organize and lead, but only with the permission of the workers.
> Once the majority of workers becomes dissatisfied with him, he can be
> instantly recalled and replaced.
Dog shit comes in many forms, too. They all stink. One doesn't
need to do a taste test on any of them to know they are not fit
to eat. All forms of socialism must necessarily come down to
central planning. All forms of central planning come down to a
central planner.
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Steve Kangas
Joe wrote:
>
> What I have to ask in return, however, is where on earth do you
> draw the right -- where do you get the moral authority -- to physically
> take my hard-earned money away from myself and use it to buy your
> bread?
There are several ways to answer this question.
1. What makes you so sure that your income is 100 percent yours?
The market is supported by countless public goods and services, and if
you consume them as you make your money, you must pay for them. Now,
people may disagree on what public goods and services are necessary; but
democracy is the best way we've devised to reach compromises on such a
large scale. People would also like those OTHER special interest groups
to pay for public goods and services, but not themselves. Again, democracy
corrects this: once a group is privatizing too many benefits and socializing
too many costs, the other special interest groups will vote to make things
fairer again.
2. Your argument presumes that exploitation doesn't exist on the
market. Liberals believe that unregulated markets allow those with
capital to concentrate more of it -- and if left unchecked, this process
will result in a modern form of serfdom. Progressive taxes merely
redistribute back to workers the fruits of their labor. Sure, managers
should be rewarded more, because they have greater responsibilities,
but that doesn't mean they can take advantage of market failures
to make serfs out of workers. It is managers, not workers, who are taking
what doesn't belong to them in the latter stages of income concentration.
3. A reserve pool of labor is a benefit for business. Some unemployment
is desirable, because it keeps the economy flexible, allows workers to
retrain and promotes the best match between skills and positions. If you
were to eliminate unemployment completely, various stresses would begin
to fracture the economy. So a reserve pool of labor is a benefit to business --
but you don't want to pay the costs of sustaining this benefit. That's
theft.
4. You experience economic benefits in a society that works uniformly
well. If one segment of society is hurting, that effects all segments of
society. There is therefore an economic incentive to helping people in
distress overcome their difficulties and getting them back on their feet,
so they can be players in the economy again. This may involve what appears
to be unilaterally giving bread away, yes. But the sum total of these
"bread giveaways" is a smoothly functioning economy, which allows
you to make more money than otherwise.
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Steve Kangas
Mike Wooding wrote:
>
> Steve Kangas wrote:
> > > And if you attempt this silliness in reality ... ooooooooops?
> > > The collective simply cannot handle all the detail of managing
> > > the means of production. So instead they must "appoint" managers.
> > > This inevitably leads to the sorts of "management" exhibited by
> > > Adolf, Mao, PolPot, Lenin/Stalin/Kruschev/Breshnev/et al etc..
>
> > One of the many variables is what type of democracy it is. Some variants
> > of socialism propose direct democracy, much like you suggest above. And
> > this approach is criticized even by mainstream socialists themselves, for
> > the same reasons you criticize it. But the most popular variants of socialism
> > call for representative democracy. Your supervisor is delegated by his
> > workers to organize and lead, but only with the permission of the workers.
> > Once the majority of workers becomes dissatisfied with him, he can be
> > instantly recalled and replaced.
>
> need to do a taste test on any of them to know they are not fit
> to eat.
My, what an eloquent, witty reply. Feeling just a bit defensive there,
Mike?
> All forms of socialism must necessarily come down to
> central planning. All forms of central planning come down to a
> central planner.
This is regressive. You made an argument; I made a counter-argument;
but you have not made a fresh argument at the third and next level.
Instead, you have merely dropped back down to your original argument
and repeated it again. Thus you are engaging in circular debate.
To wit, you claimed that socialism requires dictators; I claimed that
anarcho-socialism and republican socialism refutes your claim;
and you respond by stamping your foot and insisting that all socialism
requires dictators. No proof given.
Shall I declare victory and move on, or do you want to respond with a
reasonable argument?
Mike Jebbett
On (02 Feb 97) Steve Kangas wrote to All...
SK> committee, but everybody. The only way to do this is to give every
SK> person
SK> one vote. Socialism is thus ALWAYS democratic. Anything else is
SK> non-socialist BY DEFINITION.
Thanks for the slam against democracy. Democracy has indeed
gotten a better reputation than it deserves.
But I'm not sure how you can say that socialism is always
democratic? You can have a collective without regular elections.
You seem to have a very narrow definition of socialism.
M. Luther
Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
> > Typical supply-side idiot's excuse to keep the rich rich:
> > "If they're out of water in New Mexico, hey, let's flood
> > Arizona with water and some of it will flow to New Mexico!"
> > "Let's cut government to decrease campaign contributions!
> > Yeah, that's it! We all know that actually getting rid of
> > campaign contributions won't work NEARLY as well! -- Why?
> How do you get rid of them? We've tried that in California,
> and the courts, at the request of liberals like Senator
> Feinstein, have insisted that this violates the guarantee
> of free speech.
Fiscal conservatives in liberal clothing that only want free
speech for the rich. Fund it in taxes. Force networks to give
away free airtime. Who cares? They can still say whatever
the hell they want, but if only the rich can do so, then the
rights to speech of the poor are violated.
M. Luther
James A. Donald wrote:
> >Ever try comparing socialism to a company? Both collective? Yes.
> >In one brand of "socialism", if you don't work, they throw you
> >in jail, but they still feed you. If one kind of company, if you
> >don't work, they fire you,
> so the company has only limited power over me, whereas those kindly
> benevolent socialist do gooders seek total, absolute and unlimited
> power over me.
Go to another country. Or start your own. Interesting concept eh?
Let's see, what are the obstacles to starting your own country?
You don't have the money to compete with a country that has more
money and wants you out of the picture. You don't have access
to any of the "raw materials" of a new country (like land)
because the other countries have the money to hire "private
security guards" to protect their property. You don't have
access to PBS or the equivalent to fight gov't propaganda and
market your country in search of new citizens.
Brett Kottmann
Mike Wooding (mi...@wse.com) wrote:
...
: I understand it perfectly. It seems only socialists don't understand
: socialism, else they couldn't possibly propose it and keep a straight
: face!
Well put. That's why they keep pointing to socialist failures
as "not an implementation of the pure, utopian form of socialism".
And why they keep arguing their *theory* against the real
world of facts and figures.
Brett
___________________________________________________________________________
"The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor.
We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression--
to preserve freedom and peace". --Ronald Reagan, March 23, 1983
Brett Kottmann
Steve Kangas (kang...@scruznet.com) wrote:
...
: > As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. The NAIRU
: > is based on frictional unemployment -- people out of work for short
: > periods of time between jobs. This is hardly a problem, and often
: > not even a serious problem for those who are unemployed.
Indeed, the average stay on unemployment is less than
six months.
: I'm having a hard time keeping from laughing. You've parrotted the
: conservative line, and now you have to do intellectual somersaults to
: reconcile all the loose ends of your argument. Let's first take a
: look at the official definition of unemployment rate:
: "Officially, the unemployment rate is defined as the percentage of
: of the total labor force (those with jobs or seeking employment) who
: do not have jobs. It does not include *discouraged workers,* those
: individuals who have searched for work but have given up becuase of
: a lack of opportunities." (Stephen Casler, Introduction to Economics,
: p. 55.)
Steve, you just disproved your own argument. You usually do
when given enough time, as people who lie as much as you do can't
help but contradict themselves.
"People actively seeking work." Not "discouraged workers".
You are wrong, what part is giving you the most difficulty?
That you *want* to think that discouraged workers don't count? That
you *want* to believe that these people never, ever, go on to get jobs?
And by the way, what you posted is *not* the "official"
definition of unemployment, but rather a recap. The "official" definition
is much wordier.
: By this definition, the unemployment rate should include everyone seeking a
: job, whether they are part of frictional, structural, cyclical or
: seasonal unemployment.
No, just those *seeking work*. What part of English slips
through your brain and makes you so unable to comprehend the written
word? No need to start entering your usual strawman phrases of structural
and cyclical.
...
: exist and clearly seek jobs as well. Their "solution" is to generally
: ignore them, by leaving them out of the unemployment rate statistics
: entirely.
Steve, do you consider retired people and stay at home parents
as "unemployed"? Should they be included in the "official" statistics?
What you are so clueless about is the fact that the official
definition only talks about those *looking* for work because that is
the only pertinant segment!
Once again you display ignorance on a universal scale.
...
: As for discouraged workers, here is a quote from the Bureau of
: Labor Statistics:
: "The number of discouraged workers--a subset of marginally attached
: workers who were not currently looking for jobs specifically because they
: believed no jobs were available for them or there were none for which they
: would qualify--was 334,000 in December [96], also down slightly from a year
: earlier." BLS, ftp://stats.bls.gov/pub/news.release/empsit.txt
Which makes them 0.26% of the labor force. Including them
would not significantly change the current unemployment rate. Didn't
you notice that the current unemployment figures vary by that many
people monthly? If it were such a huge part of the work force our
unemployment figures would be wildly oscillating.
Do the math for once, 334,000 out of 130 million workers.
: This would tend to refute your argument that there are more jobs than
: people.
He never said "more jobs than people". You lie again!
it proves (once again) that you are both a liar and
pridefully ignorant on a scale never before seen on the Internet.
...
: A few more rebuttals: the labor participation rate in this country
It's humorous that Steve thinks his ravings are rebuttals.
: is at an all-time high.
And yet unemployment is supposedly a much bigger problem
than those evil government people are letting on!
: Millions who are seeking full-time work are
: accepting part-time jobs because they can't find what they want.
Your evidence? What percentage of the work force is this?
Are they accepting part time jobs because they don't like the full
time jobs that are available?
The *facts* are that within two months half those who
lose (or leave) their jobs are back at work, and 2.5 million
people gaining jobs every month are people who are leaving unemployment
to do so.
...
: original statement, "Jobs are in plentiful supply; the problem is
: a shortage of workers" is brain-dead, and in complete ignorance
: of the facts.
Once again you are proven wrong.
It is you who are brain-dead and in complete ignorance
of the facts.
Still waiting on your "rebuttal" to the Kangas Files, not
to mention two years of butt-kicking on the Internet.
Brett
________________________________________________________________________
A fool and his code are soon parsed.
Clayton E. Cramer
M. Luther wrote:
>
> Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
> > > Typical supply-side idiot's excuse to keep the rich rich:
> > > "If they're out of water in New Mexico, hey, let's flood
> > > Arizona with water and some of it will flow to New Mexico!"
> > > "Let's cut government to decrease campaign contributions!
> > > Yeah, that's it! We all know that actually getting rid of
> > > campaign contributions won't work NEARLY as well! -- Why?
> > How do you get rid of them? We've tried that in California,
> > and the courts, at the request of liberals like Senator
> > Feinstein, have insisted that this violates the guarantee
> > of free speech.
>
> Fiscal conservatives in liberal clothing that only want free
Feinstein? Fiscal conservative? This will be a surprise
to everyone who has seen how she votes.
> speech for the rich. Fund it in taxes. Force networks to give
> away free airtime. Who cares? They can still say whatever
> the hell they want, but if only the rich can do so, then the
> rights to speech of the poor are violated.
What you and other advocates of this approach don't understand
is that such laws inevitably have some sort of crazy filter
function so that lunatics don't get public funds to run for
office -- or there would be 15,000 people running for Senate,
each of them entitled to half a million dollars in free airtime.
(And 14,000 of those running would be talking about the
importance of free tinfoil for everyone's hat.) That crazy filter
function tends to assist those with organized special interest
groups behind them.
The intent is good -- but I have yet to see such a law proposed
that didn't have a crazy filter that effectively maintained the
status quo.
--
Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane
Communications
st96...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
People confuse socialism as being a system where the worker has no incentive
to work. A place where the worker is working for the government. This goes
against the very defenitions of the word socialism. In socialism, the
worker has the ultimate incentive to work, since they are working for t
themselves. The worker owns the factory, therefore they want the factory
to produce well.
In capitialism, you have the opposite. The worker deosn't have any stake in
the production, except to keep his or her job. The company must only do
well enough to keep that employing around. The workers only incentive is
hunger, homelessness. It is in capitialism where fear is the driving
force for conformity.
Clayton E. Cramer
st96...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu wrote:
>
> People confuse socialism as being a system where the worker has no incentive
> to work. A place where the worker is working for the government. This goes
> against the very defenitions of the word socialism. In socialism, the
> worker has the ultimate incentive to work, since they are working for t
> themselves. The worker owns the factory, therefore they want the factory
> to produce well.
This is a logical assumption, if the number of workers is relatively
small.
One worker's effort has an enormous impact on the productivity of a
company with 50 employees. But when it is a company of 100,000, one
worker's
efforts disappear rapidly.
Now, this is true for both socialist and capitalist systems. The
difference
is that in a socialist system, there is a strong bias against small
companies
where individual effort makes a difference. Why is there a bias against
small companies? Because the workers, as expressed through their
representatives the government (under the BEST of conditions), have
little
reason to move capital that could be used to enlarge an existing
enterprise
into a new enterprise. When an enterprise becomes profoundly
unproductive,
socialist societies are reluctant to tell workers in those enterprises
that
it is time to shut it down.
> In capitialism, you have the opposite. The worker deosn't have any stake in
> the production, except to keep his or her job. The company must only do
> well enough to keep that employing around. The workers only incentive is
> hunger, homelessness. It is in capitialism where fear is the driving
> force for conformity.
I don't what companies you have worked for, but I have worked for
several
where I had enough stock options to make it VERY interesting -- and like
many people I know, I have become reasonably well-off from the process.
Lots of my friends are millionaires now -- and they didn't start with
anything more than an education.
Lloyd Lawrence
On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
> st96...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu wrote:
> > People confuse socialism as being a system where the worker has no incentive
> > to work. A place where the worker is working for the government. This goes
> > against the very defenitions of the word socialism. In socialism, the
> > worker has the ultimate incentive to work, since they are working for t
> > themselves. The worker owns the factory, therefore they want the factory
> > to produce well.
>
> This is a logical assumption, if the number of workers is relatively
> small.
Not true, of course, unless you make the assumptions you have done about
the kind of rewards and fulfillment a socialist worker is looking for:
> One worker's effort has an enormous impact on the productivity of a
> company with 50 employees. But when it is a company of 100,000, one
> worker's
> efforts disappear rapidly.
Only a capitalist worker would have this perception of what happens to
his/her efforts.
> Now, this is true for both socialist and capitalist systems. The
> difference
> is that in a socialist system, there is a strong bias against small
> companies
> where individual effort makes a difference. Why is there a bias against
> small companies? Because the workers, as expressed through their
> representatives the government (under the BEST of conditions), have
> little
> reason to move capital that could be used to enlarge an existing
> enterprise
> into a new enterprise. When an enterprise becomes profoundly
> unproductive,
> socialist societies are reluctant to tell workers in those enterprises
> that
> it is time to shut it down.
Again, this is completely a capitalist analysis and has no place in a
socialist system. None of these consequences or actions would arise in an
operation designed along socialist principles. Socialism exists to ensure
that each individual's needs are met through and by the collective
effort and that each individual continues to be part of that collective
effort.
> > In capitialism, you have the opposite. The worker deosn't have any stake in
> > the production, except to keep his or her job. The company must only do
> > well enough to keep that employing around. The workers only incentive is
> > hunger, homelessness. It is in capitialism where fear is the driving
> > force for conformity.
>
> I don't what companies you have worked for, but I have worked for
> several
> where I had enough stock options to make it VERY interesting -- and like
> many people I know, I have become reasonably well-off from the process.
> Lots of my friends are millionaires now -- and they didn't start with
> anything more than an education.
> --
> Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane
> Communications
This limited experience would explain your limited perception of economic
philosophies. Your success (not to mention your friends) is a privilege
enjoyed by the few, compared to the masses of working and unemployed poor
that inhabit the rest of the universe. Your smugness is reason enough for
revolution.
-lloyd
Derek Nalecki
In article <32F7CE...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> says:
>
>Steve Kangas wrote:
>> Nonsense. There are countless firms in the U.S. that are worker-owned,
>> and they do not practice terror and bloodshed. Hell, even at my alma-mater,
>> the University of California - Santa Cruz, there was a university restaurant
>> that was owned for 15 years by student employees; it was very successful,
>> profitable, popular and self-supporting. Students actually competed to
>> work there, because it had great worker benefits. And the last I noticed,
>> there were no rivers of blood flowing from its doors. :-)
>
> I doubt countless, but yes indeed, there are worker owned firms.
> Note carefully, that management-wise they differ very little from
> non-worker owned companies (NWOC)! If one fails to conform with
> company policy one is still disciplined/terminated the same, worker
> owned companies pay roughly the same as the NWOC. The management
> structure is more or less the same. And they don't seem to have
> anymore competitive advantage than the NWOCs.
It would be interesting to find out just how many of those WOCs are
union shops, wouldn't it?
>
> BTW - this is free market capitalism. I.e. anyone in these WOCs
> may leave whenever it suits them. And indeed they do.
>
Nothing more nothing less.
Lazarus Long
umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA pontificated in a message to All:
uC> above. Well then, try: "You can always find something;
uC> there's always paid work somewhere". For example: work in
uC> fastfood, or office-cleaning, or leaflet distributing, or
uC> errand-running, or sewage-shovelling, or any degrading,
uC> low-paid, dead-end,
uC> self-perpetuating, disempowering, demoralising situation
uC> that serves people like yourself who can't even relate to
uC> being in such a totally defeated state. Might as well be on
uC> welfare.
uC> By the way, did I get the job?
If those are the type of jobs your education can get you, I would suggest
that you might consider taking a second look at the courses you are taking.
uC> - Origin: The University of Manitoba (350:2/100.5)
I am sure that if you drop the basket weaving courses and take some
courses that have relevance to the real world, you will be able to find a job.
I am equally sure that U. of Manitoba does offer those types of courses. I
realise that taking such courses would mean having to actually think and
demonstrate some ability...but do give it a try.
Rationally Yours,
Lazarus Long
Clint Johnson
> > When an enterprise becomes profoundly
> > unproductive,
> > socialist societies are reluctant to tell workers in those enterprises
> > that
> > it is time to shut it down.
>
> Again, this is completely a capitalist analysis and has no place in a
> socialist system. None of these consequences or actions would arise in an
> operation designed along socialist principles. Socialism exists to ensure
> that each individual's needs are met through and by the collective
> effort and that each individual continues to be part of that collective
> effort.
Of course in a socialist system no enterprise would ever become profoundly
unproductive. Under socialism the horse buggy factories would still be
building buggies with the same level of efficiency as they had been a
hundred and fifty years ago.
Or is it that they would all stand up in perfect synchronization and switch
to building Lexus' for everyone?
This is a pretty amazing philosophy this socialism: perfectly efficient, no
dissent, all knowing and all seeing, no administrators, no incentive, no
punishment and guaranteed world peace... it says so right on the label!
> This limited experience would explain your limited perception of economic
> philosophies. Your success (not to mention your friends) is a privilege
> enjoyed by the few, compared to the masses of working and unemployed poor
> that inhabit the rest of the universe. Your smugness is reason enough for
> revolution.
You think that maybe we could try and spread capitalism to them so that
they could have the same opportunities as Mr. Crammer and his friends? Nah,
let's give them a big double scoop of that socialism stuff! It has worked
so well everywhere else it has been tried!
But first I guess the workers of the world should rise up and kill Mr.
Cramer for being smug.
Clint Johnson
Bill MacArthur
Lloyd Lawrence <umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA> wrote:
>It would be difficult to find work that I consider myself too good for.
Good for you.
>I've likely had more experience of the most demeaning kinds of work than
>the average poster.
I have heard the word "demeaning" used to describe work that people
should not have to do. I would like to see some examples of the type of
work that people consider "demeaning".
Bill MacArthur
Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>>
>> This is funny. You accuse another of economic ignorance, and in
>> the very next sentence state the low unemployment causes inflation!
>
>Careful with your phrasing. I didn't say "cause." I merely presented
>a correlation.
>
IIRC basic Economics text books show a correlation between unemployment
and inflation. AFAIR the optimum level of unemployment was considered to
be 3-4%. The idea was that a percentage of the workforce would be
changing jobs and inflation would be manageable.
Henry Blaskowski
Lloyd Lawrence (umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA) wrote:
>
> > One worker's effort has an enormous impact on the productivity of a
> > company with 50 employees. But when it is a company of 100,000, one
> > worker's
> > efforts disappear rapidly.
>
> Only a capitalist worker would have this perception of what happens to
> his/her efforts.
If you are saying that people who support socialism have little
knowledge of economics and the basics of how a company works, I
would heartily agree!
hblask
Henry Blaskowski
st96...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu wrote:
> People confuse socialism as being a system where the worker has no incentive
> to work. A place where the worker is working for the government. This goes
> against the very defenitions of the word socialism. In socialism, the
> worker has the ultimate incentive to work, since they are working for t
> themselves. The worker owns the factory, therefore they want the factory
> to produce well.
So, at what point do they gain this ownership? At birth? At age 18? What
percent ownership? Of what workplace? Whichever one they want? Or is it
selected for them? What if they started the business themselves through
hard work, and now need help? Do others just get to mooch off their hard
work and become partial owners? If yes to this last one, don't you think
that is disincentive to go that extra mile and start a business?
>
> In capitialism, you have the opposite. The worker deosn't have any stake in
> the production, except to keep his or her job. The company must only do
> well enough to keep that employing around. The workers only incentive is
> hunger, homelessness. It is in capitialism where fear is the driving
> force for conformity.
"Only" incentive is hunger? That is the ultimate incentive for everyone.
Sorry, facts of life. Nobdoy is going to feed you for free.
hblask
Henry Blaskowski
Bill MacArthur (bil...@uwindsor.ca) wrote:
>
> >> This is funny. You accuse another of economic ignorance, and in
> >> the very next sentence state the low unemployment causes inflation!
> >
> >Careful with your phrasing. I didn't say "cause." I merely presented
> >a correlation.
> >
>
> IIRC basic Economics text books show a correlation between unemployment
> and inflation. AFAIR the optimum level of unemployment was considered to
> be 3-4%. The idea was that a percentage of the workforce would be
> changing jobs and inflation would be manageable.
>
The unemployment rate has no effect on inflation, although there may
be a correlation in the other direction. Inflation has exactly one
cause: a mismatch between the amount of money that government prints and
the amount of production backing it. If you don't believe this,
eliminate the pieces of paper, and describe what inflation would look
like in a barter economy.
hblask
Clayton E. Cramer
Lloyd Lawrence wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
> > This is a logical assumption, if the number of workers is relatively
> > small.
>
> Not true, of course, unless you make the assumptions you have done about
> the kind of rewards and fulfillment a socialist worker is looking for:
>
> > company with 50 employees. But when it is a company of 100,000, one
> > worker's
> > efforts disappear rapidly.
>
> Only a capitalist worker would have this perception of what happens to
> his/her efforts.
Yet even in socialist countries, the workers feel this way. Hence in
the late Soviet Union, workers were fond of saying, "They pretend to pay
us, and we pretend to work." The lack of reward for extra effort is
part of why productivity in socialist societies has been so low.
> Again, this is completely a capitalist analysis and has no place in a
> socialist system. None of these consequences or actions would arise in an
> operation designed along socialist principles. Socialism exists to ensure
> that each individual's needs are met through and by the collective
> effort and that each individual continues to be part of that collective
> effort.
This was tried, and led to absurd economic consequences. When the
Soviet
Union dried up the Aral Sea, it was so concerned about keeping the fish
packing plant there operational, so as to avoid disemploying the
workers,
that it flew fresh fish in from the Arctic Ocean to keep them employed.
The costs were enormous, because keeping people working was more
important
than rational economic decision making. Oh yes -- they also created an
environmental disaster in the process, by trying to grow huge amounts of
cotton. Again, the loss of pricing information made it impossible for
the society to figure out what made sense, and what didn't make sense.
And before you claim that the SU wasn't socialist: it wasn't democratic
socialist, but in every meaningful measure of economic activity, it was
socialist. Prices were set for the interests of the workers; private
ownership of businesses was EXTREMELY limited; government enterprises
were operated to maximize employment.
> > I don't what companies you have worked for, but I have worked for
> > several
> > where I had enough stock options to make it VERY interesting -- and like
> > many people I know, I have become reasonably well-off from the process.
> > Lots of my friends are millionaires now -- and they didn't start with
> > anything more than an education.
> > --
> > Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane
> > Communications
>
> This limited experience would explain your limited perception of economic
> philosophies. Your success (not to mention your friends) is a privilege
> enjoyed by the few, compared to the masses of working and unemployed poor
> that inhabit the rest of the universe. Your smugness is reason enough for
> revolution.
>
> -lloyd
Isn't it odd that the prospect of socialist revolution keeps retreating?
Isn't it odd that in the 1960s, there were about 70,000 milliionaires in
the U.S., and now there are millions of millionaires? Isn't it odd that
a poor kid like me grew up to know lots of millionaires, and have
realistic expectations of becoming one myself?
It's hardly a privilege enjoyed by the few.
--
Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane
Communications
cyber...@usa.net
You could not be more wrong. Here again you are defining
socialism as that which your capitalist media cronies so
purposefully distort. Why do you have a problem accepting
the fact that true socialism has yet to be attempted?
You will know when such occurs--Or maybe I am giving you
too much credit...?
-Cyberman
In article <5dd24h$q86$2...@pike.dnaco.net>,
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Henry Blaskowski
cyber...@usa.net wrote:
> Why do you have a problem accepting
> the fact that true socialism has yet to be attempted?
Because nobody has ever explained how it can happen that suddenly
everyone can be convinced to behave against their best interest.
From what I can tell from the socialists in this group, the only
way that "true socialism" can be tried is if everybody spontaneously
gives up everything they have for "the common good", and never wants
any more than anybody else, even if they work harder or longer or
better. And all of this has to happen without government force.
So, please explain what planetary alignment/miraculous event will
suddenly cause the 50% of the population that is above average to
suddenly start behaving in a way that will make themselves worse off?
In the absence of such a miracle, "true socialism" is exactly what
has been tried and failed repeatedly. In other words, what we saw
in action is the inevitable result of the flawed logic of socialism.
hblask
Clayton E. Cramer
cyber...@usa.net wrote:
>
> You could not be more wrong. Here again you are defining
> socialism as that which your capitalist media cronies so
> the fact that true socialism has yet to be attempted?
Because so many socialists called the Soviet Union, Cuba,
and China "true socialist" until very recently? Because
the Soviet Union fit the theoretical model of socialism?
It wasn't democratic, but then again, socialism didn't have
to be democratic. That's only one variant of socialism.
Lloyd Lawrence
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Mike Wooding wrote:
> Steve Kangas wrote:
> > Mike Wooding wrote:
> > > And if you attempt this silliness in reality ... ooooooooops?
> > > The collective simply cannot handle all the detail of managing
> > > the means of production. So instead they must "appoint" managers.
> > > This inevitably leads to the sorts of "management" exhibited by
> > > Adolf, Mao, PolPot, Lenin/Stalin/Kruschev/Breshnev/et al etc..
>
> > But anyway, let me expand your horizons. Socialism comes in many forms.
> > One of the many variables is what type of democracy it is. Some variants
> > of socialism propose direct democracy, much like you suggest above. And
> > this approach is criticized even by mainstream socialists themselves, for
> > the same reasons you criticize it. But the most popular variants of socialism
> > call for representative democracy. Your supervisor is delegated by his
> > workers to organize and lead, but only with the permission of the workers.
> > Once the majority of workers becomes dissatisfied with him, he can be
> > instantly recalled and replaced.
>
> Dog shit comes in many forms, too. They all stink. One doesn't
> need to do a taste test on any of them to know they are not fit
> to eat. All forms of socialism must necessarily come down to
> central planning. All forms of central planning come down to a
> central planner.
Just saw this one.. A good example of the pitbull mentality, complete
with faeces. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. You have to cut off
its head and prise its jaws apart to get yourself free. Now what was it
Freud said about obsession with faeces..?
-lloyd
Mike Wooding
Steve Kangas wrote:
> Mike Wooding wrote:
> > Dog shit comes in many forms, too. They all stink. One doesn't
> > need to do a taste test on any of them to know they are not fit
> > to eat.
>
> Mike?
I thought the analogy fit the subject matter rather well.
Just because socialism comes in many forms doesn't mean
any of them smell better than any others.
> > All forms of socialism must necessarily come down to
> > central planning. All forms of central planning come down to a
> > central planner.
>
> This is regressive. You made an argument; I made a counter-argument;
> but you have not made a fresh argument at the third and next level.
> Instead, you have merely dropped back down to your original argument
> and repeated it again. Thus you are engaging in circular debate.
>
> To wit, you claimed that socialism requires dictators; I claimed that
> anarcho-socialism and republican socialism refutes your claim;
> and you respond by stamping your foot and insisting that all socialism
> requires dictators. No proof given.
Actually, it is Mr. Steve Kangas whose failed to respond to
reasoned argument by failing to describe how "anarcho-socialism
and republican socialism" can make economic decisions without
resort to appointing economic planners. If they indeed resort
to appointing economic planners, then are not these persons
in charge of all economic activity (which BTW could/would
include everything from what time you get up in the morning,
to whom you are allowed as friends, to what job you are required
to perform, to who you sleep with.)
Anarcho-socialism attempts a cross between between individual
autonomy and central planning. Little central planners all
over instead of one universal central planner. Of course,
carried to its logical conclusion, that's individual autonomy.
Which of course, is free-market economics, not socialism.
> Shall I declare victory and move on, or do you want to respond with a
> reasonable argument?
Be consistent. Declare victory. Why be right about anything?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Mike Wooding
st96...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu wrote:
> People confuse socialism as being a system where the worker has no incentive
> to work. A place where the worker is working for the government. This goes
> against the very defenitions of the word socialism. In socialism, the
> worker has the ultimate incentive to work, since they are working for t
> themselves. The worker owns the factory, therefore they want the factory
> to produce well.
So we are to presume under this version of socialism, workers
don't have to suppor those who do not work? I'm sure this will
come as a surprise to many other proponents of (perhaps different
versions of?) socialism?
> In capitialism, you have the opposite. The worker deosn't have any stake in
> the production, except to keep his or her job. The company must only do
> well enough to keep that employing around. The workers only incentive is
> hunger, homelessness. It is in capitialism where fear is the driving
> force for conformity.
Keeping his job seems enuf for many. Getting a better job or
a promotion or a raise is even more incentive for many more.
Of course, the more productive the employee, the more the
company is willing to do to keep him around! Which suggests
an incentive to be as productive as possible?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Steve Kangas
Probably it's because you're being terse, but this isn't a worthy explanation
of monetary policy. Bartering is inefficient because of the sky-high transaction
costs of finding multiple people for mutliple trades. Money eliminates these
transaction costs and allows us to perform, in effect, multi-person
bartering. Of course, the amount of money has to match the level of economic
activity. Too much money, and you get inflation. Too little money, and you
get high unemployment and recession. Now, the market is self-correcting in the
long run, in that money will inflate or deflate to match the level of
economic activity, but in the long run we are all dead, as the late great
Lord Keynes famously noted. Furthermore, there are other costs to inflation and
deflation that make them not worth it. Not to mention that money doesn't
deflate easily, due to price stickiness, so the usual result is high unemployment.
Therefore a discretionary monetary policy which strikes a balance between
inflation and unemployment is the best system we've got. And that, in a nutshell,
is the rationale for Keynesianism.
Sorry for the brief exposition of monetary policy, but I'm wondering what your
objection to this is. Do you advocate the gold standard, which would entrust
monetary policy to gold miners?
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Steve Kangas
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>
> Lloyd Lawrence (umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA) wrote:
> >
> > > One worker's effort has an enormous impact on the productivity of a
> > > company with 50 employees. But when it is a company of 100,000, one
> > > worker's
> > > efforts disappear rapidly.
> >
> > Only a capitalist worker would have this perception of what happens to
> > his/her efforts.
>
> knowledge of economics and the basics of how a company works, I
> would heartily agree!
>
> hblask
Would you care to visit my extensive economic analysis of the Reagan years
and then repeat this baseless ad hominem? The following site has over
150 statistical charts examining the economic trends of the 80s:
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm
I would also alert you to the fact that conservative economic theory is
losing currency in academia ("Monetarism is dead" is the cliche, and "Rational
Expectations" hasn't replaced Keynesianism, by Robert Lucas's own
admission!) Instead, academic economics is currently dominated by
New Keynesianism.
Your post is mere bluster.
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Aaron Bilger
On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 08:30:45 -0800, "M. Luther" <iiu...@iiu.com> wrote:
>
>Go to another country. Or start your own. Interesting concept eh?
Ever hear of oceania?
>Let's see, what are the obstacles to starting your own country?
>You don't have the money to compete with a country that has more
>money and wants you out of the picture.
How do you mean? That they buy out the country with their money? That's up to
my decision. However, if you mean that they will use force and just destroy my
country, that is possible -- but it would be a demonstration on their part of
force, not trade, of the principles behind socialism, not capitalism.
Aaron
Steve Kangas
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>
> st96...@pip.cc.brandeis.edu wrote:
> > People confuse socialism as being a system where the worker has no incentive
> > to work. A place where the worker is working for the government. This goes
> > against the very defenitions of the word socialism. In socialism, the
> > worker has the ultimate incentive to work, since they are working for t
> > themselves. The worker owns the factory, therefore they want the factory
> > to produce well.
>
> percent ownership? Of what workplace? Whichever one they want? Or is it
> selected for them?
None of the above questions pose any difficulty for socialists; for one thing,
they are no less present in a capitalist economy. Answering them is a technical
issue, and depends on what type of socialism is advocated.
The following questions, on the other hand, are more philosophical:
> What if they started the business themselves through
> hard work, and now need help?
Socialism does not preclude the idea that some people should be rewarded more
than other people; the reward structure is however the workers vote it. Most
people agree that some kind of incentive should be given to those who work
harder. The difference is that the person receiving the reward will not
decide what the reward should be; that would result in exploitation, since he is
obviously self-interested. The group will come up with a much fairer distribution
of wages.
>Do others just get to mooch off their hard work and become partial owners?
You are promoting the myth that workers do not contribute to the final result
also. A manager could not make a DIME without his workers. Workers produce:
they deserve to get paid an honest wage, especially without accusations that
they are "mooching" off their employer. Do you think you could be any more
insulting to working men and women?
>If yes to this last one, don't you think
> that is disincentive to go that extra mile and start a business?
What makes you think that the voters will not vote for a system of incentives?
Voters in the U.S. haven't voted to raise the minimum wage to CEO level, have
they? Attributing a little common sense to your opposition would go a long way
in understanding their arguments. As it is, no one can take you seriously because
your attacks are all strawmen.
> > In capitialism, you have the opposite. The worker deosn't have any stake in
> > the production, except to keep his or her job. The company must only do
> > well enough to keep that employing around. The workers only incentive is
> > hunger, homelessness. It is in capitialism where fear is the driving
> > force for conformity.
>
> "Only" incentive is hunger? That is the ultimate incentive for everyone.
> Sorry, facts of life. Nobdoy is going to feed you for free.
Delicious. Here it appears that you downplay the importance of positive
incentives for working, like self-esteem, pride over creativity and production,
the worker's sense of accomplishment, not to mention financial incentives,
and claim that avoiding starvation is the ultimate incentive. This is
a common criticism of libertarianism: it is a society designed not to
produce a comfortable and happy standard of living for everyone, but a
stark competition for survival among the weak and the strong. Thanks
for verifying this criticism.
> hblask
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Aaron Bilger
On Wed, 05 Feb 1997 19:04:02 -0800, Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
>1. What makes you so sure that your income is 100 percent yours?
>The market is supported by countless public goods and services,
The market operates on its own; free market is hindered by government
interference and force, even if the government tries to label what it does as
goods and services.
>and if
>you consume them as you make your money, you must pay for them.
So just because the government takes out money by force and we then have to use
certain items that they have nationalized, you are trying to claim we condone
and deserve it?
>Now,
>people may disagree on what public goods and services are necessary;
By the way, what exactly is a 'public' good? I'm interested how you are trying
to define this.
>2. Your argument presumes that exploitation doesn't exist on the
>market. Liberals believe that unregulated markets allow those with
>capital to concentrate more of it -- and if left unchecked, this process
>will result in a modern form of serfdom.
If wealth were a fixed quantity, that may be the case. However, the idea of
production and capitalism is that it _creates_ wealth. Technology and items
come into being that simply were not there before, standard of living is raised,
not solely for an elitist few, and wealth has actually been brought into being.
>4. You experience economic benefits in a society that works uniformly
>well. If one segment of society is hurting, that effects all segments of
>society. There is therefore an economic incentive to helping people in
>distress overcome their difficulties and getting them back on their feet,
>so they can be players in the economy again. This may involve what appears
>to be unilaterally giving bread away, yes. But the sum total of these
>"bread giveaways" is a smoothly functioning economy, which allows
>you to make more money than otherwise.
I may agree with some of that, that some charity is indirectly in one's
self-interest. However, such charity must be still voluntary. Taking someone's
money and giving it to someone else isn't charity, it's theft.
Aaron
Steve Kangas
Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
>
> Hence in
> the late Soviet Union, workers were fond of saying, "They pretend to pay
> us, and we pretend to work." The lack of reward for extra effort is
> part of why productivity in socialist societies has been so low.
The Soviet system created a "tragedy of the commons," which allowed everyone
to jump into the safety net. But socialists reject that the Soviet Union practiced
true socialism.
The Soviet Union erred in that it guaranteed employment and a paycheck, regardless
of what workers did. They could show up for work drunk, and still get paid. Obviously,
that was unworkable. But workers were not allowed to change the system because
they didn't have the vote. Dictators were in control.
In a true socialist economy, in which voters can vote on their supervisors and
industrial policy, workers would doubtlessly vote on a system of incentives
and punishments. Why is this reasonable to expect? But in current democracies
like the U.S., voters have not voted to make crime pay, so they can go out and
profit from crime themselves (which is the same principle: individual exploitation
of the group). On the contrary, voters have gotten rather tough on crime. So
the idea that voters would not establish a system of incentives and punishments
is actually a radical idea that begs a libertarian defense.
> > Again, this is completely a capitalist analysis and has no place in a
> > socialist system. None of these consequences or actions would arise in an
> > operation designed along socialist principles. Socialism exists to ensure
> > that each individual's needs are met through and by the collective
> > effort and that each individual continues to be part of that collective
> > effort.
>
> This was tried, and led to absurd economic consequences. When the
> Soviet
> Union dried up the Aral Sea, it was so concerned about keeping the fish
> packing plant there operational, so as to avoid disemploying the
> workers,
> that it flew fresh fish in from the Arctic Ocean to keep them employed.
> The costs were enormous, because keeping people working was more
> important
> than rational economic decision making. Oh yes -- they also created an
> environmental disaster in the process, by trying to grow huge amounts of
> cotton. Again, the loss of pricing information made it impossible for
> the society to figure out what made sense, and what didn't make sense.
How does the inefficiency of a dictatorship and highly centralized economy
apply to the type of social democracy we are talking about? Or, as usual,
do you not even understand the difference?
> And before you claim that the SU wasn't socialist: it wasn't democratic
> socialist, but in every meaningful measure of economic activity, it was
> socialist. Prices were set for the interests of the workers; private
> ownership of businesses was EXTREMELY limited; government enterprises
> were operated to maximize employment.
I'm rolling on the floor, howling with laughter. Can you cite any references
for this "definition" of socialism? You can't, because they don't exist. It's
something you made up to bolster your losing argument.
Let me repeat, for the millionth time, that socialism is defined as "the
collective ownership and control of the means of production." In the Soviet Union,
a ruling totalitarian elite -- not the voting population -- owned and controlled
the means of production. Now, I have no problem differentiating "a group" from
a "person" when it comes to discussing ownership of productive wealth, but it
amazes me how the far right can't get this simple concept through their head.
You can't have a dictator "set prices for the interests of workers." That misses
the whole point -- collective ownership and control is a far different thing
from a dictator's claim to act in the interests of the group. All dictators
do that. There is a difference between control and claiming to represent interests.
Dictators are self-interested at any rate.
> > This limited experience would explain your limited perception of economic
> > philosophies. Your success (not to mention your friends) is a privilege
> > enjoyed by the few, compared to the masses of working and unemployed poor
> > that inhabit the rest of the universe. Your smugness is reason enough for
> > revolution.
> >
> > -lloyd
>
> Isn't it odd that the prospect of socialist revolution keeps retreating?
> Isn't it odd that in the 1960s, there were about 70,000 milliionaires in
> the U.S., and now there are millions of millionaires?
Cramer neglects to mention that millionaires still form less than 1 percent
of the total population. He also neglects to mention that the growth
of millionaires has come at the expense of the poor and middle class.
Workers are working harder, longer and more productively, but they are not
getting ahead; the extra fruits of their labor are being funnelled to the
top. Paul Krugman estimates that 70 percent of all income gains went to the
top 1 percent in the 80s. That's exploitation, pure and simple.
> Isn't it odd that
> a poor kid like me grew up to know lots of millionaires, and have
> realistic expectations of becoming one myself?
Isn't it odd that people brag about their success in the middle of record
exploitation of the poor and middle class? This reminds me of all the
white plantation owners who bragged about the virtues of "rugged
individualism" and "self-reliance" as they got rich off the work of their
slaves. What spectacular, breath-taking hypocrisy.
> It's hardly a privilege enjoyed by the few.
No, just the relative few. Less than 1 percent.
> Clayton E. Cramer
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm
Steve Kangas
Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
>
> cyber...@usa.net wrote:
> >
> > You could not be more wrong. Here again you are defining
> > socialism as that which your capitalist media cronies so
> > purposefully distort. Why do you have a problem accepting
> > the fact that true socialism has yet to be attempted?
>
> Because so many socialists called the Soviet Union, Cuba,
> and China "true socialist" until very recently?
Evidence for this unfounded assertion?
> Because the Soviet Union fit the theoretical model of socialism?
How did it do this? Again, cite your reference sources. Apparently,
in my 8 years of reading for my degree in Soviet studies,
I missed an entire literature on what "True Socialism" is.
Please enlighten me.
> It wasn't democratic, but then again, socialism didn't have
> to be democratic. That's only one variant of socialism.
Oh? This is news to me. Did Marx say this?
Of course, you might have a primary source in TASS, or some of
Stalin's writings, that the Soviet Union was the ONE TRUE SOCIALISM...
how could I be so foolish as to overlook this credible source.
And, to be sure, we would have to ignore the hundreds of thousands
of Russians socialists who were murdered in the purges, for spreading such
heresies as democratic worker representation... tsk... tsk...
details, details...
Admit it, Cramer. You haven't the foggiest idea of what socialism is.
But, boy, are you sure dead set against it!
> Clayton E. Cramer
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Steve Kangas
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>
> cyber...@usa.net wrote:
> > Why do you have a problem accepting
> > the fact that true socialism has yet to be attempted?
>
> everyone can be convinced to behave against their best interest.
> From what I can tell from the socialists in this group, the only
> way that "true socialism" can be tried is if everybody spontaneously
> gives up everything they have for "the common good", and never wants
> any more than anybody else, even if they work harder or longer or
> better. And all of this has to happen without government force.
Hmmm. Let's apply this marvelously well-thought out philosophy towards
crime, and see if it holds together. Can we imagine a society in which
everyone agrees to collective action (paying taxes for a police force)
to fight crime for "the common good," and agrees that such police
protection should not be distributed according to people's income?
> So, please explain what planetary alignment/miraculous event will
> suddenly cause the 50% of the population that is above average to
> suddenly start behaving in a way that will make themselves worse off?
By your lights, we should have never eliminated slavery. After all,
what economic incentive is there for masters to emancipate their slaves?
Isn't there a moral dimension you're forgetting in all this?
> In the absence of such a miracle, "true socialism" is exactly what
> has been tried and failed repeatedly. In other words, what we saw
> in action is the inevitable result of the flawed logic of socialism.
Henry is deeply, hopelessly confused. I suggest visiting the following
essay to clarify matters:
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-socialism.htm
> hblask
Steve Kangas
James Doemer
M. Luther wrote:
>
> James A. Donald wrote:
> > >Ever try comparing socialism to a company? Both collective? Yes.
> > >In one brand of "socialism", if you don't work, they throw you
> > >in jail, but they still feed you. If one kind of company, if you
> > >don't work, they fire you,
> > Difference is that I am free to join another company, or start my own,
> > so the company has only limited power over me, whereas those kindly
> > benevolent socialist do gooders seek total, absolute and unlimited
> > power over me.
>
> Go to another country. Or start your own. Interesting concept eh?
> You don't have the money to compete with a country that has more
> to any of the "raw materials" of a new country (like land)
> because the other countries have the money to hire "private
> security guards" to protect their property. You don't have
> access to PBS or the equivalent to fight gov't propaganda and
> market your country in search of new citizens.
But we do have enough resources to stay here and make your dictitorial
little ground miserable.. And that's just what we're going to do! :>
Michael T. Wasson
Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote in article
<32FBBB...@scruznet.com>...
> I would also alert you to the fact that conservative economic theory is
> losing currency in academia ("Monetarism is dead" is the cliche, and
"Rational
> Expectations" hasn't replaced Keynesianism, by Robert Lucas's own
> admission!) Instead, academic economics is currently dominated by
> New Keynesianism.
>
> Your post is mere bluster.
>
> Steve Kangas
> http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
>
Well gee willikers, I guess it's all over for 'conservative economic
theory' if the academics are abandoning it. Since academia funds all the
businesses and creates all the jobs in this country, I'm sure we can expect
a great jump in GDP due to 'academic economics'.
M. Wasson
Aaron Bilger
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 18:22:34 -0800, Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>>
>> cyber...@usa.net wrote:
>
>Hmmm. Let's apply this marvelously well-thought out philosophy towards
>crime, and see if it holds together. Can we imagine a society in which
>everyone agrees to collective action (paying taxes for a police force)
>to fight crime for "the common good," and agrees that such police
>protection should not be distributed according to people's income?
Let the market decide how much people contribute. Private protection offers
more flexibility, more accountability, than 'public' police force. Some people
may want the casual ability to call an investifator after a crime. Others may
want 24 hour bodyguards and property guards. Since wealthy people have more to
guard, it is likely they would expend more in protection for their property,
However, this should be a choice on the market of the individual, not a forced
extraction of money to pay for 'the common good' with a uniform police force
which court cases have determined have no liability to protect people and who
are not responsive to the people who support them.
>> So, please explain what planetary alignment/miraculous event will
>> suddenly cause the 50% of the population that is above average to
>> suddenly start behaving in a way that will make themselves worse off?
>
>By your lights, we should have never eliminated slavery. After all,
>what economic incentive is there for masters to emancipate their slaves?
>
>Isn't there a moral dimension you're forgetting in all this?
I agree that simply the 'worse off' aspect is not sufficient explanation,
because indeed laissez-faire capititalism is derived from individual rights to
their person and property and slavery is incompatible with that. However,
though ethics do explain why slavery is wrong even if slave masters have short
term benefit, it does not offer similar explanation of going to socialism.
Their is no ethical reason why people would suddenly give up what they have
earned and sacrifice themselves to others.
Aaron
Aaron Bilger
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 15:30:19 -0800, Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
>Would you care to visit my extensive economic analysis of the Reagan years
>and then repeat this baseless ad hominem? The following site has over
>150 statistical charts examining the economic trends of the 80s:
>
>http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm
I congratulate you on attacking Reagan. It is true that much of his policies,
stealing money from citizens and giving it to defense contractors and large
corporations, is just as unethical as stealing money from citizens for any other
reason.
Aaron
Aaron Bilger
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 16:04:13 -0800, Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
>
>The Soviet system created a "tragedy of the commons," which allowed everyone
>to jump into the safety net. But socialists reject that the Soviet Union practiced
>true socialism.
Although I think that is sometimes used as a cop-out by socialists, I'm not
going to press the point as others would. I find it ludicrous and offensive
when someone tries to hold up a decidedly non-capitalistic view such as
colonialism, protectionism, Reagan-style-intervention-with-trickle-down-
economics, etc. as capitalism, so I will grant you reprieve from attacks on the
Soviet Union as socialism except in cases where you defend that former nation.
>and punishments. Why is this reasonable to expect? But in current democracies
>like the U.S., voters have not voted to make crime pay, so they can go out and
>profit from crime themselves (which is the same principle: individual exploitation
>of the group). On the contrary, voters have gotten rather tough on crime. So
>the idea that voters would not establish a system of incentives and punishments
>is actually a radical idea that begs a libertarian defense.
Libertarianism is quite big on the idea of punishment, in particular as a form
of restitution. The current mixed-economy democracy I'm most familiar with has
not gotten tough on real crime because it has lost the connection of
restitiution, and also spends much of its resources fighting non-crimes. The
first is because even if a criminal is punished, it is often not restitution to
the victim, but paid to the state, or worse, imprisonment where they are
supported by people -- victimizing even more citizens. With private protection
and courts, there is a direct connection to the victim and the correct goal of
restitution is more feasible than with any law enforcement and court system with
no direct concern for victims. The problem of wasting law enforcement resources
attacking non-crimes, like drugs, is another which would vanish under
laissez-faire, where one can choose to destroy themselves with drugs if they so
desire.
>Let me repeat, for the millionth time, that socialism is defined as "the
>collective ownership and control of the means of production." In the Soviet Union,
>a ruling totalitarian elite -- not the voting population -- owned and controlled
>the means of production. Now, I have no problem differentiating "a group" from
>a "person" when it comes to discussing ownership of productive wealth, but it
>amazes me how the far right can't get this simple concept through their head.
The problem with 'group' ownership is that when it comes right down to it, you
have to define how much of the property each member of the group has control
over. If each has equal control, deadlock can easily result and nothing could
be done with the property. If not completely equal ('some are more equal than
others'...), then you are getting away from your original goal.
I'm curious your reaction to this: within laissez-faire capitalism, if you and
a group of fellow socialists buy an area of land, you can try to start your own
small operation of your view of socialism there. No one will come from the
outside and try to take your property, to force you to trade with them. You can
have your own little subculture. Now imagine the reverse were attempted. In a
society where people voted to take so much from some people and redistribute the
wealth, a group wishes to start their own little area of LFC. They couldn't --
the socialists around would demand part ownership of what the capitalists had,
and the capitalists would not be allowed to be free and left alone to live and
trade amongst themselves, despite not interfering or infringing on the rights of
others. Quite simply, laissez-faire capitalism is freer than any possible model
of socialism.
Aaron
Dave Diduck
>Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>>
>> Lloyd Lawrence (umla...@CC.UManitoba.CA) wrote:
>> >
>> > > One worker's effort has an enormous impact on the productivity of a
>> > > company with 50 employees. But when it is a company of 100,000, one
>> > > worker's
>> > > efforts disappear rapidly.
>> >
>> > Only a capitalist worker would have this perception of what happens to
>> > his/her efforts.
>>
>> If you are saying that people who support socialism have little
>> knowledge of economics and the basics of how a company works, I
>> would heartily agree!
>>
>> hblask
>
>Would you care to visit my extensive economic analysis of the Reagan years
>and then repeat this baseless ad hominem? The following site has over
>150 statistical charts examining the economic trends of the 80s:
>
>http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm
>
>I would also alert you to the fact that conservative economic theory is
>losing currency in academia ("Monetarism is dead" is the cliche, and "Rational
>Expectations" hasn't replaced Keynesianism, by Robert Lucas's own
>admission!) Instead, academic economics is currently dominated by
>New Keynesianism.
>
>Your post is mere bluster.
>
>Steve Kangas
>http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
If "academics" have such great knowlege of economics, how come they
aren't rich?
--
Dave Diduck
1123 Fort St
Regina Sk S4T 5R9
http://www.sasknet.com/~didue/
The majority are not silent - politicians have selective hearing!
Barry Bruyea
Now, there's an oxymoron!
James Doemer
> >> the very next sentence state the low unemployment causes inflation!
> >
> >Careful with your phrasing. I didn't say "cause." I merely presented
> >a correlation.
> >
>
> IIRC basic Economics text books show a correlation between unemployment
> and inflation. AFAIR the optimum level of unemployment was considered to
> be 3-4%. The idea was that a percentage of the workforce would be
> changing jobs and inflation would be manageable.
In the 50's and 60's there was a transitory workforce of about 2% or so,
and we know that we have a far more mobile workforce today, so 3% - 4%
would not seem unreasonable to me.
Steve Kangas
Aaron Bilger wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 16:04:13 -0800, Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
> >Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
> >
> >The Soviet system created a "tragedy of the commons," which allowed everyone
> >to jump into the safety net. But socialists reject that the Soviet Union practiced
> >true socialism.
>
> going to press the point as others would. I find it ludicrous and offensive
> when someone tries to hold up a decidedly non-capitalistic view such as
> colonialism, protectionism, Reagan-style-intervention-with-trickle-down-
> economics, etc. as capitalism, so I will grant you reprieve from attacks on the
> Soviet Union as socialism except in cases where you defend that former nation.
>
> >like the U.S., voters have not voted to make crime pay, so they can go out and
> >profit from crime themselves (which is the same principle: individual exploitation
> >of the group). On the contrary, voters have gotten rather tough on crime. So
> >the idea that voters would not establish a system of incentives and punishments
> >is actually a radical idea that begs a libertarian defense.
>
> of restitution. The current mixed-economy democracy I'm most familiar with has
> not gotten tough on real crime because it has lost the connection of
> restitiution, and also spends much of its resources fighting non-crimes. The
> first is because even if a criminal is punished, it is often not restitution to
> the victim, but paid to the state, or worse, imprisonment where they are
> supported by people -- victimizing even more citizens. With private protection
> and courts, there is a direct connection to the victim and the correct goal of
> restitution is more feasible than with any law enforcement and court system with
> no direct concern for victims. The problem of wasting law enforcement resources
> attacking non-crimes, like drugs, is another which would vanish under
> laissez-faire, where one can choose to destroy themselves with drugs if they so
> desire.
"Private law enforcement" is a euphemism for mercenary armies rented out to the
highest bidder. If you and I enter into a dispute, and you call Joe's Bodyguard
Service, and I call Acme Protection Systems, then the result is tribal warfare, with
the richest amassing the largest armies. You don't need to look any farther than
feudal Europe and Machiavelli ("The primary concern of every prince should be
war and the preparation for war") to see how unstable these systems are.
As for courts, tort law is notoriously inefficient: all you have to do is look
at the tobacco companies and the insurance industries to see how even obvious
open-and-shut cases can be disputed for decades, with no resolution in sight.
Democratic legislation is a FAR more efficient form of justice than torts.
> >Let me repeat, for the millionth time, that socialism is defined as "the
> >collective ownership and control of the means of production." In the Soviet Union,
> >a ruling totalitarian elite -- not the voting population -- owned and controlled
> >the means of production. Now, I have no problem differentiating "a group" from
> >a "person" when it comes to discussing ownership of productive wealth, but it
> >amazes me how the far right can't get this simple concept through their head.
>
> The problem with 'group' ownership is that when it comes right down to it, you
> have to define how much of the property each member of the group has control
> over. If each has equal control, deadlock can easily result and nothing could
> be done with the property. If not completely equal ('some are more equal than
> others'...), then you are getting away from your original goal.
You're confusing two property systems: soveriegnty and subordinate property systems.
The first is a general property system that all voters vote upon. The second
is individual property ownership. For example, voters may vote on a system where
you can earn extra property through hard work: but how much property, and with
what restrictions, is determined by voters. And in this subordinate property
system, you determine how much property you own by doing the hard work.
Also, keep in mind that there are many forms of proposed socialism, and
techniques for allocating resources vary from school to school. But the most
important thing is that the people have a greater say in how property is to
be distributed -- not an informal aristocracy of rich individuals who manipulate
the market to sustain enormous income inequality.
> I'm curious your reaction to this: within laissez-faire capitalism, if you and
> a group of fellow socialists buy an area of land, you can try to start your own
> small operation of your view of socialism there. No one will come from the
> outside and try to take your property, to force you to trade with them. You can
> have your own little subculture. Now imagine the reverse were attempted. In a
> society where people voted to take so much from some people and redistribute the
> wealth, a group wishes to start their own little area of LFC. They couldn't --
> the socialists around would demand part ownership of what the capitalists had,
> and the capitalists would not be allowed to be free and left alone to live and
> trade amongst themselves, despite not interfering or infringing on the rights of
> others. Quite simply, laissez-faire capitalism is freer than any possible model
> of socialism.
Yes, I've heard this argument before. It won't work, for several reasons. One is that
prevents a stable, nation-wide monetary policy from being enacted. You can't
have one group practicing monetarism, another Keynesianism, another the gold
standard, without fracturing the economy into miniature nation states. Then you
would have free trade problems: if one miniature state goes into a depression
(likely, since at least one of them is wrong), then there are ricochetting
effects throughout the entire economy. So these states would have to be isolationist
and self-sufficient; a dreadful policy, as we can see in the case of North Korea,
Bulgaria, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, etc.
Furthermore, in today's globalizing economy, it is becoming more and more
difficult to adopt completely different systems from your neighbor; you have
to adopt some of his customs, policies, negotiated rules, etc. just to deal
with him. This is much easier if everyone is already doing it; if not, then
there are transaction costs which make everyone poorer. Europe is not
trying to unify its economy for nothing. It's one of the reasons why the
United States is richer per capita than Europe is.
The upshot is that we are all stronger together than we are separately,
and fracturing our society into enclaves is a costly idea.
Steve Kangas
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
>
> Aaron