Blog Catalog Discussion: What is wrong with socialism?

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 06:02:09 -0500

A great article if anyone else feels like flogging a dead horse:

http://mises.org/story/2370

It explains the myths of a mixed-economy.

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:14:42 -0500

Socialism has moved on from where it was in the 20th Century?
Nope. Clearly not.

mylotnovice on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

mylotnovice — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:54:37 -0500

The bad way for me is when there are innocents people who died. You can consider this as collateral damage, I don't.

mylotnovice on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

mylotnovice — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:52:12 -0500

You can drive any regim towards any other regim and call it whatever name people will accept it. Democracy is a good invention to make people believe that they have the power, whereas they don't have any real power because the power is in so-called "public opinion" crafted by the medias which then align people with that opinion. It works like this: dress two opposite medias to debate and at the end as expected the middle way will be the compromise so the elites just have to pick among the right medias or experts to craft the public opinion. And anybody who won't agree with the middle way will be categorized as extremist or unfit.

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:49:01 -0500

The 1973 Chilean coup also turned out quite well in the long run.

polybore on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

polybore — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:36:13 -0500

NewBlogger2008 Don't mix up communism with socialism. Also your description of an extreme left society is not dissimilar to what you find in far right fascist societies.

All these discussions on Socialism are amazingly out of date. This is 2009 not 1920!.

Tony Blair was the leader of the Labour Party in the UK. You know the Labour party song? The Red Flag

The people's flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyr'd dead
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
Their hearts' blood dyed its ev'ry fold.
Then raise the scarlet standard high,
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here

Socialism has moved on from where it was in the 20th Century it seems weird to be discussing it as it was 50, 60 heck 100 years ago.

NewBlogger2008 on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

NewBlogger2008 — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:33:23 -0500

Mylot- You say "All revolutions turn out the bad way not only socialists". That is also a very incorrect statement. Some revolutions do not out bad, and in fact do work out for the better. The American revolution, The Revolution of Flowers (which brought an end to Portuguese communism), and the Reformation just to name a few. Not all revolutions are bad and with the right leadership and ideals, can work out for the people they say they want to help.

mylotnovice on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

mylotnovice — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 10:02:12 -0500

All Revolutions turn out the bad way not only socialist. I'm against Revolution because it's war and deaths of innocent people and I'm neither capitalist, socialist, communist, anarchist, nor any other -ist the world could invent, i'm neither leftist nor rightist nor environmentalist in political sense I'm for being a-politic which doesn't prevent me to have strong opinion which doesn't fit any of these ist movements :)

So I agree with you: what I'm saying is that according to theory whatever it is, socialist or not, it cannot work because the financial power at the top will just use and infiltrate it.

For example there's a beautifull project I am promoting from time to time which is thevenusproject.com
I'm sure it will be infiltrated unfortunately because it has happened all the time.

NewBlogger2008 on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

NewBlogger2008 — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:50:32 -0500

Mylot- I said this in another topic and I will repeat it again. All Socialists revolutions turn out the same way. As brutal dictatorships hell bent on keeping their power by any means necessary. Lenin, Stalin, Tito, China, Chavez (give him a few more years), Ayatollah Khomeni (different ideology, same promises), Portugal, and the list goes on. The "People" end up becoming a small governing and controlling elite that tell you how much you make, what you can eat, where you live, your job, education, what medical care you receive, and even what you think. On paper, socialism may sound nice because everything is fair and whatnot, but read history and look at how it has been practiced. The reality of socialism is not so nice for anyone.

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:58:55 -0500

Yes, very true. Socialism caters for the common denominator, ie for the greater good. As the utility monster illustrates, ultimately this does not bode well for freedom - or even those greater amount of People who are meant to benefit.

mylotnovice on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

mylotnovice — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:38:56 -0500

According to Socialism-Communism it is the People not the Elites who are Sovereign ;)

lnclark1950 on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

lnclark1950 — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:34:49 -0500

Besides what you mentioned the problem with Socialism is there is a belief among leaders that the people under them are not as equipped to make decisions regarding their own lives. Freedom is taken away and replaced by control by an elite group.

mylotnovice on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

mylotnovice — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:32:21 -0500

Tell people that the American Financial Elites are not Capitalist they will think you're a joker ;)

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:16:29 -0500

Since you say yourself that Central Bank is not capitalist and since America's Financial Elites are Capitalist then why do they keep the Central Bank whereas in US Constitution it is explicitly mentioned that Congress should not give her power to create Money to another Entity?

Anerica's finest elites are definitely not capitalist. As you say, they keep the central bank in place - not just America's central bank but the entire world's central banks. Clearly, it is to keep competitors out of their markets and to control money supply. Politicians rely on influential people who cannot be afforded to go bankrupt, so they use their influence to safeguard monopolies. Clearly, not capitalist practice but more along the lines of fascism.

Just look at the contradiction and maybe you will recognize that opposition between people on Capitalism and Socialism are just Hegelian Dialectics to divide people whereas in truth it's the same essence.

Yes, no doubt. This is why currently everyone is blaming capitalism and unchecked spending for the economic crisis, when in truth they had nothing to do with the economic crisis. The economic crisis was fuelled by a credit boom that went bust - just like during the great depression.

Please post a link to your blog post once you complete it, seems like interesting reading.

mylotnovice on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

mylotnovice — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:06:59 -0500

>Capitalism is the opposite of the centralisation of power and money.
>The very definition of capitalism, that is the private ownership of
>the means of production, suggests decentralisation.

It is not the very definition of Capitalism but of Liberalism (go to Economics Library). Capitalism term comes from Karl Marx and has never been defined by him : it's a political term not really an economical term. I have made research about him and his "Communist Manifesto" and found out he inspired from an extreme right-wing book but for popular support they use Karl Marx to hide their fascist idea . I will tell more one day on a blog.

>This is why a central bank is a dodgy idea at best. If it hits
>hiccups, everyone hits hiccups. Panama is a country without a
>central bank. It doesn't hit nation-wide banking crises, because
>they don't have one central bank manipulating the money or credit
>supply.
Originally the US Central Bank was a rightist idea that was very unpopular because people knew that's how England control the US from behind the scene. So they used a trick: they transformed it into a "Federal" 12 banks whereas in truth it was controlled by one bank at his head the Bank of New York owned by the Rockefeller. And they used President Wilson a Bourbon Democrat to make believe that it was a lefist idea. And they use a syndicate leader who adhere to it thanks to amendment that they of course cancelled with time.

Since you say yourself that Central Bank is not capitalist and since America's Financial Elites are Capitalist then why do they keep the Central Bank whereas in US Constitution it is explicitely mentionned that Congress should not give her power to create Money to another Entity ?

Just look at the contradiction and maybe you will recognize that opposition between people on Capitalism and Socialism are just Hegelian Dialectics to divide people whereas in truth it's the same essence.

Don't worry for Panama, they are manipulated from outside Central Banks :)

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:49:02 -0500

Capitalism is the opposite of the centralisation of power and money. The very definition of capitalism, that is the private ownership of the means of production, suggests decentralisation.

This is why a central bank is a dodgy idea at best. If it hits hiccups, everyone hits hiccups. Panama is a country without a central bank. It doesn't hit nation-wide banking crises, because they don't have one central bank manipulating the money or credit supply.

http://mises.org/story/2533

mylotnovice on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

mylotnovice — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:01:56 -0500

Look at who financed and even promoted Communism and Socialism: the Biggest Capitalist ever: the Rockefellers Family. They let people dream about Socialism but in truth it is like Capitalism at its core: the Centralisation of Power and Money, the rest is just details.

People consider only the Symbol instead of looking what's behind: it's the same fabrics, just the packaging differ, very good marketing from the elites politicians and bankers.

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:56:16 -0500

Every living thing is a DEPENDENT on it's forest, river, ocean, environment.

Well, not really. Human beings, for instance, are notorious for commanding nature. We can live in extreme conditions because if it's cold outside, we make it hot inside, if it's hot outside, we make it cold inside. We're not dependent on our environment because we adapt our environment.

As they are used, 'Capitalism' and 'Socialism' are forms of imposed slavery, where A FEW set the prices and the wages to obtain the labor of their slaves, whose survival depends on the generosity of the Plantation Owner.

Actually that's not true at all. Most people are hardly plantation workers, thanks to the advent of industrialisation, service industries and the information age. Those who are plantation workers do not depend on the generosity of the plantation owner. They depend on their wages that they earn with an honest day's work. They earn that wage. It's not generosity.

Price fixing is not capitalist practice. It's part of socialism. In a socialist system, you have to control prices because you have no way to determine the value of goods or services. In a capitalist system, the market forces dictate the value (or price) of goods or services.

This is precisely why bailouts are a bad idea. They interfere with the market forces of supply and demand. Say the auto industry gets a multi-billion dollar handout. This means that the price of cars is artificially kept high. The market dictates that auto prices should fall, because there is less demand for cars. Similarly, wage prices should fall when there's an abundance of labourers and not that many jobs available. In turn, the cost of living should fall, because there are less people who are able to afford the cost of living.

Note that in a capitalist system, all of these changes are natural, healthy occurrences and part of the business cycle. Also note that if all of these changes are allowed to happen, nobody would be any worse off, as the value of your dollar would not drop. By contrast, with bailouts, the value of your dollar drops because ultimately that bailout money is an artificial surplus supply of dollars. You can't oversupply oranges and hope that the value or price of oranges would remain high. Money works the same way - you can't give easy access to dollars and hope that the value of dollars would remain high.

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:36:15 -0500

Well, you can't really have a vampire corporation if it's productive. For such an institute, you'd have to look at corporations which aren't producers but mostly consumers.. to stick with the vampire analogy, right?

I think look no further than the government for your answer.

BeyondBeliefs on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

BeyondBeliefs — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:46:49 -0500

Deregulated VAMPIRE corporations have sucked our citizens dry and are now moving overseas seeking fresh blood and cheaper slaves.

The people produced 12-17 Trillion dollars per year, but only ONE percent of the population got the labor and the wealth that the 99% of Americans produced.

We are loosing our jobs and homes. The money that was stolen from us must be put back if the slaves are to continue raising the children that this Corporate Empire no longer wants to feed.

BeyondBeliefs on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

BeyondBeliefs — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:40:38 -0500

Every living thing is a DEPENDENT on it's forest, river, ocean, environment.

No other living thing becomes a cannibal for national flags and religious fables. Slave Empires need soldiers and patriots to ENFORCE the slavery for the benefit of the OWNERS of the People.

As they are used, ''Capitalism'' and ''Socialism'' are forms of imposed slavery, where A FEW set the prices and the wages to obtain the labor of their slaves, whose survival depends on the generosity of the Plantation Owner.

Chrislag on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

Chrislag — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:30:14 -0500

I agree with with wehireu. all systems are flawed and the most flawed are the pure systems.

Any present system should be mixed with the freedom to change a bit.

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 02:27:32 -0600

Yes, but it's not just about the leechers in the system. The entire system is flawed. We're not an ant colony. Even if everyone did pull their weight, you're still stuck with a society of people who are not made with a cookie cutter. People with different needs, dreams and means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

exit2013 on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

exit2013 — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:27:12 -0600

I don't think socialism can work. Most people are lazy and leechers. They want to manipulate the system before it manipulates them. In an ideal world for socialism to work, everybody has to pull their weight for it to work.

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:15:32 -0500

Millions dead not enough for you?

halvoropsal on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

halvoropsal — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:06:35 -0500

Nothing is wrong with socialism! Peace

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:00:17 -0500

I tend to prefer Lesbian Fair Capitalism myself :D

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:47:39 -0500

Great, thanks. Her blog is worth reading.

IanThal on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

IanThal — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:19:27 -0500

Actually Anok just put up an excellent post on her blog on the very topic of free market capitalism:

http://identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2008/07/pillage-perfect.html

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:01:00 -0500

Those are great! Do you have a capitalism one too? Just so we are balanced in our views..

kevinatserieatalk on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

kevinatserieatalk — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:04:57 -0500

I couldn't resist must add these to the list,

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and gives you part of the milk.

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both cows. The government sells the milk in government stores. You can't afford the milk. You wither away.

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The state takes both, and gives you a little milk ... once.

COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and gives you spoiled milk.

COMMUNISM -- CAMBODIAN: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

COMMUNISM -- CAMBODIAN: You have two cows. The government sends a teenager in a red bandana to shoot them, then he shoots you.

COMMUNISM -- CHINESE: You don't have any cows. The government sets up a joint venture with McDonald's.

COMMUNISM -- CHINESE: You have two cows. You take care of them. The government takes all the milk, but you are encouraged to steal some of it back (before someone else does).

COMMUNISM -- CHINESE - MAO STYLE: You have two pigs. The government launches a campaign to convince you to donate them "voluntarily" to provide meat for workers in the city. The government then declares that people don't need pigs to make pork. Quoting the correct phrases from your little red book, you and your neighbors try to create pork from sheer willpower. Your local party leader reports that you have exceeded all expectations. Your neighbors starve.

COMMUNISM -- CUBAN - CASTRO STYLE: Fidel Castro has two cows. They are F1's, a cross between the Cebu cow and the Holstein cow. Only one cow, "White Udder," works. When she dies she is stuffed and placed in a museum by Castro, "The Dictator of the Cows," where "future generations could admire her magnificent udders." You have not seen cow milk since 1985.

COMMUNISM -- CUBAN: You have two cows. Fidel tells you some undercover CIA agents have infected all of the cows in your region with a foreign disease that kills the cows. You and your family become malnourished. It begins to occur to you that Fidel doesn't know what he is talking about.

COMMUNISM -- CUBAN: You no longer have any cows. They sailed to Miami. You still have no milk - but you do have Fidel.

COMMUNISM -- "PURE": You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

COMMUNISM -- "PURE": You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk. Well, maybe the local bully gets more, or a few neighbors band together to kill you so that there is more milk for everyone else.

COMMUNISM -- SOVIET: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. Then the government sends you to prison.

COMMUNISM -- SOVIET: You have two cows. You count them and realize you have
four cows. You drink more Vodka. You count the cows again and realize you have eleventy six cows. You drink even more Vodka. After a while, you realize that eleventy isn't a real number. You count the cows again and have two cows. You open another bottle of Vodka and try to drown the loss of eleventy four cows.

kevinatserieatalk on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

kevinatserieatalk — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:56:01 -0500

I'm sure everyone has seen this one before,

SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes one of them and gives it to your neighbor.

SOCIALISM -- BUREAUCRATIC: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need.

SOCIALISM -- PURE: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

The End Result

REDISTRIBUTIONISM: You have two cows. Everyone should have the same amount of cow. The government takes both cows, cuts them up, and spends more than the cows are worth giving everyone a little piece of cow.

IanThal on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

IanThal — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:43:38 -0500

"Thank you for toning down the ad hominem"

I hadn't used any ad hominem arguments. An ad hominem argument would be along the lines of "FlamingPoodle, as a [fill in the blank] is beyond the pale of civilized discourse, so I will not even respond to a thing he says."

"In practice, the multiple levels [of accountability] amount to a bureaucracy that forces any players in the game to deal with the government."

If government regulation is the only institution that can place corporations in check when they act against the social good, then that's a good thing.

"Monopolies are protected by the government, whether their goods measure up or not, whether their labour practices are fair or not."

Monopolies are protected by the government de facto when if the government refuses to regulate, or advocate on for the needs of the consumer, worker, or the commons (like the environment.) Does government always advance those causes? Of course not, but the state is the only institution strong enough to keep corporations in check-- and corporations are not inclined to treat their workers or customers fairly if profits can be made by not doing so.

"See, it is not just the white vote in South Africa that kept apartheid going. It was thanks to international governments, as controlled by the big monopolies who bribe them, despite all their safeguards, that kept it going."

Again, how do you keep monopolies from bribing policy makers if one doesn't regulate the monopolies and make them subject to criminal charges for bribery?

"The fact that it took until 1991 was not the doing of the privileged whiteys. If you said anything derogatory of the government, you were imprisoned. Don't forget that apartheid was a dictatorship on both sides of the skin colour spectrum."

But the Apartheid laws were put in place through legislative acts. Was the National Party never popular? Weren't they first elected on the promise of strengthening the Apartheid laws that were already part of British colonialist practice? It took a long time for enough whites to become disgruntled enough that the dictatorship could no longer repress resistance.

"Clearly, you are no philanthropist. I'm assuming you are not including driveby shootings, rapes and racial lynchings under those criminal or unethical activities?"

I am a philanthropist. However, murderers, rapists, (and exploiters of laborers), aren't going to be kept in check through the invisible hand of the market place. They are kept in check through a combination police (who are held to account through multiple forms of transparency), and a court system that relies on due process (and thus, allows for appeal if there is a reasonable doubt that due process was followed.) Murderers and rapists are not going to get out of the murdering and raping business because of "competition" from non-murderers and non-rapists; they are put out of business by competent law enforcement and courts (i.e. bureaucracy, as you call it.) Same thing with corporate criminals.

"if nobody got caught, apartheid would've been good?"

If nobody got caught, Apartheid would still be the law in your country-- and I am sure you can think of a number of your countrymen who would have been happier with that situation.

"So if it is OK for communist China to use sweat shops and labour camps, your theory is that America will follow suit if it weren't for government checks? I'm not so sure."

America does use sweatshops and labour camps, that's why Wal-Mart shoppers get low low prices every day-- because Wal-Mart sells goods made in China. This only demonstrates the need for international standards for labor practices.

"illegal Mexican labourers often get in and make a more comfortable living in the land of opportunity than they could dream of back home."

A symptom of the lack of labor and environmental protections in Mexico as well as the higher wages in the States and made worse by the passage of NAFTA. There were Mexican workers coming into the United States either legally or illegally (or in many cases ethnic Mexicans born in the United States) working exploitative jobs (for generations) even before there was regulation-- and the exploitation in that case was even worse than it is now. It took organized labor calling strikes, going to court (bureaucracy), and pressuring legislators to pass better labor laws to improve things.

"Seems to me that a centrally controlled system is more given to being shaped by big corporations. That has in fact happened over and over again."

Seems to you? And how do you keep big corporations from reshaping government to their own purposes?

The "free market" you describe is a utopian pipe dream. The financial and industrial elites are not going to just leave law and governance alone when it is in their interest to take over."

Hong Kong. Big business, little government.

And how are the (little) people treated by big business and little government?

"The courts and the government [as well as breaking up monopolies that don't serve the public interest - I.T.] crush competition and prevent new players from entering the market."

Competition and entrepreneurship at the expense of labor and consumer protections, and the environment is no virtue. I am fine with competition and entrepreneurship when it advances human goals, not just for the sake of filling corporate coffers.

"Fascism, contrary to your definition, is also defined as a socialist dictatorship. But since you think I'm an idiot, try to argue with someone smarter:

"Fascism: "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism."

Fascism is also characterized in practice (and we are looking at paradigmatic fascist regimes like Mussolini's Italy or the Third Reich) by and ascendency of traditional elites, like heads of corporations. I prefer to define "fascism" empirically, not idealistically. I already noted earlier in the thread that the Third Reich was in fact an economic free for all for privately owned corporations to use slave labor in their factories and profit from genocide.

"Funny how fascism and socialism tend to go hand in hand."

It's more an issue that dictatorships tend to resemble one another structurally, even if their ideologies are diametrically opposed (i.e. an athiestic dictatorship like the PRC will have show trials and torture, just as a theocratic dictatorship like Iran or Saudi Arabia.) However, fascism by self-definition is authoritarian rule by elites. Socialism has both democratic and authoritarian varieties. You seem unable to distinguish between democratic socialism and communist dictatorship as practiced by the PRC and former USSR. This is a matter of intellectual laziness on your part.

"You see nothing wrong with criminal or unethical activity, as long as you don't get caught."

I never said that. I explicitly stated that corporations will engage in criminal or unethical activity as long as they are not at risk of being caught and the cost of being caught is expensive-- and that requires legislation, law enforcement, and courts.

"In practice, a socialist system allows inefficiency to keep on growing and growing."

America has one of the most inefficient health-care systems in the industrialized world, mostly because corporations make a profit off those inefficiencies-- i.e. not delivering health care in order to deliver increased wages for executives and dividends to stockholders.

Your on-going intellectual laziness includes:

a.) a refusal to distinguish between societies where corporations (like individuals) are subject to transparent accountability by institutions also subject to such accountability (rule of law, due process, rights of appeal) and dictatorial societies in which there is no such tranasparent accountability-- although that might be the product of your having spent much of your life in a dictatorship.

b.) a belief that ethical behavior is financially more profitable than unethical behavior-- and so that the "invisible hand" will force corporate power to be just to its workers, fair to its consumers, and never attempt to take over a government for its own interests.

c.) that anything you don't like is "socialism" and so when corporations engage in unethical behavior (such as shaping government policy to their own needs) then they are being "socialist" when in fact, they are acting just like "capitalists" have always behaved.

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:17:53 -0500

Thank you for toning down the ad hominem and sticking to the topic.

Not necessarily, in a functioning democracy, there are multiple levels of transparency and checks, that ensure that the centralized authority is under a higher degree of scrutiny. Many dozens of separate corporations do not operate under such levels of transparency and scrutiny and even less if we see a laisez-faire "separation of state and economy."

In practice, the multiple levels amount to a bureaucracy that forces any players in the game to deal with the government. This causes only x amount of monopolies to take shape, and prevents newcomers from entering the market. Monopolies are protected by the government, whether their goods measure up or not, whether their labour practices are fair or not.

In practice, these monopolies grow from strength to strength and get away with much more criminal and unethical practices than they would've if they had healthy competition.

This is what happened during apartheid, and it was sustained largely due to international money. Try this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa

See, it is not just the white vote in South Africa that kept apartheid going. It was thanks to international governments, as controlled by the big monopolies who bribe them, despite all their safeguards, that kept it going.

In 1991, the white vote in South Africa had a referendum to determine whether the vote should be extended to include people of colour. The results were in favour of this development. The fact that it took until 1991 was not the doing of the privileged whiteys. If you said anything derogatory of the government, you were imprisoned. Don't forget that apartheid was a dictatorship on both sides of the skin colour spectrum.

Criminal or unethical activity is beneficial if one is not caught. Cheap consumer products purchased by American are manufactured in sweatshops and slave labor camps in China.

Clearly, you are no philanthropist. I'm assuming you are not including driveby shootings, rapes and racial lynchings under those criminal or unethical activities?
Or if nobody got caught, apartheid would've been good?

Actually in reality, most consumers really don't care about where their consumer products come from. So in the real market, if one corporation gets a competitive edge from using sweatshops, slave labor, polluting the environment, or even producing unsafe products, the competition is more likely to do the same. The "dirty" practice becomes industry standard until somebody (often a government regulator) enforces a new standard.

But.. criminal and unethical behaviour is beneficial if nobody gets caught, right? So if it is OK for communist China to use sweat shops and labour camps, your theory is that America will follow suit if it weren't for government checks? I'm not so sure. America's labour laws are stringent, which is why illegal Mexican labourers often get in and make a more comfortable living in the land of opportunity than they could dream of back home. This means that the government doesn't really prevent exploitation, they just make sure the right people get exploited. Like Chinese labourers overseas or local Mexican labourers the system doesn't care to know about.

Sure it is. It's the best regulation that heads of industry can buy. If the government doesn't regulate corporations, the corporations will reshape the government in their own image. It has happened over and over again.

Citation needed. Seems to me that a centrally controlled system is more given to being shaped by big corporations. That has in fact happened over and over again.

The "free market" you describe is a utopian pipe dream. The financial and industrial elites are not going to just leave law and governance alone when it is in their interest to take over.

Hong Kong. Big business, little government.

Old players get away with monopolies because they crush competition. If anything-- at least in the United States-- it is the courts and the government that breaks up monopolies that don't serve the public interest.

The courts and the government also crush competition and prevent new players from entering the market. Now, I'm no economist, but clearly you aren't either if you can't realise that entrepreneurship in the shape of small and medium enterprises are the only certain ways of ensuring economic growth and job creation.

And who is to judge whether one has "earned" the right "to live?" You and your "capitalists"? The "invisible hand of the market place"? That does sound like proto-fascism.

Fascism, contrary to your definition, is also defined as a socialist dictatorship. But since you think I'm an idiot, try to argue with someone smarter:

Fascism: "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism."
http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html

Funny how fascism and socialism tend to go hand in hand.
That makes much more sense considering fascism requires centralised control.

Who should judge whether you have earned your right to live? Well, if you can't produce your means of survival by yourself, then clearly you don't deserve to live. But then, you see nothing wrong with criminal or unethical activity, as long as you don't get caught.

In practice, a socialist system allows inefficiency to keep on growing and growing. Micro-economic problems tend to become macro-economic problems, and then you have a situation where the few legal monopolies are dictating to the one, big, centralised monopoly what it should do to somehow artificially keep the boat floating.

There were several causes, and it was all of them in combination created the Great Depression.

Thanks. Now for those you neglected:

Monetarists, including Milton Friedman and current Federal Reserve System chairman Ben Bernanke, argue that the Great Depression was caused by monetary contraction, the consequence of poor policymaking by the American Federal Reserve System and continuous crisis in the banking system.

Austrian theorists who wrote about the Depression include Hayek and Murray Rothbard, who wrote "America's Great Depression" in 1963. In their view, the key cause of the Depression was the expansion of the money supply in the 1920s that led to an unsustainable credit-driven boom. In their view, the Federal Reserve, which was created in 1913, shoulders much of the blame.

Unsustainable credit-driven boom? Does that sound like America now?

One reason for the monetary inflation was to help Great Britain, which, in the 1920s, was struggling with its plans to return to the gold standard at pre-war (World War I) parity. Returning to the gold standard at this rate meant that the British economy was facing deflationary pressure. According to Rothbard, the lack of price flexibility in Britain meant that unemployment shot up, and the American government was asked to help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Austrian_School_explanations

I may be no economist, but Friedrich von Hayek apparently was. You know, Nobel prize for economics and all that. Not just a fancy mantelpiece.
http://mises.org/books/TRTS/

IanThal on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

IanThal — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:48:14 -0500

"the corrupt side of human nature should not be tolerated at all, but it is far easier to bribe one centrally controlled authority than what it is to bribe several competitors in a free market."

Not necessarily, in a functioning democracy, there are multiple levels of transparency and checks, that ensure that the centralized authority is under a higher degree of scrutiny. Many dozens of separate corporations do not operate under such levels of transparency and scrutiny and even less if we see a laisez-faire "separation of state and economy."

But the other issue is that "bribery" need not be the cause of corruption. Criminal or unethical activity is beneficial if one is not caught. Cheap consumer products purchased by American are manufactured in sweatshops and slave labor camps in China.

"Of course you would not let your competition get away with underhand tactics. You would have to keep your nose clean in order for you to paint your opposition as dirty double crossers every chance you get."

Actually in reality, most consumers really don't care about where their consumer products come from. So in the real market, if one corporation gets a competitive edge from using sweatshops, slave labor, polluting the environment, or even producing unsafe products, the competition is more likely to do the same. The "dirty" practice becomes industry standard until somebody (often a government regulator) enforces a new standard.

"What we currently have is price regulation by the big players in any given market, thanks to government intervention. That's not capitalism. That's not a free market."

Sure it is. It's the best regulation that heads of industry can buy. If the government doesn't regulate corporations, the corporations will reshape the government in their own image. It has happened over and over again. The "free market" you describe is a utopian pipe dream. The financial and industrial elites are not going to just leave law and governance alone when it is in their interest to take over.

"New players are kept out because they don't meet government criteria, the old players get away with their monopolies because they bribe the government."

Old players get away with monopolies because they crush competition. If anything-- at least in the United States-- it is the courts and the government that breaks up monopolies that don't serve the public interest.

"Exactly. The consequences of our current system is that it is OK to be an underachiever, because as you explain someone covers your back. Personally, I am OK with the rule that you have to earn your living, and if you don't, then you don't deserve to live."

And who is to judge whether one has "earned" the right "to live?" You and your "capitalists"? The "invisible hand of the market place"? That does sound like proto-fascism.

"Clearly, you think I'm a useless idiot when it comes to economics and history."

Correct.

"Now, enlighten me, what caused the great depression?"

There were several causes, and it was all of them in combination created the Great Depression. There was a cyclic recession, caused initially by a stock market crash, which also caused a lot of major investors to default on loans, which meant that banks, having lost these loans, also lost the money of their individual customers, which caused businesses and individuals to lose savings and be unable to pay off their own debts. This resulted in loss of homes, and loss of businesses, resulting in job loss, and mass migration of economic refugees.

It was government inaction during these crises that allowed them to become exacerbated. The free market was unable to repair itself.

In the United States, the recovery began with "The New Deal" which involved government investment in building new infrastructure and centrally directed rebuilding of industry. Regulation and policing of the stock, commodity markets, regulation and insurance of the banking industry.

Further recovery came to the U.S. during WWII when those industries and infrastructure were put to work (by the government) to winning the war against the Axis powers-- which, quite simply could not have been possible under a laissez-faire economy. Call the New Dealers "socialists" if you want, but they got America out of the Great Depression and had a hand in defeating fascism.

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:47:35 -0500

I see, that makes sense, thank you.

wehireu on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

wehireu — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:14:58 -0500

That assumes a social contract which has not been eroded by government. There is a certain point in all empires where there simply is never enough work for its citizens. You end up with bread lines and coliseums like in Rome. Quite simply in order to maintain the status quo, it becomes necessary to create some form of welfare or monumental labor. The problem is accepting the idea of monumental labor Rome had it, so did Egype. It eventually happens with every advancing civilization. For example, have permanent 5-6% unemployment in the United States. That is a huge amount. Justifying it as a natural part of the system, erodes the foundations of society.

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:47:44 -0500

This differs from a socialist system in that the government does not take ownership of their fortunes to distribute it. These business men earned their fortunes and dispersed it voluntarily.

I don't think they needed to do it. I do think they did a good thing and what is more, they did it in a way which would bring long term benefits to more people than merely their heirs. Carnegie for one did not throw bags of money at anyone who asked for it. He established libraries and universities for the enlightenment of mankind.

John D. Rockefeller said it perfectly, "every man an owner". He believed that workers should have a stake in the company and country they worked in. He also beat the competition by being superefficient, that means extremely focused training and marketing.

Exactly! You are worth as much as your labour. If you work harder, you get out more. If you slack off, you get out less. If your company is super efficient, you deserve to get rich. If your company is not efficient, you should go bankrupt.

wehireu on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

wehireu — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:37:52 -0500

Actually Andrew Carnegie had many ideals that don't quite match with Laissez Faire Capitalism, so does Bill Gates for that matter. They both believed in giving back to society as well as putting huge amounts of capital into education. If you look at the Standard Oil model of capitalism, like Bill Gates and Andrew Carnegie, it did not require workers to be peons or export work abroad so nobody had jobs. John D. Rockefeller said it perfectly, "every man an owner". He believed that workers should have a stake in the company and country they worked in. He also beat the competition by being superefficient, that means extremely focused training and marketing.

This is not the laissez faire model which is being preached by todays capitalists. Henry Ford paid his workers well so they could afford to buy his goods and spread automobiles throughout the country. He also trained his workers in the latest assembly line methods. It was not winner take all with cheap labor and even cheaper products. Advanced capitalism requires advanced highly trained workers. There is a reason Germany which is much smaller China is the number 2 exporter in the world. They produce high quality products with high quality, precision labor.

flamingpoodle on 'What is wrong with socialism?'

flamingpoodle — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:01:16 -0500

a) Yes, exactly. With a laissez faire system, no underhand tactics would be necessary. Of course, they will crop up, but they can not be sustained by government corruption, as they are in our current system. Businesses would be directly dependent on their income, which would be directly obtained by production.

b) But a government doesn't. Let's look at the recent G8 convention. It is evidently a high priority for us, the public, to address carbon emissions. The G8 convention paid lip service to this, and then decided it's a great idea to look for more oil. Huh?

c) No, the corrupt side of human nature should not be tolerated at all, but it is far easier to bribe one centrally controlled authority than what it is to bribe several competitors in a free market. Of course you would not let your competition get away with underhand tactics. You would have to keep your nose clean in order for you to paint your opposition as dirty double crossers every chance you get.

What we currently have is price regulation by the big players in any given market, thanks to government intervention. That's not capitalism. That's not a free market. New players are kept out because they don't meet government criteria, the old players get away with their monopolies because they bribe the government.

The question is: what are the consequences of the systems' operations?

Exactly. The consequences of our current system is that it is OK to be an underachiever, because as you explain someone covers your back. Personally, I am OK with the rule that you have to earn your living, and if you don't, then you don't deserve to live.

Voluntary charity is a different matter entirely.

It was very clear that you were unaware of either the causes of or recovery from the Great Depression.

That's a start. Clearly, you think I'm a useless idiot when it comes to economics and history. Now, enlighten me, what caused the great depression?