News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

Socialism sucks or not?

Started by billy rubin, August 07, 2022, 11:52:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

billy rubin

Alexandria Ocasio Cortz is on the horizon.

she will be 35 years old three weeks before the 2024 election.

i would vote for her.

she has a brain, a far-reaching vision, and she doesnt take shit from the entrenched old guard in congress.


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Asmodean

I think she would be a remarkably ineffective president in a nation like the United States. More ineffective than Biden, probably.

Still, she does have the right energy sometimes, so should she wake up from her Socialist dreams and into the actual workings of this doomed world of ours, and... Yeah, maybe my capital, at least, won't flee the US before she's even inaugurated, like it did with Biden.

EDIT: Look what you made me do! Politicise a obituary like that! For shame! shame on all of us! :rant1:
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

billy rubin

the thing is, she isnt radical. her political views are centrist, but the opposition has trotted so far to the right she appears to be radical.


we already do socialism in america, but the public programs are mostly limited to benefitting the oligarchy.


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Asmodean

#3
Public programs? Socialism is about the top-down redistribution of a nation's resources through public ownership of its production capabilities, not public programs. There is a difference between social- and Socialist. In fact, Socialists generally can't even pay for the very public programs they champion, and a Socialist economy ends up declining no matter how they "tax the rich," resulting in "everyone" who does not flee or move their wealth abroad, save the "party elite," ending up equally poor.

But hey, equity is equity, right? No matter if it's the shitty variety. Of course, the argument is often "but this time..." Yeah... No. Human nature dictates that it cannot work. You can try forcing it to, and end up like Venezuela - or have an external market economy to float upon for a while, like China.

To put it this way, how will president Cortez generate the wealth required to implement the kind of society she seems to want the United States to be?

Will she entice me to swoop in with foreign cash on a promise of good returns? Quite the opposite, the way the signs point. Will she make the US more competitive through lowering prices and those wages that most contribute to driving the prices up? Again, the opposite, if anything. Will she invest public money in industries with solid return prospects? Possibly. That is how today's pension funds tend to operate though.

Of course, there are possible cuts to be had. One could slash the military budget. There are plenty of zeroes to be had there, however, it does not generate any sustained income - just moves what money is (sort-of) there around.

I guess you can derive what I mean by my prediction of her either being remarkably ineffective or waking up to the workings of the world (Shit costs money, and money isn't free) from the above.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

billy rubin

socialism is also about public support for necessary infrastructure designed to benefit the public at large.

we do that in america, but we focus public support on our oligarchy, under the model that public support for the wealthy will trickle down into support for the masses. this has been explicit since 1980, when ronald reagan began the dismantling of my country's economy.

but i am for any economic system that will keep little kids healthy and from going hungry . the american system does not do that. i am all in favor of socialism if it will improve on that.


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Tom62

Maybe we should split this thread. Regarding socialism, it is a very bad idea and always has been. Regarding AOC, I don't want to waste any words on that incredible naive lady.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Asmodean

Please do. I would, but I'm on a iPhone with too few bloody inches of screen.

Me ranting about Socialism (and I do mean to, unfortunately ;-) ) does not belong here.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

billy rubin

i am delightd to listen to thoughtful opinons regarding the pros and cons of socialism. or any economic system. clearly capitalism has failed the people in my country.

but regarding AOC, is it naive to hold to principles and integrity?

or are we so jaded that we automatically discard any vision for humanity that does not focus on venal mediocrity?


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Asmodean

I shall attempt to provide some reasonably though-out comments on Socialism and Capitalism alike, but this thread is screaming to be split. If nobody gets to it before I get home, I shall try to remember to do it there. Don't want to talk politics in Commander's thread.

One tiny comment because I cannot resist;

Capitalism tends to be the tide that raises all ships - from the supertanker to the plank-o-wood.

I can not name a single country failed by Capitalism (which is not to say that they don't exist - I just do not know of any) Similarly, I can not think of a single country uplifted by Socialism.

Food for thought; Portugal is a Socialist state, and not a horrible place to be, overall. Why do so many Portuguese people want to work in a Capitalist hellhole like Norway, and so few Norwegians want to work building the Socialist utopia in Portugal? India is a Socialist state. Why does a poor Indian person barely have food, let alone electricity, while a poor German usually has a smart phone and access to high-speed Internet? Cuba is a Socialist state. Why do so many Cubans risk everything to cross over to the Capitalist United States - even when they must know they will have at the very best a mixed reception?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Tom62

What I've seen in the Netherlands and Germany is that socialists (all variants of them) don't have a clue how the economy works. They love huge, obscure, feel good, bloated, fuzzy, bottomless projects that sucks the taxpayer's money out of their pockets for a very long time. Basically they don't know how plan, to budget, to organise and to control. A good example of this was the Berlin Airport (BER) disaster.

Socialists love to spend loads of money and by doing that they create recessions and inflation. After a socialist government, we always need a liberal, conservative government to clean up the socialist mess.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

billy rubin

in american neither political group is willing to reduce spending. the democrats want to tax and spend, and tbe republicans want to not tax and spend.

republican administrations always balloon the american deficit. democratic administrations reduce the deficit. the numbers show this patter for the last 40 years, right up to trump and biden.

but capitalism-as pravticed in america-- does not raise all ships. it raises the ships only of those who hold the capital. the standard of living for average americsns has been in decline since the 1970s, hastened by tax-cutting conservatives. we have much richer rich people and fewer well off middle income people now than we have had in four decades.

reaganism was a water shed. its gotten worse since 1980


"I cannot understand the popularity of that kind of music, which is based on repetition. In a civilized society, things don't need to be said more than three times."

Asmodean

Can you explain the decline in the standard of living among Americans? Is it the indexed income plus services plus luxuries thing? Or do you mean something more/different?

That said, let's jump off that bridge when we get to it - which is now.

1. On Socialism

Socialism is an economic/political system where the collective largely owns the means of production. I do despise the buzzwords, so let me rephrase slightly; it is a system, in which the society (usually C/O the state) largely owns land, capital and labour.

That necessitates that you as a cog in the proverbial Socialist machine do not even own all your own labour - remember, it's workers and other such terms in plural - "never" the singular you.

People not getting invested in something not their own is one of the reasons why Socialism fails, unless it has a solid cushion of something else to support it. Say I'm the entrepreneurial type. Why would I work as hard for the betterment of the land, not my own as I would for that, in which I have a personal stake? Why would I work towards creation of wealth I won't get to keep? Why would I compete and innovate and in the process contribute to someone not thusly inclined getting a pay check for their nine-to-five in my enterprise?

And so innovation stagnates, the drive for equity kills competitiveness, the wealth-generating entrepreneurs swim for sweeter waters in numbers that let themselves be felt and towards the end, the nation is reduced to little more than natural resource sales, which loses its edge due to that very same lack of innovation and often ends up getting plundered by the wider world.

China (and, to a degree, Viet Nam) are in fact succeeding as they are, in spite of their Socialist ways, because in several practical ways, their Socialism does not extend to the entrepreneurial classes. They can compete on what almost amounts to the free market, though often coasting on a cushion of very low labour cost, supplied by the Socialist "rest."

...But I do waffle on. Let's get back to the core of the issue.

Fully implementing and maintaining Socialism necessitates a tyrannical government OR a population fully willing to give up their land, capital or effort without say in it. You do not decide to sell what's yours to whatever bidder may please you - in a Socialist society, it's not yours to sell. You are not yours to sell. Additionally, ruling towards the betterment or the good of the whole of society to the exclusion of the individual offers no safeguards from being ruled against. An example for clarity; There is one rich (Note how I did not say "wealthy." There is a reason) person and one hundred destitute people. One could argue that by taking everything from the rich person, and distributing it to the poor, the whole would be better off - now, you have a society of a hundred people of modest means and one destitute person. Socialism allows for that - the formerly-rich person's riches were not his to begin with, after all - they were everybody's.

So to put it in (too) simple terms, and Anarcho-anything would probably disagree with my reasoning here vehemently, but they do them - while in a Capitalist society, you pay rent for living or operating a business in it in the form of taxes, and said rent goes towards mowing the lawn and tarring the roof and such, in a Socialist society, you live and operate "rent-free," (those taxes are money that was never yours to begin with) but only in the sense that you live and operate at the mercy and discretion of the collective and, historically speaking, nobody mows the lawn or tars the roof - or when it does get done, it's not done well.

I think this will do for a round one.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

No one

Does it swallow though, that's the real question.

hermes2015

"Eventually everything connects - people, ideas, objects. The quality of the connections is the key to quality per se."
― Charles Eames

Asmodean

#14
Does it matter? It's public semen, after all, not yours.  ;D

2. On taxes (a practical tangent)

In Norway, for convenience we have a system whereby the employer can pay the income tax for you (Off your paycheck, naturally) on a monthly basis.

It is not an opt-in system, though it's easy enough to opt out of. You can tell your employer to follow whatever tax table suits you, or whatever percentage tax you wish, but it's yours to do - most do not. Some even opt to pay more so as to get back some cash from the government - often without realising that the best case here is not a gain - it's merely zero loss. If that's not settling for less, we should probably redefine the term.

Now, there is a semi-prevalent belief among my fellow Capitalist swine, though of a more anarchist leaning, that taxation is theft. Well, doing it how we do actually is, in a round-about way. Let me explain;

Yes, if my employer does not pay my taxes for me, I will have to pay them myself, in one lump once a year, or in two lumps with a month or two between, around the same time. However, until those taxes are paid, they are still your money. If you are, for example, not too terrible at stock trading, you could use it to generate wealth for you.

For instance, I'm a bit of a beginner on the big, choppy waters of stock trading, so for me, 10000NOK generates around 800NOK a year reliably across my entire portfolio so, if I pay my taxes myself and simply invest that money the way I tend to (And I am getting better at the craft, but let us assume I'm not for the sake of simplicity. Let us further assume that my yearly tax burden is 120000 - for easy division by 12) I will end up generating some passive income I otherwise would not have.

First month, I keep the 10000 and invest. Return: 800. Second month: same. Return:733. Third month...

In the end, we end up with a net gain for my sweet self of 800+733+667+600+533+466+400+333+267+200+133=5132. Then I pay the 120K to the government and job's a good 'un. (The added income is also subject to tax - but next year)

Now, it's absolutely possible to get burned on the market and go in red in stead of black. However, it is equally possible, if playing safe, to double or triple the numbers I operate with here. Still, if that is how you make your tax money work for you, a buffer to be able to cover the expenses is very prudent indeed.

There are of course other ways of making tax money generate wealth before the bill's due, but my purpose here is simply to demonstrate, so I do that using what tools I know.

So while taxes themselves are more akin to rent than they are to theft, what systems like ours steal from you, is the opportunity to use that money productively in an attempt to create an overhead for yourself.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.