Cornel West announces 2024 run for president as People’s Party candidate

[Revoltingest]

It harms gamblers, those who play with money.
That is, they game with speculations.

I thought you'd studied economics?
But even without studying it many
people see the downside of inflacion.
Guess who they are.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll give you the communists but socialism, especially democratic socialism and social democracy....

What's your definition of those terms?

 

[Estro Felino]

I thought you'd studied economics?
But even without studying it many
people see the downside of inflacion.
Guess who they are.

Money is a tool. It's a not an end.
A little of inflation enables enterprises to gain more, so they can pay their employees.
If enterprises gain nothing, they will have to fire their employees and unemployment will arise.
This is basic logic.

 

[fantome profane]

Money is a tool. It's a not an end.
A little of inflation enables enterprises to gain more, so they can pay their employees.
If enterprises gain nothing, they will have to fire their employees and unemployment will arise.
This is basic logic.

Are you sure you got the arrow of causation pointing in the right direction?

 

[Estro Felino]

Are you sure you got the arrow of causation pointing in the right direction?

I said " a little bit " of inflation.
And by the way, according to the Keynesian model, the supply-side economics enable an economy to grow. The demand for good and services is always changing. People will stop consuming and start saving if there is recession.
So if the demand collapses, there will be a crisis or overproduction and many goods and services will remain unsold.
But, if there is enough money in the monetary circuit, people can buy those goods and services the enterprises produce.
So Y = C+I+G+XN, that is consuming, investments, public expenditure and net exportations.

 

[Estro Felino]

To simplify.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'll give you the communists but socialism, especially democratic socialism and social democracy are widely successful political/economic systems. Social democracy is responsible for all the amenities European countries have and the US with its late stage capitalism lacks, namely functioning social security and a functioning health care system.

The problem is the countries people like to call socialist vehemently deny the label. Others that actually were socialist, completely collapsed and failed like Venezuela and Greece.

 

[Heyo]

What's your definition of those terms?

Social - any system that promotes community, traditionally with communal property ownership to varying degrees. Social democrats don't insist on that any more but have it replaced by a high tax, high service system.
Communism - a classless, stateless society where all property is communally owned - as the proclaimed goal; with the revolutionary overthrow of a capitalist society and a phase of dictatorship "of the proletariat" as described by Lenin. No communist regime ever left the dictatorship phase (and it wouldn't).

Note the "traditional" qualifier for social(-ists). Every party that has social democracy, democratic socialism or socialism in it's name, has at one point advocated for communal ownership of the means of production (or is still doing it). But just as whales are still ungulates, social democrats are by inheritance still in the "social" hierarchy. Only true, unqualified socialists have to have the demand for communal ownership in their program.

 

[Estro Felino]

The problem is the countries people like to call socialist vehemently deny the label. Others that actually were socialist, completely collapsed and failed like Venezuela and Greece.

Greece collapsed because of an usurocratic system called Troika.
With the Drachma, Greece was doing fine.

 

[Revoltingest]

Money is a tool. It's a not an end.
A little of inflation enables enterprises to gain more, so they can pay their employees.
If enterprises gain nothing, they will have to fire their employees and unemployment will arise.
This is basic logic.

You haven't employed logic....just made claims.
If a potato costs a dollar in 2000.
An identical potato cost double in 2010.
(Other goods & services also double.)
Wages also double.
How has anyone gained?

 

[Revoltingest]

Social - any system that promotes community, traditionally with communal property ownership to varying degrees. Social democrats don't insist on that any more but have it replaced by a high tax, high service system.
Communism - a classless, stateless society where all property is communally owned - as the proclaimed goal; with the revolutionary overthrow of a capitalist society and a phase of dictatorship "of the proletariat" as described by Lenin. No communist regime ever left the dictatorship phase (and it wouldn't).

Note the "traditional" qualifier for social(-ists). Every party that has social democracy, democratic socialism or socialism in it's name, has at one point advocated for communal ownership of the means of production (or is still doing it). But just as whales are still ungulates, social democrats are by inheritance still in the "social" hierarchy. Only true, unqualified socialists have to have the demand for communal ownership in their program.

It's interesting how many very different
definitions float around out there.
Which countries fit (historically or currently)
these definitions in your view?

Note:
Some posters fear there's a GOTCHA agenda
with such questions. I don't have one here.
(But I reserve the right to have one in the future.)

 

[Estro Felino]

You haven't employed logic....just made claims.
If a potato costs a dollar in 2000.
An identical potato cost double in 2010.
(Other goods & services also double.)
Wages also double.
How has anyone gained?

That's why a State is needed that imposes that wages rise accordingly.
On the basis of the annual inflation rate.
So consumers will have the money to buy goods and services.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I go by Britannica as well as the originators themselves as they put it.

Communism | Definition, History, Varieties, & Facts | Britannica

Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

www.britannica.com

That link literally disagrees with your point that all socialism is Marxism.

 

[averageJOE]

Well...by default, Dr. West will make it further than RFK Jr. will.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That link literally disagrees with your point that all socialism is Marxism.

Not really. It's all related.

 

[Stevicus]

Social - any system that promotes community, traditionally with communal property ownership to varying degrees. Social democrats don't insist on that any more but have it replaced by a high tax, high service system.
Communism - a classless, stateless society where all property is communally owned - as the proclaimed goal; with the revolutionary overthrow of a capitalist society and a phase of dictatorship "of the proletariat" as described by Lenin. No communist regime ever left the dictatorship phase (and it wouldn't).

Note the "traditional" qualifier for social(-ists). Every party that has social democracy, democratic socialism or socialism in it's name, has at one point advocated for communal ownership of the means of production (or is still doing it). But just as whales are still ungulates, social democrats are by inheritance still in the "social" hierarchy. Only true, unqualified socialists have to have the demand for communal ownership in their program.

A key point about socialism that should be mentioned is that it didn't really start to take hold until capitalism (aka "classical economics") was in place, industrialism was in full swing, and the industrial proletariat had gained some experience and understanding in what was going on around them. That's when there started to be some significant pushback. But the capitalists didn't really take well to that, and they pushed back hard. They were strong opposers of any kind of movement to improve working conditions and wages for workers - no matter if it was socialist or not.

The fact that they would employ strikebreakers and other violent, hardball, cruel tactics on people who simply wanted a better living wage was something that did not go unnoticed by socialists. By their own actions, capitalists revealed that the only way they could make a profit was through exploitation, bullying, and beating people up (along with conquest, murder, genocide, slavery, political corruption - recurring themes throughout history). It was within this kind of political atmosphere and historical knowledge that many socialistic perceptions were forged as a sharp reaction against what had already been taking place for quite a long time.

So, when one considers the nature and tone of the entrenched levels of power the socialists were openly defying, it's not that difficult to fathom how they could be goaded into a comparable level of ruthlessness. I'm not saying that makes it right, but when fighting wealthy, powerful aristocrats who are absolutely determined to fight tooth and nail to make themselves richer and the poor poorer, one might wonder if anything in this world is ever truly "right."

Even after the Russian Revolution, the USSR was still mostly isolated and surrounded by enemies who were committed and determined to see them fail, and in other countries, there was abject fearmongering taking place, such as the Red Scare in the U.S. The Bolsheviks, who would later call themselves Communists, were still very much socialists, yet kind of like socialists on steroids, one might say. Socialism was considered the path and the process they had to go through to get to communism. It was also formulated with the expectation that other countries would have their own socialist revolutions which would unite all workers of the world, but when that didn't pan out as expected, the concept of 'socialism in one country' was developed by Stalin, which was quasi-nationalistic in its tone and scope. It was socialist in the sense that the military is socialist, although it would be as if everyone was made part of the military. They were on a war footing and built up a national security apparatus which secured Stalin's dictatorship.

 

[Heyo]

It's interesting how many very different
definitions float around out there.
Which countries fit (historically or currently)
these definitions in your view?

I don't think any country fits the definitions perfectly. It's the parties in the countries that fit them to different degrees and they rarely govern without coalitions for a long enough time to implement all of their policies.
In Europe especially France and Germany have a somewhat socialist tradition with their car manufacturers partially owned by the state. (That's real means of production, not only services like national post offices or railroads, which are or were also in state possession, in part or in total.)

 

[Revoltingest]

That's why a State is needed that imposes that wages rise accordingly.
On the basis of the annual inflation rate.
So consumers will have the money to buy goods and services.

That doesn't support your claim that inflation is good.
Good for what, after considering both costs & benefits?

 

[Estro Felino]

That doesn't support your claim that inflation is good.
Good for what, after considering both costs & benefits?

I won't speak of abstract theorism.
I will speak of reality. Real things.
The euro: a criminal currency supported by three-headed monstrous creature called Troika.

In other words: the euro-system imposes a very low inflation rate, by preventing this currency from being devalued. But, since the demand for money is necessary for investments to be made, the Troika decided to devalue the wages and the cost of labor, by promoting fixed-term jobs, low wages, at-will employment and similar neo-liberistic stuff coming from the United States.

If you analyze the Phillips Curve, you will realize that a low inflation goes hand-in-hand with a high unemployment rate.
Why? It's very simple: because low inflation is often caused by shortage of money both in the short run and in the medium run. Shortage of money destroys consuming. No consuming, no sales. So many enterprises will close, because of the huge quantity of unsold merchandise.
And of course they will have to dismiss all their employees. Shortage of money will push savers to stop consuming and investing and all the money will be saved. Not invested, and so few enterprises will be created. And the unemployment rate will remain high.

 

[Revoltingest]

I won't speak of abstract theorism.
I will speak of reality. Real things.

The effects of inflation are real.
Why make a claim, & refuse to discuss it?