What is wrong with Socialism, or Marxism?

[Left Coast]

I'm not saying it's your job; I'm asking because stating that the socialist label doesn't fit my views implies that you might have already thought of another label that you believe better describes my positions.

Nope, just that you're describing an idiosyncratic "socialism."

Regardless of which I picked, I don't think I could formulate an exhaustive economic policy for them and simply write it out. Such a process would require extensive familiarity with the nuances of a country's situation and expert advice as well.

I suspect the reason for this has to do with more than your lack of familiarity.

I don't really think the question gives much insight, for two main reasons:

1) As we have been over multiple times, the examples of socialist states are few and have all been based on a single variety thereof (or one of its offshoots). Almost all of the world's countries right now are capitalist, to varying extents.

2) Even when comparing most countries (which are capitalist) to each other, there are some that have better living standards than the rest. This is not limited to the dichotomy of capitalism versus socialism but also involves a lot of historical, geopolitical, and cultural factors.

Yet we can still draw helpful overall conclusions, despite the nuances of each case. As you've said, we've been over this. No other version of socialism you've discussed has a viable mechanism for economic control to replace government.

So, out of the few examples that have existed, there have been no socialist countries I would have liked to live in.

Thank you. That's helpful.

I recognize that. I'm also highlighting that what I support isn't remotely close to the ideology that resulted in the atrocities committed in the USSR, China, and other totalitarian states.

And I appreciate that.

I mentioned George Orwell earlier. I think he works as an example here too: he was a vocal critic of political extremism in the USSR, and his socialism didn't prevent or contradict that.

(I also don't mind being in a minority. I'm used to it due to my religious background. )

I'm quite sleepy, and I also think I've said pretty much everything I have to say about this thread. Thanks for the discussion! It's always thought-provoking and fun to talk to you.

Sleep well!

 

[Debater Slayer]

I suspect the reason for this has to do with more than your lack of familiarity.

Like what?

(I couldn't resist my curiosity. )

Sleep well!

Thanks! Have a good night too.

 

[Left Coast]

Like what?

(I couldn't resist my curiosity. )

Socialism and governmental control work hand in glove. It's not a bug; it's a feature.

 

[Stevicus]

Yeah....like you really take in the whole picture.

Duh.

I'm trying to help you.

Of course. There's much to criticize in USA from
its origin to modern times. Capitalism doesn't
eliminate problems. It just has less severe ones
than alternatives.

So it always goes.

You what you like in the 50s & 60s.
You scorn what happened since.
This approach entirely ignores what's
worse in the former, & better in the latter.
I see a different (bigger) picture, so we'll
never agree.

No, of course, we'll never agree. Or at least, I know you'll never agree with socialism, so I won't even bother arguing about that with you anymore. But I was thinking that the Keynesian system seemed to work better for America in a lot of ways, while the changes brought about by Reagan and continued by his successors (in both parties) have put the country into severe difficulties.
I'm not ignoring what may have been "worse in the former & better in the latter." These absurd statements you keep making.

I just don't think it's necessary for the purpose of the discussion to cite a long list of the various things that might be worse or better, then or now. I'm just looking at two different ways the US economy has been managed and seeing that one way was more worker-friendly, more supportive of labor unions, had a track record of consistent growth in real wages year after year.

Then there were also social justice movements and barriers which were broken. Landmark Supreme Court decisions which set the precedents we follow today. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with many other groundbreaking, monumental achievements, socially, culturally, technologically, scientifically, industrially.

There were still a lot of negatives, and it would take time to correct a lot of social injustices in practice. Nobody expected it all to be fixed overnight anyway, but during the era in question, at least we appeared to heading on a better course.

The only real problem was a paranoid obsession over communism, not just in terms of the Soviet Union, but anywhere in the world, as well as within the U.S. Whatever one may think about socialism, I can't see how anyone can deny the internal damage and violations of civil liberties which occurred just because our government and others were excessively paranoid about international communist conspiracies.

As a result, it kind of lingers on and creates a pall over any real attempt to discuss the merits of any proposals towards economic reform. It doesn't have to be called "socialism" or even "capitalism." As I said numerous times in this and other threads, people get too tied up over labels and not so much on the ideas behind the labels.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, of course, we'll never agree. Or at least, I know you'll never agree with socialism, so I won't even bother arguing about that with you anymore.

Praise Jesus!

 

[Stevicus]

Praise Jesus!

Wow, you've become a believer? I can't believe it.

 

[Estro Felino]

Socialism relies first on the success of Capitalism! The state confiscates and redistributes the production of capitalist enterprises and workers in order to subsidize its idealism. Eventually the parasitical state becomes a cancer, choking off the lifeblood of its revenue streams!

The banking system is parasitic.
The difference is that the State use public money to build roads, schools and hospitals.

The bankers will use their money gained through legalized usury on casinos and brothels.

 

[Colt]

The banking system is parasitic.
The difference is that the State use public money to build roads, schools and hospitals.

The bankers will use their money gained through legalized usury on casinos and brothels.

“Public money” was taken from workers and producers.

Reasonable interest rates are paid to citizens whose savings are deposited in banks and loaned to capitalists who produce, create wealth and employ workers.

 

[Estro Felino]

“Public money” was taken from workers and producers.

Reasonable interest rates are paid to citizens whose savings are deposited in banks and loaned to capitalists who produce, create wealth and employ workers.

What do businesses who produce goods and services have to do with the banking system, which is legalized usury?

There is an unfathomable difference between producing wool or linen and charging disproportionate interests on lent money.

 

[Colt]

What do businesses who produce goods and services have to do with the banking system, which is legalized usury?

There is an unfathomable difference between producing wool or linen and charging disproportionate interests on lent money.

Thats the problem, you are clueless as to how banking works! Entrepeneur's go to banks and or private citizens to barrow money at reasonable rates in order to buy the means of production that they could not otherwise afford. Depositors and investors are compensated for the risk of lending. Everyone is happy and have no problem with what you call usury.

 

[Estro Felino]

Thats the problem, you are clueless as to how banking works! Entrepeneur's go to banks and or private citizens to barrow money at reasonable rates in order to buy the means of production that they could not otherwise afford. Depositors and investors are compensated for the risk of lending. Everyone is happy and have no problem with what you call usury.

Explain me seigniorage then.
The FED's seigniorage, to be precise.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, you've become a believer? I can't believe it.

The spirit moved me.

 

[Colt]

Explain me seigniorage then.
The FED's seigniorage, to be precise.

Seigniorage is the profit made by a government from printing money, its simply the face value of the money minus the cost of physically making it. In the case of the Fed the interest they charge minus expense goes to the treasury like taxes. When the Fed holds more assets those payments go to depositors and less to the treasury.

 

[Estro Felino]

Seigniorage is the profit made by a government from printing money,

Wrong answer. The FED is a private bank...so it has nothing to do with the Government which is a public law entity.

its simply the face value of the money minus the cost of physically making it.

Exactly.

In the case of the Fed the interest they charge minus expense goes to the treasury like taxes.

Wrong. The FED prints money and gives it to the Government in exchange for bonds.
Those bonds are promissory notes by which the Government promises the FED to repay the value of the banknotes plus interests.

Who gains all those billions that the Government pays to the FED?
The FED's proprietors which are private banks like JP Morgan and many others.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wrong answer. The FED is a private bank...so it has nothing to do with the Government which is a public law entity.

I'd expect a jurist to know of a subject before
holding forth with claims about it.

Federal Reserve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Excerpted...
The Federal Reserve System (often shortened to the Federal Reserve, or simply the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, after a series of financial panics (particularly the panic of 1907) led to the desire for central control of the monetary system in order to alleviate financial crises.[list 1] Over the years, events such as the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Great Recession during the 2000s have led to the expansion of the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System.[6][11]

Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and moderating long-term interest rates.[12] The first two objectives are sometimes referred to as the Federal Reserve's dual mandate.[13] Its duties have expanded over the years, and currently also include supervising and regulating banks, maintaining the stability of the financial system, and providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions.[14] The Fed also conducts research into the economy and provides numerous publications, such as the Beige Book and the FRED database.

 

[PureX]

I would like to ask all the staunchest defenders of Laissez-faire and neo-liberism, why they think socialism is a bad idea.
But also defenders of Socialism and Marxism can express their take and strengthen or correct the OP.

Also from a spiritual point of view.
I think that we live in a over-exploited world. And Capitalism has pushed people to over-exploit the planet, so we need to re-think of ourselves as co-workers of social justice.
And not makers of inequality and injustice.

This ephemeral life is meaningless if it's all dedicated to over-exploitation of resources, which is fomented by greed.

Thank yous for your answers

The problem is that almost no one here has any honest idea what capitalism, socialism, or neo-liberalism is. But everyone is absolutely certain that their vague, knee-jerk definitions are completely accurate, and everyone else is lying.

So good luck with this thread.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'd expect a jurist to know of a subject before
holding forth with claims about it.

Federal Reserve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Excerpted...
The Federal Reserve System (often shortened to the Federal Reserve, or simply the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It was created on December 23, 1913, with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, after a series of financial panics (particularly the panic of 1907) led to the desire for central control of the monetary system in order to alleviate financial crises.[list 1] Over the years, events such as the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Great Recession during the 2000s have led to the expansion of the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System.[6][11]

Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and moderating long-term interest rates.[12] The first two objectives are sometimes referred to as the Federal Reserve's dual mandate.[13] Its duties have expanded over the years, and currently also include supervising and regulating banks, maintaining the stability of the financial system, and providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions.[14] The Fed also conducts research into the economy and provides numerous publications, such as the Beige Book and the FRED database.

Well...it's easy that way.
I too can claim I am Miss Italy 2023.

Does saying it makes me Miss Italia?

Of course not.

You guys can say that the FED is public...etc...

De facto is what matters in law. Not de jure.
De facto the FED is a private bank because it is owned by private banks which profit from that.

 

[Colt]

Wrong answer. The FED is a private bank...so it has nothing to do with the Government which is a public law entity.

Exactly.

Wrong. The FED prints money and gives it to the Government in exchange for bonds.
Those bonds are promissory notes by which the Government promises the FED to repay the value of the banknotes plus interests.

Who gains all those billions that the Government pays to the FED?
The FED's proprietors which are private banks like JP Morgan and many others.

Thats all conspiracy nonsense! Last year the Fed paid $107.4 Billion to the treasury on income of $107.8 billion. Thats -$400 million for operating costs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well...it's easy that way.
I too can claim I am Miss Italy 2023.

Does saying it makes me Miss Italia?

Of course not.

You guys can say that the FED is public...etc...

De facto is what matters in law. Not de jure.
De facto the FED is a private bank because it is owned by private banks which profit from that.

You claimed....
".... it has nothing to do with the Government which is a public law entity."
That is utterly wrong.
Government created & directs the Fed.

 

[Estro Felino]

You claimed....
".... it has nothing to do with the Government which is a public law entity."
That is utterly wrong.
Government created & directs the Fed.

And who owns the FED?
The Treasury?