Your Political Status

[Revoltingest]

How about "soziale Marktwirtschaft" (social market economy)? It works reasonably, we have it practically since 1949.

Good luck teaching English speakers to pronounce that.
No one can invent a more awkward name than the Germans.
Well...Icelanders are strong competition.

 

[Debater Slayer]

What's odd: Self identified "socialists" say socialism
is schools, roads, social services, courts, & such.
Then they criticize conservatives for using socialism
as a scare-word when referring to schools, roads,
social services, courts, & such. And then, they
say capitalism must die, & cite socialism's success
in capitalist countries, eg, Denmark.
It seems they're in love with a word they don't
understand at all.

I think this problem goes away if one recognizes two things:

• Denmark and several other successful countries employ principles both from capitalism and socialism. They don't have just one influence to which they owe their success. Some Marxist ideas remain deeply influential in many countries, including a subset of European ones.

• Social democracy, which is more capitalistic than many other forms of socialism, can be seen as a necessary transitional stage to pure socialism. I'm among the camp who believe that socialism cannot and should not be abruptly force-fed to existing systems, and I also believe it's much more sensible to enact gradual, incremental change. Attempts to abruptly and overwhelmingly transform society can result in atrocities, as was the case with Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, among others.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd say you were correct. To different between democratic socialists and social democrats (I put myself loosely in the latter category), democratic socialists do seem to be committed to the systematic transformation of the economy away from capitalism and towards socialism, while social democrats, leaving most businesses in private hands, try to use capitalism to create the means of affording strong welfare programs where needed.

I am convinced that capitalism, which encourages rather than discourages entrepreneurship for private gain, is the only economic system that can truly create wealth. As a social democrat, I don't see the difficulty in leaving much of that wealth with those who create it (and in doing so, create wealth opportunities for those it employs), while asking all "haves" to contribute (through taxation) to the general well-being. As a (very minor) "have" myself, I happily vote some tax money towards general welfare.

I recently heard a story on NPR about Kim Jong Il's
kidnapped S Korean movie makers. He said that
he needed them to upgrade N Korea's dismal movies
because under socialism, they get their rations whether
the movies are good or bad. And heavy censorship
with severe sanctions resulted in every movie plot being
about politically correct workers serving the motherland
...with far too much crying. (He wanted less crying in
movies.)
All this straight from the dear leader's mouth.
(The kidnapped pair got a tape recorder, & secretly
recorded him.)

Oddly, the kidnapped movie producer led a rather
Cunagonde-like existence, enjoying great luxury in captivity.
And even stranger, he had even more freedom to make
movies than back home in S Korea.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I recently heard a story on NPR about Kim Jong Il's
kidnapped S Korean movie makers. He said that
he needed them to upgrade N Korea's dismal movies
because under socialism, they get their rations whether
the movies are good or bad. And heavy censorship
with severe sanctions resulted in every movie plot being
about politically correct workers serving the motherland
...with far too much crying.
All this straight from the dear leader's mouth.
(The kidnapped pair got a tape recorder, & secretly
recorded him.)

I'm not sure what this is supposed to say about socialism as a whole rather than the specific practices of the North Korean regime.

I could quote Churchill and Charles de Gaulle about how people in colonies are lesser or just assets to be exploited and enslaved. This was to funnel resources into capitalist economies. Would you find it fair to paint all capitalist systems with that brush?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think this problem goes away if one recognizes two things:

• Denmark and several other successful countries employ principles both from capitalism and socialism. They don't have just one influence to which they owe their success. Some Marxist ideas remain deeply influential in many countries, including a subset of European ones.

• Social democracy, which is more capitalistic than many other forms of socialism, can be seen as a necessary transitional stage to pure socialism. I'm among the camp who believe that socialism cannot and should not be abruptly force-fed to existing systems, and I also believe it's much more sensible to enact gradual, incremental change. Attempts to abruptly and overwhelmingly transform society can result in atrocities, as was the case with Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, among others.

One problem socialists won't face is that socialism is
exactly like capitalism in one respect, ie, they're both
about who owns the means of production.
Neither is fundamentally defined as having....
- Social safety nets
- Liberty
- Democracy
Those 3 traits are independent of the economic systems
as defined. Socialists often commit the mistake that
socialism will have them, & capitalism denies them.
This is worse than a bad assumption...it runs afoul of
historical empiricism, ie, that without capitalism, every
socialist country has been fascist with poor social services.
Thus, calling social services & government provided
infrastructure "socialism" is quite the misnomer

With capitalism, it's possible to have that trio of easy
living. It's why socialists love to point to Denmark &
its ilk as examples of socialism.
So we must beware firebrands like AOC, who decry
capitalism as "irredeemable", & want government
control of the entire economy. Government cannot
be trusted with something so important.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure what this is supposed to say about socialism as a whole rather than the specific practices of the North Korean regime.

Kim Jong Il was the one who made the general comment
about socialism, ie, that individual initiative & creativity
wither when meager rations are guaranteed. No one
will take risks to reap great reward.
His words.

I could quote Churchill and Charles de Gaulle about how people in colonies are lesser or just assets to be exploited and enslaved. This was to funnel resources into capitalist economies. Would you find it fair to paint all capitalist systems with that brush?

Your broad brush is inaccurate.
In some capitalist regimes, there is/was slavery.
You cannot claim that it's true in all.
But under socialism, it is without exception that
the regime is fascist, & economic performance is poor.
Moreover, no one loves enslaving people more than
socialist regimes, eg, Soviets, PRC.

 

[Debater Slayer]

One problem socialists won't face is that socialism is
exactly like capitalism in one respect, ie, they're both
about who owns the means of production.
Neither is fundamentally defined as having....
- Social safety nets
- Liberty
- Democracy
Those 3 traits are independent of the economic systems
as defined. Socialists often commit the mistake that
socialism will have them, & capitalism denies them.
This is worse than a bad assumption...it runs afoul of
historical empiricism, ie, that without capitalism, every
socialist country has been fascist with poor social services.
Thus, calling social services & government provided
infrastructure "socialism" is quite the misnomer

With capitalism, it's possible to have that trio of easy
living. It's why socialists love to point to Denmark &
its ilk as examples of socialism.
So we must beware firebrands like AOC, who decry
capitalism as "irredeemable", & want government
control of the entire economy. Government cannot
be trusted with something so important.

Economic systems don't exist in a vacuum; they do indeed influence other aspects of politics such as democracy, liberty, and social safety nets. When capitalism gets out of hand—and most implementations thereof have at one point or another—it chips away at all of these and contributes to imperialism. In the US, for example, "democracy" is largely a binary choice between two parties, and in recent years, a lot of people have increasingly found themselves choosing the lesser evil rather than someone they truly stand behind.

I don't know in what context AOC called capitalism "irredeemable," but that's not the word I would use. Capitalism is an essential stage of economic progress. However, at this specific point in time, I think it has become utterly unsustainable. Whether that makes it irredeemable is largely a moot point, because issues like climate change, global inflation, and corporate lobbying are past the point where we can simply reverse them through small modifications to capitalist systems. Now we need a systematic overhaul—which I believe would be best employed gradually, as I mentioned, but perhaps it's also too late for that considering that climate change won't just wait for us to make necessary reforms.

A democratic government should be possible to trust with regulating the economy to a greater degree than found in the US. I'm not suggesting a Stalinist centralized economy, but the US could be regulating much more strictly and effectively than it does now.

There's no way to sustain capitalism over the long term without imperialism, exploitation of resources and labor, and foreign interventionism. Do you think Denmark or Sweden would be doing so well if it didn't trade with other countries that have long had deeply exploitative practices such as China, the US, and France? It's a global system that no single country can address in isolation of the rest. Even China has had to relax some of its regulation in order to participate in the global market and play by its rules.

 

[Kathryn]

I wouldn't enter anything

I don't mind the religious label I have chosen for myself because I have strong and detailed religious beliefs

I would not give myself a political label as I don't have strong and detailed political beliefs

That's how I feel. Anyway, I'm Roman Catholic so we don't fit in any political box very nicely. Like you, I have strong and detailed religious beliefs but I don't have strong and detailed political beliefs. Heck, I don't like anyone and I never trust any politician.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Kim Jong Il was the one who made the general comment
about socialism, ie, that individual initiative & creativity
wither when meager rations are guaranteed. No one
will take risks to reap great reward.
His words.

I suppose one could ask him why he didn't offer greater state-sponsored rewards for innovation. The USSR went to space before the US. Even the most authoritarian countries can subsidize innovation if they so choose.

Your broad brush is inaccurate.
In some capitalist regimes, there is/was slavery.
You cannot claim that it's true in all.
But under socialism, it is without exception that
the regime is fascist, & economic performance is poor.

Capitalism is also significantly older than socialism, so naturally, it has far more examples both of failure and relative success. Consider that there have only been several major examples of socialist states, and most of those have followed a specific form thereof, which is Marxism-Leninism or one of its offshoots (mainly Stalinism and Maoism).

Furthermore, the comparison is largely inaccurate because the global system had already been steeped in capitalism when the USSR became a global power. From the get-go, this creates an unfavorable environment fraught with sanctions, interventionism, and disruption. Add to that what I mentioned above about the relative novelty of socialism as a historical development as well as the lack of diversity in the ideologies of the several attempted socialist states and you have a picture that simply doesn't give sufficient information from which we could judge the whole umbrella of socialism as a "failed" or "totalitarian" system.

Moreover, no one loves enslaving people more than
socialist regimes, eg, Soviets, PRC.

This statement is extremely limited in scope, though. Capitalist states have built entire empires on colonization, slavery, and exploitation of other countries' resources... and when they haven't directly done any of these things, they have instead engaged in "softer" imperialism via political and economic pressure or interventionism to bend other states to their will.

Either way, the USSR and China are pretty bad examples, yes, but I've also explained why I don't believe that they should be used to dismiss socialist thought as a whole. At most, they represent two or three varieties of socialism and nothing else.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose one could ask him why he didn't offer greater state-sponsored rewards for innovation. The USSR went to space before the US. Even the most authoritarian countries can subsidize innovation if they so choose.

You've wonderfully illustrated a fundamental problem
in a command economy, ie, that the state chooses
what initiative to take.
I prefer the capitalist model. The individual takes
initiative of one's own choosing.

One could argue that a command economy (socialism)
could be different. But history shows that it tends to
not be so.

Capitalism is also significantly older than socialism, so naturally, it has far more examples both of failure and relative success.

Capitalism had successes immediately upon arising.
Socialism has been around for a century without an
example that measures up to the potential offered
by capitalism.

Consider that there have only been several major examples of socialist states, and most of those have followed a specific form thereof, which is Marxism-Leninism or one of its offshoots (mainly Stalinism and Maoism).

If you claim that some other form of replacing capitalism
with socialism could work well, I'd like to see evidence.
Why replace what has been shown to work well with
something that's yielded only failure so far?
Even without an example of success, you'd need a
theoretical model that fully takes into account human
behavior. Just as capitalists cannot presume homo
economicus, socialists cannot presume an improved
human.

Furthermore, the comparison is largely inaccurate because the global system had already been steeped in capitalism when the USSR became a global power. From the get-go, this creates an unfavorable environment fraught with sanctions, interventionism, and disruption. Add to that what I mentioned above about the relative novelty of socialism as a historical development as well as the lack of diversity in the ideologies of the several attempted socialist states and you have a picture that simply doesn't give sufficient information from which we could judge the whole umbrella of socialism as a "failed" or "totalitarian" system.

That sounds like blaming capitalists for the failure of
socialism. This ignores how the socialist countries
have functioned poorly in ways independent of outside
influence, eg, China's Great Leap Forward & the
centralization of agriculture, Soviet purges, the
Holodomor.

This statement is extremely limited in scope, though. Capitalist states have built entire empires on colonization, slavery, and exploitation of other countries' resources....

Once again, your argument for socialism, & against
capitalism is based upon 2 different standards....
1) Capitalism: Judge it based upon the worst things
that have happened under it.
2) Socialism: Judge it based upon the best that
can be imagined under it..

I prefer this approach....
1) Look at all economic systems.
Which have offered the best outcomes.
Pursue that which has performed best historically.

 

[Debater Slayer]

You've wonderfully illustrated a fundamental problem
in a command economy, ie, that the state chooses
what initiative to take.
I prefer the capitalist model. The individual takes
initiative of one's own choosing.

A lot of people within capitalist economies don't get to choose what initiative to take either. Many still can't afford education, health care, or even shelter, among other things. I would agree with you if more of the capitalist systems today guaranteed equal opportunity more reliably, but they don't.

Also, I wouldn't favor directly transitioning from capitalism to a command economy. As I said, I believe that would be best done through gradual stages. There's also nothing inherent to a command economy preventing the state from encouraging innovation overall, especially if it's democratic rather than heavily authoritarian like the USSR.

One could argue that a command economy (socialism)
could be different. But history shows that it tends to
not be so.

Barely over a hundred years of history, most of which had only two countries (the USSR and China) and two or three socialist offshoots (Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism) as major global examples.

Capitalism had successes immediately upon arising.
Socialism has been around for a century without an
example that measures up to the potential offered
by capitalism.

That statement needs a lot more examination to properly assess. Capitalism first arose in a world that was completely different from the time when socialism arose. It also had extreme failures if we consider its influence on the expansion of the British Empire, for example. If we only look at the gains it brought to the people who got to reap the benefits of resources acquired through imperialism, slavery, and interventionism, then yes, it was "successful" for them. I think the overall picture is much more complex than that, though.

These problems are not outliers either: Britain, France, and the US are arguably the most prominent examples of powerful, established capitalist states, and they all have an extensive history of similarly exploitative and abusive practices primarily meant to sustain and benefit their economies and industries. Many of those practices also continue to this day, albeit usually in newer forms (such as neocolonialism).

If you claim that some other form of replacing capitalism
with socialism could work well, I'd like to see evidence.
Why replace what has been shown to work well with
something that's yielded only failure so far?

Capitalism has been shown to inevitably lead to unsustainability and deep exploitation. It has upsides, yes, but we're at the point where we need to progress past its inherent faults.

When you say that capitalism has been shown to work well so far, you're focusing on the positives and seemingly discarding the major negatives I have outlined throughout this thread. An African who was affected by capitalistic colonization certainly might disagree with you that capitalism had worked well, and I suspect millions more will disagree once climate-change migration starts being a reality.

Even without an example of success, you'd need a
theoretical model that fully takes into account human
behavior. Just as capitalists cannot presume homo
economicus, socialists cannot presume an improved
human.

I don't see how the variant of socialism I support would fail to account for human behavior, at least not any more than capitalism currently does in most countries where it is the official system (e.g., by failing to properly address poverty and its effects on society). Also, nothing prevents adjusting policies in response to issues that arise during implementation.

That sounds like blaming capitalists for the failure of
socialism. This ignores how the socialist countries
have functioned poorly in ways independent of outside
influence, eg, China's Great Leap Forward & the
centralization of agriculture, Soviet purges, the
Holodomor.

I'm not blaming anyone, since I'm not citing these factors as the sole reason for the problems within the USSR and China. I've already said that they're both poor examples of implementation mainly due to their leaders' heavy-handed, forceful approach to changes that should instead be gradual. They also go (or went, in the case of the USSR) farther than many socialists would, such as by having a one-party state and brutally repressing dissent.

Once again, your argument for socialism, & against
capitalism is based upon 2 different standards....
1) Capitalism: Judge it based upon the worst things
that have happened under it.
2) Socialism: Judge it based upon the best that
can be imagined under it..

This is inaccurate for two reasons:

• I'm indeed judging the problematic variants of socialism (such as Stalinism and Maoism) based on the worst that has happened under them.

• I have said that capitalism is an essential stage of human progress. Nowhere did I judge all of it or say that it should be entirely discarded. I have only said that it is no longer sustainable and that in certain countries, their implementation of it has also led to major abuses.

I prefer this approach....
1) Look at all economic systems.
Which have offered the best outcomes.
Pursue that which has performed best historically.

This goes back to why comparing the two in this manner is largely moot, which I have addressed.

 

[Revoltingest]

A lot of people within capitalist economies don't get to choose what initiative to take either. Many still can't afford education, health care, or even shelter, among other things. I would agree with you if more of the capitalist systems today guaranteed equal opportunity more reliably, but they don't.

Under capitalism individuals take initiative very often.
Sure, many are either unable or uninterested.
Under socialism, individual initiative is greatly curbed.
This was what Kim Jong Il said in the recordings.
And his view is born out in socialist countries, where
individuals are legally prohibited from starting businesses.

Note that lack of education doesn't prevent people from
starting businesses. The contractor I use for large
products dropped out of high school when he left home
to be on his own. One can learn if one wants.
People like to blame government, the economy, &
external circumstances for personal failure. But that's
an excuse most of the time.

Also, I wouldn't favor directly transitioning from capitalism to a command economy. As I said, I believe that would be best done through gradual stages. There's also nothing inherent to a command economy preventing the state from encouraging innovation overall, especially if it's democratic rather than heavily authoritarian like the USSR.

Whether gradual or quick, moving to a command
economy is still abandoning capitalism in favor
of one run by government (which always arises
to represent "the people"). There is no evidence
that this ever turns out well.

Barely over a hundred years of history, most of which had only two countries (the USSR and China) and two or three socialist offshoots (Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism) as major global examples.

It hasn't worked yet. All attempts have been fascist failures.
Yet somehow, after a century of trying, it will be successful.
Where's the evidence...other than evidence to the contrary?

That statement needs a lot more examination to properly assess. Capitalism first arose in a world that was completely different from the time when socialism arose. It also had extreme failures if we consider its influence on the expansion of the British Empire, for example. If we only look at the gains it brought to the people who got to reap the benefits of resources acquired through imperialism, slavery, and interventionism, then yes, it was "successful" for them. I think the overall picture is much more complex than that, though.

These problems are not outliers either: Britain, France, and the US are arguably the most prominent examples of powerful, established capitalist states, and they all have an extensive history of similarly exploitative and abusive practices primarily meant to sustain and benefit their economies and industries. Many of those practices also continue to this day, albeit usually in newer forms (such as neocolonialism).

Capitalism has been shown to inevitably lead to unsustainability and deep exploitation. It has upsides, yes, but we're at the point where we need to progress past its inherent faults.

When you say that capitalism has been shown to work well so far, you're focusing on the positives and seemingly discarding the major negatives I have outlined throughout this thread. An African who was affected by capitalistic colonization certainly might disagree with you that capitalism had worked well, and I suspect millions more will disagree once climate-change migration starts being a reality.



I don't see how the variant of socialism I support would fail to account for human behavior, at least not any more than capitalism currently does in most countries where it is the official system (e.g., by failing to properly address poverty and its effects on society). Also, nothing prevents adjusting policies in response to issues that arise during implementation.



I'm not blaming anyone, since I'm not citing these factors as the sole reason for the problems within the USSR and China. I've already said that they're both poor examples of implementation mainly due to their leaders' heavy-handed, forceful approach to changes that should instead be gradual. They also go (or went, in the case of the USSR) farther than many socialists would, such as by having a one-party state and brutally repressing dissent.



This is inaccurate for two reasons:

• I'm indeed judging the problematic variants of socialism (such as Stalinism and Maoism) based on the worst that has happened under them.

• I have said that capitalism is an essential stage of human progress. Nowhere did I judge all of it or say that it should be entirely discarded. I have only said that it is no longer sustainable and that in certain countries, their implementation of it has also led to major abuses.

This goes back to why comparing the two in this manner is largely moot, which I have addressed.

That's a lot to address.
I can simplify response to it all.

Capitalism isn't best because it always yields positive results.
It's obvious that terrible things happen & happened under it.
But it's best because it can yield & has yielded positive results.
Again....
This is not to ignore the bad results under capitalism.
(Nay, they must be understood in order to design useful
regulation to minimize problems.) It's to discern which
system offers the possibility of the best results.
Contrast this with socialism.
It has not one example in 100 years where replacing
capitalism with a command economy turns out well.
In short...
The best capitalist systems are better than the best
socialist systems.

 

[Shaul]

I eschew labels. However if I was forced to pick a political philosophy that is closest to things I believe, it would be American Individualism as described in President Herbert Hoover's seminal tome.
https://www.amazon.com/American-Individualism-Herbert-Hoover/dp/0817920153

 

[Revoltingest]

I eschew labels.

You just picked one.
And it's a good one...it'll generate much
criticism from those of the hive mentality.

 

[Shaul]

You just picked one.
And it's a good one...it'll generate much
criticism from those of the hive mentality.

I don't see it that way. A cornerstone of American Individualism is personal choice and accountability. If someone were able to force me to choose, that would negate the foundation of American Individualism, annihilating it. So it wouldn't exist as a possible choice.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Old Spice

That's pretty much all of them now.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Assigning professions/curricula? Tyranny! That's not what I had in mind.

Actually, I was thinking of the post WWII G-I Bill, in the US, offering free tuition to returning soldiers.
It returned a 700% profit (yes, you read that right), after 20 years, just in increased tax revenues (higher tax brackets). We spent money -- and made money.

I haven't seen the figures for decreased crime and health care expenses, or economic contributions, but I expect they were significant., as well.
But none of it profited anyone in the next quarter. It was a long-term investment in the public welfare, ie: socialism.

Society no longer makes long-term investments. It devises Band-Aid solutions as problems arise.

The GI Bill was brilliant. I took advantage of that myself. It paid for 2 year of my Bachelor's and one year of my Master's. Thanks, Uncle Sam!

 

[Valjean]

One problem socialists won't face is that socialism is
exactly like capitalism in one respect, ie, they're both
about who owns the means of production.

In a socialist enterprise the means of production is community owned, it's businesses are co-ops, collectively owned and run by the enployees.

Neither is fundamentally defined as having....
- Social safety nets
- Liberty
- Democracy
Those 3 traits are independent of the economic systems
as defined.

How can worker owned and managed government services and businesses not be democratic? Socialism is practically synonymous with democracy.
"As defined?" The Marxist definition is not what most supporters of "socialism" are advocating. We're looking for Scandinavian-style socialism, and, perhaps, Mondragon-style private enterprises. https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/about-us/

Liberty? Are you picturing socialism as a "Soviet Social," "Peoples Republic," or "National Socialist" model? Despite the names, these are not what today's liberal socialists are advocating.

every socialist country has been fascist with poor social services.
Thus, calling social services & government provided
infrastructure "socialism" is quite the misnomer

At the risk of being accused of a no true Scotsman, I maintain that these were not socialist.
Scandinavia is largely socialist. Catalonian anarcho-syndicalism was incipient socialism. Mondragon is socialism. None of these were/are repressive or anti-democratic.

Social safety nets? Aren't these a major feature of socialism? By this I mean actual socialism, not Russian, N.Korean or Chinese claims of socialism.
Which is more likely to promote non-profit social services, capitalists, or socialists?

With capitalism, it's possible to have that trio of easy
living. It's why socialists love to point to Denmark &
its ilk as examples of socialism.

But that's what we social advocates are actually advocating.
Capitalism incentivizes greed and exploitation, and its "business cycle," of booms and busts, is considered normal. The more capitalist a country is, the more likely it is to generate a massive, impoverished working class, small professional class, and a handful of rich, running things and holding most of the wealth.

So we must beware firebrands like AOC, who decry
capitalism as "irredeemable", & want government
control of the entire economy. Government cannot
be trusted with something so important.

Self interest and private enterprise can't be trusted with anything so important. They're incentivized to skirt public safety regulation, and aren't likely to invest in social services or infrastructure that don't return a profit.
Government is the only thing large enough to curb corporate exploitation. Small government = government by corporate interests.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a socialist enterprise the means of production is community owned, it's businesses are co-ops, collectively owned and run by the enployees.
How can worker owned and managed government services and businesses not be democratic? Socialism is practically synonymous with democracy.

I look at things empirically.
You're offering your vision of socialism. But is that
view ever realized in actual socialist countries?
Governments have always been authoritarian,
with claims of being democratic being hollow.
As for management, there again it tends to
centralization.

"As defined?" The Marxist definition is not what most supporters of "socialism" are advocating. We're looking for Scandinavian-style socialism....

And that is capitalism.
So the rest of your post is based upon definitions
of "socialism" & "capitalism" different from standard.
If what you want is capitalism with social services,
I've no argument.

 

[Heyo]

So the rest of your post is based upon definitions
of "socialism" & "capitalism" different from standard.

Capitalism is the exploitation of humans by humans - in socialism it is the other way around.
(Definition from people having lived in the "real existing socialism" of the GDR.)