Socialism does work

[Apech]

Well thank you for giving it a go. Can I guide you a bit here to see if it can be improved ? At present it's as broad as a broad thing. Here is my go at fascism as its only fair I do likewise. A form of collectivism which is totalitarian, racist, nationalist and preserves the facade of private property. The genus is collectivism ( your example 'gather around', but collectivism is what you seem to be implying ). The differentia are those things which are specific and differentiate fascism from other forms of collectivism such as communism/socialism.

 

You asked so i did.  Well actually there is nothing inherently racist about fascism.  Nazism which is a particular from of fascism is racist and antisemitic.

 

I'm not aware of any collective ownership in fascism unless you mean the type of early agrarian reforms in thirties Germany.  the idea is that the 'folk' gather round a ruling group or leader who defines the way and marches onward to a glorious in usually vaguely defined future. 

 

These definitions are intentionally broad - because of course there are so many camps in socialism and they are not the same - so you can only point to a general theme that they all share.

 

Where I think it has all got a little confused is that there is a natural objection to totalitarianism whichever cloak it wears be it Hitler, Stalin or whoever.  So the main tension is between individual freedom guaranteed by law and any system where the ruler imposes from above.

[Karl]

You asked so i did.  Well actually there is nothing inherently racist about fascism.  Nazism which is a particular from of fascism is racist and antisemitic.

 

I'm not aware of any collective ownership in fascism unless you mean the type of early agrarian reforms in thirties Germany.  the idea is that the 'folk' gather round a ruling group or leader who defines the way and marches onward to a glorious in usually vaguely defined future. 

 

These definitions are intentionally broad - because of course there are so many camps in socialism and they are not the same - so you can only point to a general theme that they all share.

 

Where I think it has all got a little confused is that there is a natural objection to totalitarianism whichever cloak it wears be it Hitler, Stalin or whoever.  So the main tension is between individual freedom guaranteed by law and any system where the ruler imposes from above.

 

Our experience with fascists is that they are racists, purity of race and all that crap.

 

Collectivism is not 'collective ownership'. It's the state over the individual.

 

Your final paragraph is precisely what I alluded to previously. Stalin and Hitler were both totalitarian leaders of a collectivist ideology. In the case of communism the means of production are explicitly in the hands of the people. This resulted in shortages and chaos. Hitler saw that and altered the economic model. Business remained in private hands only nominally. There is a good book called the Vampire state which describes the life of a business owner under The Nazi party. It certainly wasn't capitalism( never mind free market). The party controlled all aspects of production and prices as well as the monetary system.

 

There is a sliding scale of totalitarian to anarchy. If you know the fallacy of the false mean you will see how persuasive the argument is for those who do not have the tools of logic. Just put it somewhere in the centre- but the centre of what? different political rhetorical speakers will give there description of the 'extremes' which have been carefully restricted to left/right paradigm by press and education systems. They decided where the limits were and now refer to 'the centre ground'.

[Marblehead]

Do you think he is racist ?

Ponder away.  I have said all I will say.

[Marblehead]

It's human nature to accept the existing status quo as the norm and thus "correct" due to having won out. The side that won, was the right side by virtue of winning (even if by force).

 

But in reality, everything can still be up for debate at any point...and perhaps even should, with the added benefit of hindsight & retrospect.

 

Now other than a temporary Civil War income tax, the US did not have a federal income tax until 1913.

 

The tax code you complain about now to "keep the poor poor and wealthy wealthy" (despite the fact that half of poorer Americans already pay NO federal income tax at all, but OK?) was imposed by the Left back then with the very same debate as is going on in this forum today. This required the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, so was a completely radical change to the original "no taxes without representation" ethos of the Founders. And they really wanted to progressively tax the rich, but eventually settled for a flat tax on just the richest, for starters. Of course, this quickly spread down the slippery slope to more of the Middle & Lower classes...and the rest is now history.

You didn't say anything I disagree with or have disagreed with.

 

And why do those Americans pay not tax at all?  Because they don't earn enough money to be taxed.  Those are the one who are totally dependent on the government and the percentage of those people is growing every year.  The percentage of millionaires in America is growing every year as well.

 

And I will suggest that federal income tax was started up because American politicians and big corporations wanted to get ready for World War I that hadn't started yet but was a given that it was going to happen.

[ralis]

You didn't say anything I disagree with or have disagreed with.

 

And why do those Americans pay not tax at all?  Because they don't earn enough money to be taxed.  Those are the one who are totally dependent on the government and the percentage of those people is growing every year.  The percentage of millionaires in America is growing every year as well.

 

And I will suggest that federal income tax was started up because American politicians and big corporations wanted to get ready for World War I that hadn't started yet but was a given that it was going to happen.

 

 

The persons you are referring to that don't earn enough are generally victims of outsourced jobs that are in China. That is a general statement based on the loss of 60,000 U.S. manufacturing plants that were shipped to China. Corporations are rewarded for such behavior by being given tax breaks. 

[Marblehead]

The persons you are referring to that don't earn enough are generally victims of outsourced jobs that are in China. That is a general statement based on the loss of 60,000 U.S. manufacturing plants that were shipped to China. Corporations are rewarded for such behavior by being given tax breaks. 

Yep.  And that's one of my main bitches.

[ralis]

Yep.  And that's one of my main bitches.

 

Mine to. Especially, when I go to the store to buy tools and every last one is made in China. Home Depot lives off that junk by pricing junk to sell quickly and then restock with the same junk. Milwaukee tools were the finest power tools money could buy and would last for years. Now the label states made in China. I threw out a Milwaukee 4.5" grinder that had minimal use; the arbor was out of balance and the brushes in the switch were worn out. My Milwaukee 7" grinder that was made here lasted 15 years and finally burned out after years of service. BTW, forget about buying replacement parts. 

 

The previous poster stating that the rich should be treated fairly is a bogus argument. Those rich CEO's sitting on their asses shuffling paper work all day are not concerned about being fair to anyone, but their bank accounts.

[Brian]

Usually it's either one or the other.

And guys with great memory which seem to be at least more common than guys with great intelligence

often manage to delude themselves into believing that their great memory and great education are evidence for great intelligence,

which of course is rather proof of the contrary.

Again, I agree with you.

 

I have found that too many "highly intelligent people" are challenged when it comes to applying their abilities. In fact, this was a significant part of my motivation in shifting from a doctoral track in astrophysics (in which I would progress directly from Bachelors to Masters to Doctorate) to a "terminal" track in applied physics with a concentration in electronic engineering. The "terminal" aspect meaning that it was intended to prepare the student to leave the halls of academia with a Bachelors degree rather than focusing on graduate school. This added a few courses to the graduation requirements but I think it was a good choice.

 

On of the things I found frustrating about too many of my then-peers was the fixation with academic debate. While not universal, many of my colleagues were absorbed by seemingly endless discussion about philosophical minutia and often struggled to be able to explain how much of what they were learning was applicable beyond the classroom's chalkboard (yes, I know I am dating myself there...) What I found refreshing about the applied physics students, regardless of their concentrations, was their ability to actually do/ stuff -- to design things, build things, analyze things, repair things, and explain things. To me, this represented a more substantial understanding than "book-learning."

 

My faculty advisor encouraged that transition, pointing out that the ability to communicate outside a single field of study and to identify patterns across disparate subject areas was a desirable one. He said that many of these graduates found themselves functioning as liaisons and translators in a wide array of businesses and industries, which I have also found to be true.

 

Some years later, after finding my way into a management role for a multinational pharmaceutical research organization, they paid for me to return to school to earn an MBA. Having by then worked in several industries and at every level from the factory floor to corporate management, I had the first-hand experience to be able to understand the concepts being presented, and to be able to apply them effectively, in a manner and to a degree which would certainly not have been possible had I not had several years of "real-world" experience prior to entering business school. In fact, the executive program I attended would only accept working professionals with several years experience (five or seven, maybe? I forget).

 

Now, in my early fifties, I find myself in an executive leadership role in yet another arena. I currently have the wherewithal to be able to retire when it all stops being fun but I'm still having a blast. I spend my time on strategic planning, on modelling and analysis, on coaching and mentoring both subordinate management and support staff, on collaborative problem-solving with my peers in other divisions within the organization as well as with colleagues in similar organizations, as well as "getting my hands dirty" to whatever extent I wish when I feel like taking my management hat off.

 

Many of my long-ago undergrad peers are still in the classroom.

 

Sometimes I think I would also have enjoyed remaining in academia and becoming a physics professor but I know my path has been an adventure I would trade for the classroom any day.

 

I have the flexibility, now, to engage in as much pointless debate as I wish in local watering holes or on web forums like this one, but my life doesn't revolve around that environment.

[ralis]

Again, I agree with you.

 

I have found that too many "highly intelligent people" are challenged when it comes to applying their abilities. In fact, this was a significant part of my motivation in shifting from a doctoral track in astrophysics (in which I would progress directly from Bachelors to Masters to Doctorate) to a "terminal" track in applied physics with a concentration in electronic engineering. The "terminal" aspect meaning that it was intended to prepare the student to leave the halls of academia with a Bachelors degree rather than focusing on graduate school. This added a few courses to the graduation requirements but I think it was a good choice.

 

On of the things I found frustrating about too many of my then-peers was the fixation with academic debate. While not universal, many of my colleagues were absorbed by seemingly endless discussion about philosophical minutia and often struggled to be able to explain how much of what they were learning was applicable beyond the classroom's chalkboard (yes, I know I am dating myself there...) What I found refreshing about the applied physics students, regardless of their concentrations, was their ability to actually do/ stuff -- to design things, build things, analyze things, repair things, and explain things. To me, this represented a more substantial understanding than "book-learning."

 

My faculty advisor encouraged that transition, pointing out that the ability to communicate outside a single field of study and to identify patterns across disparate subject areas was a desirable one. He said that many of these graduates found themselves functioning as liaisons and translators in a wide array of businesses and industries, which I have also found to be true.

 

Some years later, after finding my way into a management role for a multinational pharmaceutical research organization, they paid for me to return to school to earn an MBA. Having by then worked in several industries and at every level from the factory floor to corporate management, I had the first-hand experience to be able to understand the concepts being presented, and to be able to apply them effectively, in a manner and to a degree which would certainly not have been possible had I not had several years of "real-world" experience prior to entering business school. In fact, the executive program I attended would only accept working professionals with several years experience (five or seven, maybe? I forget).

 

Now, in my early fifties, I find myself in an executive leadership role in yet another arena. I currently have the wherewithal to be able to retire when it all stops being fun but I'm still having a blast. I spend my time on strategic planning, on modelling and analysis, on coaching and mentoring both subordinate management and support staff, on collaborative problem-solving with my peers in other divisions within the organization as well as with colleagues in similar organizations, as well as "getting my hands dirty" to whatever extent I wish when I feel like taking my management hat off.

 

Many of my long-ago undergrad peers are still in the classroom.

 

Sometimes I think I would also have enjoyed remaining in academia and becoming a physics professor but I know my path has been an adventure I would trade for the classroom any day.

 

I have the flexibility, now, to engage in as much pointless debate as I wish in local watering holes or on web forums like this one, but my life doesn't revolve around that environment.

 

 

You must have been in school in the 80's? I graduated with my degree in 83?

[Marblehead]

Mine to. Especially, when I go to the store to buy tools and every last one is made in China. Home Depot lives off that junk by pricing junk to sell quickly and then restock with the same junk. Milwaukee tools were the finest power tools money could buy and would last for years. Now the label states made in China. I threw out a Milwaukee 4.5" grinder that had minimal use; the arbor was out of balance and the brushes in the switch were worn out. My Milwaukee 7" grinder that was made here lasted 15 years and finally burned out after years of service. BTW, forget about buying replacement parts.

Yeah, I know all about those power tools.  It's just so hard, if not impossible, to find anything made in the USA any more  And I'm one who likes to repair tools when they break down and you are right, repair parts not available.

 

But we can't put all the blame on Chinese manufacturing.  Specifications offered by the buyer are normally faulty or below industry standards and forget about quality control.

The previous poster stating that the rich should be treated fairly is a bogus argument. Those rich CEO's sitting on their asses shuffling paper work all day are not concerned about being fair to anyone, but their bank accounts.

How could I feel sorry for someone earning 10 million dollars a year for doing next to nothing that better the lives of Americans?  Sure, they create profit for the share holders but most of them are millionaires already and don't really need the money except to gratify their greed.

 

So I suppose, since capitalism isn't really functioning for more than 25% of Americans maybe we should give socialism a try.  I mean, how much more worse could they make things?

[Brian]

You must have been in school in the 80's? I graduated with my degree in 83?

I entered in 1982.

[Marblehead]

I have the flexibility, now, to engage in as much pointless debate as I wish in local watering holes or on web forums like this one, but my life doesn't revolve around that environment.

Yes, I've noticed.  You spend as much, if not more, time here than I do.

[Marblehead]

You must have been in school in the 80's? I graduated with my degree in 83?

I retired in '79.

 

Yeah, I still had to work because retirement back then was next to nothing.

[Brian]

<snip>

I mean, how much more worse could they make things?

Well, we might look at other nations which made the attempt and see how it has worked out for them. I would suggest restricting that survey to only those who made the attempt more than 15 or 20 years ago in order to get a feel for longer-term effects.

 

Bear in mind, as Apech has pointed out, that no pure socialist system has ever been established -- this is why I use the word "attempt." By that, I mean countries which attempted a complete conversion as well as those which completed a partial conversion (which the pedantic socialist will tell you isn't really socialism at all).

 

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is perhaps one of the better success stories, I think. It's neighbor to the West is an interesting counterpoint.

[ralis]

Dr. Roger Blackwell who I studied marketing with in 1980 predicted the future service economy, big box stores, internet marketing and so forth. I remember sitting there listening to him lecture and imagining what that future would be like.  

[ralis]

I entered in 1982.

 

The CIS courses at that time were teaching Fortran. I never cared for that language. Lisp and Scheme are more interesting.

[Karl]

The persons you are referring to that don't earn enough are generally victims of outsourced jobs that are in China. That is a general statement based on the loss of 60,000 U.S. manufacturing plants that were shipped to China. Corporations are rewarded for such behavior by being given tax breaks. 

 

You should support the free market in the USA. The products coming from China are far cheaper than the U.S. could have produced.

This is a change prompted by the ending of Chinese communism. A flood of new workers were then available for production. It effectively exported US price inflation abroad.

 

This has caused massive trauma for the workers in the U.S. Who have seen there jobs disappear. The problem is that the corporations and Government have failed to adapt. Those that have lost their jobs now get crappy, low paid jobs because crony capitalist policies have nailed entrepreneurs legs to the floor. Then the monetary policies have destroyed capital formation and money has been doled out to industries which the Government thinks are winners and not what the market has priced as winners. If they aren't doing that they are goosing up asset markets. It's all illusiory economics based on sand.

 

1. Cut military spending

2. Cut anti competition policies causing cronyism.

3. Stop interventions abroad.

4. Get rid of obamacare

5. Cut taxes

6. Cut government

 

The free ride for crony corporates is at an end and so is big government spending. It's time to go back to proper free market economics and let the real economy grow.

 

 

 

[ralis]

 

Bear in mind, as Apech has pointed out, that no pure socialist system has ever been established -- this is why I use the word "attempt." By that, I mean countries which attempted a complete conversion as well as those which completed a partial conversion (which the pedantic socialist will tell you isn't really socialism at all).

 

 

You and I briefly touched on that many pages ago when the subject of dynamic systems was brought up. The advocates of any political/economic system are wanting a predictable stable system. History has no examples of such a system.

[Karl]

Ponder away.  I have said all I will say.

 

You are being uncharacteristically bashful.

 

I can't ponder, I don't know, I find it hard to believe. He's just a puppet politician.

[Marblehead]

You are being uncharacteristically bashful.

Restrained.

[Marblehead]

Hey Apech!  This has been a very successful thread.  You done good.

[Apech]

Hey Apech!  This has been a very successful thread.  You done good.

 

 

Well I'm glad you enjoyed it.

[thelerner]

I was responding to .. I used examples ... Godwin's law is ...

I didn't mean to aim the Godwin's commment at anyone specifically, just thought Hitler/Nazi references/comparisons were getting hit on more and more as the thread rounded page 12 and headed into 150+ posts.  

[Wu Ming Jen]

On taxes uber, google, starbucks as example as a US corporation you do not need to pay taxes on profits when to be used as a reinvestment so take the money, hide it  in foreign bank accounts and you quietly amass large sums of money tax free. Seems a bit wrong but perfectly legal. 

[Karl]

Restrained.

 

Has somebody strapped up your typing finger ? It's not like you. I'm worried.