On Socialism in the wake of AOC, Bernie etc.

[whm1974]

While I support taxation, how is it not taking of private property? Do you not own your money?

Good luck with not having Firefighters/police/courts,/Military/etc.

 

[realibrad]

Good luck with not having Firefighters/police/courts,/Military/etc.

Like I said, i support taxes. What he said was that its not the same as control of private property. To me, wealth and money are property, and taking it is taking property. I think its worth doing, but, I cannot understand how its not taking property.

 

[Jaskalas]

While I support taxation, how is it not taking of private property? Do you not own your money?

It has been depicted as extremism when it is not. Show me a country without taxation.

My message is that we need a balance between public and private interests. Our people do not have the safety net they need.

 

[mect]

While I support taxation, how is it not taking of private property? Do you not own your money?

Taxation is taking private property. However, it isn't the elimination or complete control of private property.

 

[realibrad]

It has been depicted as extremism when it is not. Show me a country without taxation.

My message is that we need a balance between public and private interests. Our people do not have the safety net they need.

Well, I think the problem there is that private interests have the ability to control the tool that is supposed to protect public interests. The stronger you make the tool, the more incentive to control it. Socialism only makes that tool stronger.

 

[realibrad]

Taxation is taking private property. However, it isn't the elimination or complete control of private property.

Right, just as Capitalism is not a system of zero rules. Just as Socialism has been twisted into something its not, so has Capitalism.

People conflate Socialism with complete top down control. People conflate Capitalism as economic anarchy.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

I feel like we're in 1984-land when Bernie et.al call something socialism, to get more support, when it's really just a slightly stronger welfare state. While the right demonize policies as socialism, to get more opposition, when it is really not! It's a term totally without meaning at this point. It means workers controlling means of production, which is not what anyone is talking about

 

[realibrad]

I feel like we're in 1984-land when Bernie et.al call something socialism, to get more support, when it's really just a slightly stronger welfare state. While the right demonize policies as socialism, to get more opposition, when it is really not! It's a term totally without meaning at this point. It means workers controlling means of production, which is not what anyone is talking about

To expand the welfare state, you must expand its power and extract more from private interests. That expansion of the state is a shifting toward more top down control which is an expansion of socialism. It does not mean that it ultimately makes that economy Socialist, but, it does shift it toward socialism and is a socialist policy.

A socialist economy must have a strong state to enforce the will of the people. So, in reality it is closer to Socialism than what you seem to be saying.

 

[mect]

Right, just as Capitalism is not a system of zero rules. Just as Socialism has been twisted into something its not, so has Capitalism.

People conflate Socialism with complete top down control. People conflate Capitalism as economic anarchy.

I think what you just wrote is the basic premise of this thread. Scandinavia is an strongly capitalistic society with strong social safety nets. Both socialism or capitalism in their pure forms are nonsensical. Finding the proper mix of both is the ideal. In addition to the mix, the execution of each one is also important.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

To expand the welfare state, you must expand its power and extract more from private interests. That expansion of the state is a shifting toward more top down control which is an expansion of socialism. It does not mean that it ultimately makes that economy Socialist, but, it does shift it toward socialism and is a socialist policy.

A socialist economy must have a strong state to enforce the will of the people. So, in reality it is closer to Socialism than what you seem to be saying.

strong state =/= socialist state. It's just a.. stronger state. Because the government "enforce the will of the people" rather than that of businesses is it stronger? It's more a redirection of power if anything. Forcing people to endure polition vs forcing companies to clean up; does one require more state power?

Your premise isn't even necessarily correct, all other countries in europe spend less per capita/%of GDP on healthcare, but they all have "free" healthcare. So which is a "stronger state"? The country with more or the one with less government spending on healthcare..? Nordic countries may have higher taxes (though not even always in all areas), but also have less bureaucratic BS and less regulation (the US federal government is extremely strong and complicated after all). So which is "more socialist" then?

 

[realibrad]

strong state =/= socialist state. It's just a.. stronger state. Because the government "enforce the will of the people" rather than that of businesses is it stronger? It's more a redirection of power if anything. Forcing people to endure polition vs forcing companies to clean up; does one require more state power?

Enforcing the will of the people to do what? You need to establish that.

Having a state that prevents people from placing costs on others that are unwilling, such as pollution, is completely part of Capitalism. Taking money to fund universal healthcare is not part of Capitalism in the sense that Capitalism supports that idea. Its possible to do under Democracy, but, its not a Capitalist idea.

Your premise isn't even necessarily correct, all other countries in europe spend less per capita/%of GDP on healthcare, but they all have "free" healthcare. So which is a "stronger state"? The country with more or the one with less government spending on healthcare..? Nordic countries may have higher taxes (though not even always in all areas), but also have less bureaucratic BS and less regulation (the US federal government is extremely strong and complicated after all). So which is "more socialist" then?

You are now going down a road that I never started on, so I feel no need to go into this.

I will say this and then move on. The US healthcare system is broken and less optimal than many other western countries.

 

[realibrad]

I think what you just wrote is the basic premise of this thread. Scandinavia is an strongly capitalistic society with strong social safety nets. Both socialism or capitalism in their pure forms are nonsensical. Finding the proper mix of both is the ideal. In addition to the mix, the execution of each one is also important.

I will say this though, that mix should in my opinion lean very heavily to Capitalism.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Enforcing the will of the people to do what? You need to establish that.

well I will just say; you said

A socialist economy must have a strong state to enforce the will of the people.

So it sounded like you mean that "enforce the will of the people" require a more socialist state (i.e. stronger)? Why? One does not enforce the will of the people is less socialist? Is that capitalist? I'm not sure I get your socialist/capitalist distinction from this.

 

[realibrad]

well I will just say; you said


So it sounded like you mean that "enforce the will of the people" require a more socialist state (i.e. stronger)? Why? One does not enforce the will of the people is less socialist? Is that capitalist? I'm not sure I get your socialist/capitalist distinction from this.

In a pure Capitalist country, the state's role is to enforce contracts. That is not really workable as you need things like defense as well. So, in a reasonable state structure, the state's power goes beyond what would be established in a purely Capitalist system.

In a socialist system, to be able to control the means of production, you would need the aforementioned state power, and then more.

In Capitalism, the will of the people is done through market decisions. In Socialism, the will is executed through top down control. It requires that it be a centralized control as any decentralized control would be closer to markets which is anathema to Socialist ideas about market efficiency.

 

[DigDog]

Socialism communism and so forth are just words. There was hardly a smudge of communism in Communist Russia.
China had *some* examples of communism, but anyway it's just words we use that aren't directly linked to a series of IMPLEMENTED doctrines. The Nazis were Socialists, nobody calls them that. And the nazis hated the communists who called themselves Socialists.

The words rarely mean that ideology that created them. There is no standardization for economic systems. You can call ANY system "socialist" if it's got taxes and a government.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

In a pure Capitalist country, the state's role is to enforce contracts. That is not really workable as you need things like defense as well. So, in a reasonable state structure, the state's power goes beyond what would be established in a purely Capitalist system.

In a socialist system, to be able to control the means of production, you would need the aforementioned state power, and then more.

In Capitalism, the will of the people is done through market decisions. In Socialism, the will is executed through top down control. It requires that it be a centralized control as any decentralized control would be closer to markets which is anathema to Socialist ideas about market efficiency.

So how does the free market deal with:
- fire/police
- building codes
- roads
- pollution/public lands (does that even exist?)
- product safety
- environment
- zoning rules
-water management
- extraction industries
- flight safety
- public spectrum
- education
- post office
etcetc

All of these are "socialist" even in free market America rah-rah, but that's where the line is drawn? Here but no further? Most obvious market failure is healthcare, since incentives and power dynamic (IMO) don't work under free market, so seems silly that's where the arbitrary lines is drawn. But GOP has hoisted themselves onto that as the ultimate showdown of socialism vs capitalism.. (but heard little about all these others, except faint attempts to kill on or other)

 

[realibrad]

So how does the free market deal with:
- fire/police
- building codes
- roads
- pollution/public lands (does that even exist?)
- product safety
- environment
- zoning rules
-water management
- extraction industries
- flight safety
- public spectrum
- education
- post office
etcetc

All of these are "socialist" even in free market America rah-rah, but that's where the line is drawn? Here but no further? Most obvious market failure is healthcare, since incentives and power dynamic (IMO) don't work under free market, so seems silly that's where the arbitrary lines is drawn. But GOP has hoisted themselves onto that as the ultimate showdown of socialism vs capitalism.. (but heard little about all these others, except faint attempts to kill on or other)

Perhaps you have gotten lost, as your post makes little sense as a response to what I have said.

I said that a Socialist state needs more power than a Capitalist state. Why would you ask me about those sectors as a response to my comment?

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Perhaps you have gotten lost, as your post makes little sense as a response to what I have said.

I said that a Socialist state needs more power than a Capitalist state. Why would you ask me about those sectors as a response to my comment?

"In Capitalism, the will of the people is done through market decisions "

How is that done in those sectors in mentioned?

 

[whm1974]

"In Capitalism, the will of the people is done through market decisions "

How is that done in those sectors in mentioned?

And how is that done when large Corporations are Monopolies? Under Capitalism those guys can do whatever they want.

 

[realibrad]

"In Capitalism, the will of the people is done through market decisions "

How is that done in those sectors in mentioned?

In ways that most people would not prefer. Are you trying to imply that those things would not exist, or that they would be less optimal if left to markets?

 

[realibrad]

And how is that done when large Corporations are Monopolies? Under Capitalism those guys can do whatever they want.

Not really true though. Monopolies historically require state support to exclude competition. Its not really right to say that in Capitalism monopolies have ultimate control.

Further, in a Socialist system, you don't have competition as it would be inefficient.

 

[whm1974]

Not really true though. Monopolies historically require state support to exclude competition. Its not really right to say that in Capitalism monopolies have ultimate control.

Further, in a Socialist system, you don't have competition as it would be inefficient.

There also Barriers to Entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

 

[woolfe9998]

Like I said, i support taxes. What he said was that its not the same as control of private property. To me, wealth and money are property, and taking it is taking property. I think its worth doing, but, I cannot understand how its not taking property.

Do you see what you're doing? You agree with him, except for his choice of words in one sentence. You're arguing pure semantics again.

 

[realibrad]

There also Barriers to Entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

If those barriers to entry are created through things like the expense of regulation, that is the state. If the barriers to entry are things like capital and knowledge, then any entry needs to justify itself to be able to raise capital to enter.

Investment is part of capitalism, so any new entry that could compete could get funding as there are profits to be had. The only real way of excluding a firm at that point is through the state.

Now, the margins on profit could be small, but, that is not a bug its a feature. It means that any new entry has to do something better/more efficient to gain entry into the market. This helps reduce waste.

 

[realibrad]

Do you see what you're doing? You agree with him, except for his choice of words in one sentence. You're arguing pure semantics again.

No. I have discussed things like this before. The reason I ask is that often people do not see money as something that is owned by the individual, and is thus something that should be spread around. Not understanding what money is causes distorted arguments for why we should tax people. I agree that we should tax, but, I want to understand the other perspectives to see if maybe they have something I can use to either strengthen my argument or change to a better one.

Its not a semantics argument, as it could become something else. What I think you are seeing is that its likely just to be about how he choose to word his position. In that case, you will see me just move on. You have seen this very thing happen when I have questioned your position as well.