Thread: The problems facing modern Socialists

Originally Posted by Bugsy

………..
So it’s not strictly true that there have been no alternatives offered, it’s just that they’re not acceptable by Capitalists, since they all champion a radical redistribution of wealth and a curtailment of long-range distribution in favour of improved localisation.

MsG

Capitalists are pragmatists. They recognise that economies are built on millions of people making daily decisions whether or not to buy goods and services at the prices offered. Socialists believe that self-perpetuating oligarchies know best.

History proves beyond doubt that the former are correct and the latter are merely naïve dreamers.

As for “improved localisation�, that is just a fancy and disingenuous expression for isolationism and the imposition of trade barriers.

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

"curtailment of long-range distribution in favour of improved localisation. "

So if I want to buy a PC I can't as 99% of it's bits are made on the other side of the world?

To be honest, that bit sounds more like management jargon than any meaningfull phrase.

Why don't you offer a proper argument, instead of the old custard of taking things to extremes.

Where did I mention "exclusive localisation" anywhere? A typical example would be taking milk from the UK to Greece to be turned into feta, bringing it back to Scotland to be packaged and then distributed. What's the point of that? Why import apples from South Africa when they can be grown just as well in the UK and at the same time provide folks with an income?

Why aren't farmers in the UK allowed to grow hemp? It provides five times the yield for paper of the same area of forest and the paper doesn't even have to be bleached and PH-treated. In addition, it provides much softer and more durable fibres for clothing and doesn't need anywhere near the amounts of water and insecticide as cotton.

Those are the sort of things I'm talking about. And they don't get realised because the folks who're making the profits from all this nonsense are more important to the respective gobments than the populations they're supposed to be serving.

MsG

I've never known for sure, but are not the John Lewis Partnership and Co-operative movement successful examples of organisations that are run on roughly socialist principles?

http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.u...vigationId=585

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_movement

http://www.cooponline.coop/about_facts.html

As I've said before, my understanding of politics/ecomomics is worse than "patchy", but I'd be grateful if anyone can explain the difference ....... or point me in the direction of the "Janet and John" book.

Or?:

http://charliemarks.wordpress.com/20...ism-in-action/

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/7151

Originally Posted by Alsacien

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Alsacien

Reading this I am not sure if we are discussing the problems facing old communists in a modern world, or modern socialists.

Assuming we are discussing socialism, nobody has yet mentioned the economic calculation problem. In the 90 years since Mises and Hayek first challenged socialists with it, the best answer is a zero growth economy. Which equals reproduction, which leads to "glorious soviet tractor factory" mentality and ultimately to communism.

Problems with no socialist/communist answers:

1. The economic calculation problem - how to plan the distribution of resources efficiently in an economy.

2. Financial markets - without which how can anyone efficiently manage capital investment in an economy.

No answers in 90 years, not going to be any here either.

That’s actually being a bit disingenuous there, Alsacien. Both Mises and Hayek only enlarged on the work already done by Knut Wicksell, and while they offered some answers, they didn’t come up with as complete a solution as Keynes. Furthermore, Hayek stayed a little bit stranded in his theory, while Keynes dynamically evolved his to take changing circumstances into account.

Alex Callinicos also went into the subject in some depth in his 2002 book "Against the Third Way", while Maynard C. Krueger tackled the same theme in his 1934 book "Inflation: Who Wins and Who Loses?". The latter book being particularly interesting due to it encompassing the Great Depression.

So it’s not strictly true that there have been no alternatives offered, it’s just that they’re not acceptable by Capitalists, since they all champion a radical redistribution of wealth and a curtailment of long-range distribution in favour of improved localisation.

MsG

Like I stated - nobody including you can answer those two questions

Still no direct answers to the two questions?
Thought not..

Originally Posted by Balleh

Originally Posted by Bugsy

………..
So it’s not strictly true that there have been no alternatives offered, it’s just that they’re not acceptable by Capitalists, since they all champion a radical redistribution of wealth and a curtailment of long-range distribution in favour of improved localisation.

MsG

Capitalists are pragmatists. They recognise that economies are built on millions of people making daily decisions whether or not to buy goods and services at the prices offered. Socialists believe that self-perpetuating oligarchies know best.

With regard to the daily decisions bit: none of that would change under Socialism, just that the choice would be a little easier because there’d be fewer distractions by superfluous items. You should have prefixed your last sentence there with: “I believe/It’s my opinion that …�. If you’d like to take a closer and perhaps more critical look at the present Capitalist system, I believe you’ll discover exactly those self-perpetuating oligarchies you claim that Socialists are so fond of.

Originally Posted by Balleh

History proves beyond doubt that the former are correct and the latter are merely naïve dreamers.

I reckon you’d be very hard-pressed to actually provide concrete evidence of this statement, which you conveniently neglected to include. When many folks dream a dream, no matter how “naïve� you deign to describe them in your arrogance, that dream becomes a movement and ultimately a reality. An example? How long did “naïve dreamers� dream of flying?

Originally Posted by Balleh

As for “improved localisation�, that is just a fancy and disingenuous expression for isolationism and the imposition of trade barriers.

The phrase is neither fancy nor disingenuous. Just because you fail to completely understand its importance doesn't make it in any way invalid. Sensible commercial localisation where possible not only makes long-term economic sense, it would also solve a number of pressing problems, not the least being a tremendous saving in transport costs; meaning that less fuel would be consumed, thus conceivably stretching the earth's finite reserves of fossil fuels until a viable alternative can be found.

But I do notice that you appear to be arguing within the system again – simply replacing Capitalism with what you understand to be Socialism. It’ll never work like that. Socialism can only be successfully introduced when it’s understood, accepted and embraced by the majority.

MsG

I read most of this post but admittedly not all.

Sounds to me like a lot of self defeating attitude. The rich this... the elites that.. no hopes for employment...

Seriously, I grew up with nothing. My parents were, and still are, dirt poor. I decided that I didn't want to live that way and never thought of "Rich vs Poor" but more of those that acted and those that did not. Where I live now is mainly poor immigrants that think the same exact way.. the rich are evil etc. Screw that, some day I will be one of them. I may be shooting for the moon, but if I only hit the stars then I am still way ahead of where I was.

I don't glorify poverty like some of these folks. Being poor is not being pious (unless you are a monk and even those guys charge a hefty fee for their beer) nor is it making you ethically or morally superior. It simply makes you poorer. Education, dedication, and a little creativity. Luck don't factor into it.

I didn't grow up in the UK and admittedly things may be different there but seeing as how many actors, businessmen, et al swap homes between here and then I assume it cannot be all that different.

Instead of theorizing why you are poor and maintaining victim status, theorize how you can change that. Don't wait for someone to hand you a fish. Go out and get a fish. Work to learn what is needed, ask people what they do for a living, start networking, it can be done. Find your strengths and play on them. I went through 3 careers before I found one that paid what I wanted to make.

Problem with capitalism is this: Some people just don't get it and in order to stop them from falling into the void, the government needs to step in and use socialism as a tool to keep them propped up.

I agree that there has to be strict rules regarding what people can and can't do. Considering the banking system in both the UK and US, it is apparent that you should be allowed to do what you wish however that had better not affect the rest of us as a whole. I do not think the current system is perfect however it appears to be the best for now.

Originally Posted by Alsacien

Still no direct answers to the two questions?
Thought not..

No! No direct answers to the two questions, Alsacien. And d'you know what? Neither have you!

Which actually puts us in good company, for NOBODY to date has provided answers to those two questions (plus their many ancillary permutations). Admittedly, there are masses of THEORIES about how they could be addressed, but no final, satisfactory solutions. That’s why there are so many arguments about them even to this day.

Personally, I believe that Keynes came closest with his theories, but various gobments were/are loath to implement them on a consistent basis for fear of pissing off (and reducing the profits of) their main clients, i.e. the Capitalists who they serve(d)

MsG

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Balleh

Originally Posted by Bugsy

………..
So it’s not strictly true that there have been no alternatives offered, it’s just that they’re not acceptable by Capitalists, since they all champion a radical redistribution of wealth and a curtailment of long-range distribution in favour of improved localisation.

MsG

Capitalists are pragmatists. They recognise that economies are built on millions of people making daily decisions whether or not to buy goods and services at the prices offered. Socialists believe that self-perpetuating oligarchies know best.

With regard to the daily decisions bit: none of that would change under Socialism, just that the choice would be a little easier because there’d be fewer distractions by superfluous items. You should have prefixed your last sentence there with: “I believe/It’s my opinion that …�. If you’d like to take a closer and perhaps more critical look at the present Capitalist system, I believe you’ll discover exactly those self-perpetuating oligarchies you claim that Socialists are so fond of.

Originally Posted by Balleh

History proves beyond doubt that the former are correct and the latter are merely naïve dreamers.

I reckon you’d be very hard-pressed to actually provide concrete evidence of this statement, which you conveniently neglected to include. When many folks dream a dream, no matter how “naïve� you deign to describe them in your arrogance, that dream becomes a movement and ultimately a reality. An example? How long did “naïve dreamers� dream of flying?

Originally Posted by Balleh

As for “improved localisation�, that is just a fancy and disingenuous expression for isolationism and the imposition of trade barriers.

The phrase is neither fancy nor disingenuous. Just because you fail to completely understand its importance doesn't make it in any way invalid. Sensible commercial localisation where possible not only makes long-term economic sense, it would also solve a number of pressing problems, not the least being a tremendous saving in transport costs; meaning that less fuel would be consumed, thus conceivably stretching the earth's finite reserves of fossil fuels until a viable alternative can be found.

But I do notice that you appear to be arguing within the system again – simply replacing Capitalism with what you understand to be Socialism. It’ll never work like that. Socialism can only be successfully introduced when it’s understood, accepted and embraced by the majority.

MsG

The difficulty I, and I am sure many others, have is your frequent implication that people should be forced by apparatchiks, e.g.

“just that the choice would be a little easier because there’d be fewer distractions by superfluous items�

“Sensible commercial localisation�

Who the hell are you or anyone else to dictate what is a distraction, a superfluous item or sensible?

As for self-perpetuating oligarchies, the difference between capitalism and what you are advocating is that if a company goes tits-up everyone loses their jobs, but if there really is a market for its goods and services others will fill the gap, whereas your bureaucrats will merely move the goal posts whilst continuing to claim they know best and retaining their jobs.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

"curtailment of long-range distribution in favour of improved localisation. "

So if I want to buy a PC I can't as 99% of it's bits are made on the other side of the world?

To be honest, that bit sounds more like management jargon than any meaningfull phrase.

Why don't you offer a proper argument, instead of the old custard of taking things to extremes.

Where did I mention "exclusive localisation" anywhere? A typical example would be taking milk from the UK to Greece to be turned into feta, bringing it back to Scotland to be packaged and then distributed. What's the point of that? Why import apples from South Africa when they can be grown just as well in the UK and at the same time provide folks with an income?

Why aren't farmers in the UK allowed to grow hemp? It provides five times the yield for paper of the same area of forest and the paper doesn't even have to be bleached and PH-treated. In addition, it provides much softer and more durable fibres for clothing and doesn't need anywhere near the amounts of water and insecticide as cotton.

Those are the sort of things I'm talking about. And they don't get realised because the folks who're making the profits from all this nonsense are more important to the respective gobments than the populations they're supposed to be serving.

MsG

Nope, You purpose a line of thinking, I'll see if I can reduce it to absurdity. Reductio ad absurdum. Now, if you clarify that line of thinking, then I can only spin the reduction so far. The examples you quote are damm good and I agree with you there 100%. Leave the thinking open ended and I'll have fun with it.

Originally Posted by ghost_us

I may be shooting for the moon, but if I only hit the stars then I am still way ahead of where I was.

I would have thought you would be shooting for the stars and if you hit the moon..........

Originally Posted by Balleh

The difficulty I, and I am sure many others, have is your frequent implication that people should be forced by apparatchiks, e.g.

“just that the choice would be a little easier because there’d be fewer distractions by superfluous items�

“Sensible commercial localisation�

Who the hell are you or anyone else to dictate what is a distraction, a superfluous item or sensible?

Y’know, mucker, it’s really difficult to discuss if you intend to carry on making these ridiculous and totally unfounded assumptions merely to present some sort of thin argument.

Nowhere on this thread will you find from me even one vague implication, let alone frequent ones, that any folks should be forced to do anything by apparatchiks. You’ve obviously got a fixed idea of what you think Socialism is and you’re fixing (and misunderstanding) my statements around that. Try actually comprehending what I've been saying all along about Socialism and what it truly represents.

Fewer distractions – let me give you an example of this: all the washing machines produced in all the European countries use inlet valves from the same manufacturer. There are only three variations; left, right and straight. The same washing machines use motors from two different manufacturers. It would therefore save resources to just produce one model and all the rest of the companies can turn their hand to producing other needed goods.

Is it really necessary to have a choice of 46 different holy-ghosters in a shop? Wouldn’t five or even ten be more than enough? One of the main reasons for any recession is over-production. At the same time, it’s why a lot of companies go belly-up – the car industry being a prime example. There’s no market for the goods. So the Capitalist system is permanently balancing along a knife-edge between over-production and short periods of relative affluence. Such a system is a guarantee for boom and bust, these surges that are the blight of so many folks’ lives. The question is: is it really sensible to perpetuate such wastefulness in view of the fact that so many natural resources on which we rely are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain?

The expression “sensible commercial location� should be self-explanatory. If it can be manufactured/produced locally do it, if not, ship it in. Any such decision would be made en situ by the relevant folks and wouldn't involve me, or any other outside influence, in any way.

So your pathetically pompous little phrase: “Who the hell are you …..�, is just you farting in a bottle

Originally Posted by Balleh

As for self-perpetuating oligarchies, the difference between capitalism and what you are advocating is that if a company goes tits-up everyone loses their jobs, but if there really is a market for its goods and services others will fill the gap, whereas your bureaucrats will merely move the goal posts whilst continuing to claim they know best and retaining their jobs.

I can’t believe this! First you say that if a company goes tits-up everybody loses their jobs, but on the other hand, if there’s a market for said company’s goods and/or services others will fill the gap. In your frenzied search for a simplistic argument, you've totally contradicted yourself. If the market exists, then the company wouldn't have gone tits-up in the first place.

Then you maintain that “my� bureaucrats will simply move the goalposts while continuing to claim etc. I don’t know whether you’re aware of it, but with that you’ve very succinctly described one of the main tactics of the Capitalist system.

It’s clear that you believe that the Capitalist system is far superior to Socialism. That may be because it's the only system you know and because you have difficulty envisaging a viable replacement for it, or it may be because you’re genuinely unaware and uninformed about Socialism. I strongly suspect that it’s the latter. My reason for this suspicion is that you’re presenting arguments that don’t really touch on the subject of Socialism, but rather support your already existing opinion that it must be bad because everybody says it is.

I'm sorry, pal, but you're just another victim of the insidious Capitalist propaganda. Which, in itself, is not tragic, since we all have the opportunity to go out and gather information for ourselves to round out the picture, so to speak. Have you ever thought of doing that?

MsG

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

"curtailment of long-range distribution in favour of improved localisation. "

So if I want to buy a PC I can't as 99% of it's bits are made on the other side of the world?

To be honest, that bit sounds more like management jargon than any meaningfull phrase.

Why don't you offer a proper argument, instead of the old custard of taking things to extremes.

Where did I mention "exclusive localisation" anywhere? A typical example would be taking milk from the UK to Greece to be turned into feta, bringing it back to Scotland to be packaged and then distributed. What's the point of that? Why import apples from South Africa when they can be grown just as well in the UK and at the same time provide folks with an income?

Why aren't farmers in the UK allowed to grow hemp? It provides five times the yield for paper of the same area of forest and the paper doesn't even have to be bleached and PH-treated. In addition, it provides much softer and more durable fibres for clothing and doesn't need anywhere near the amounts of water and insecticide as cotton.

Those are the sort of things I'm talking about. And they don't get realised because the folks who're making the profits from all this nonsense are more important to the respective gobments than the populations they're supposed to be serving.

MsG

Nope, You purpose a line of thinking, I'll see if I can reduce it to absurdity. Reductio ad absurdum. Now, if you clarify that line of thinking, then I can only spin the reduction so far. The examples you quote are damn good and I agree with you there 100%. Leave the thinking open ended and I'll have fun with it.

I agree, Bugsy’s examples are very good.

However one has to ask why they occur and the answer is - because they can, and at a price the supplier is prepared to accept and the customer is prepared to pay.

Furthermore, the converse of Bugsy’s dismay that this does occur is that, taking South African apples as an example, any bureaucratic intervention based on “sensible commercial localisation� will merely prevent SA from developing its economy.

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Alsacien

Still no direct answers to the two questions?
Thought not..

No! No direct answers to the two questions, Alsacien. And d'you know what? Neither have you!

Which actually puts us in good company, for NOBODY to date has provided answers to those two questions (plus their many ancillary permutations). Admittedly, there are masses of THEORIES about how they could be addressed, but no final, satisfactory solutions. That’s why there are so many arguments about them even to this day.

Personally, I believe that Keynes came closest with his theories, but various gobments were/are loath to implement them on a consistent basis for fear of pissing off (and reducing the profits of) their main clients, i.e. the Capitalists who they serve(d)

MsG

Do you want to bet on that?

Why do you come across as more of a communist idealist than a socialist?

Originally Posted by Balleh

I agree, Bugsy’s examples are very good.

However one has to ask why they occur and the answer is - because they can, and at a price the supplier is prepared to accept and the customer is prepared to pay.

Furthermore, the converse of Bugsy’s dismay that this does occur is that, taking South African apples as an example, any bureaucratic intervention based on “sensible commercial localisation� will merely prevent SA from developing its economy.

[My bold in your post]. Oh dear, you're really not very good at this, are you? So a potential source of income for folks in the UK is to be foregone so that SA can develop its economy? Doesn't that sound just a little absurd as an argument, even to you?

And why would it be a "bureaucratic intervention"? Why not a sensible decision based on the facts and the logic of the case?

MsG

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Originally Posted by Balleh

The difficulty I, and I am sure many others, have is your frequent implication that people should be forced by apparatchiks, e.g.

“just that the choice would be a little easier because there’d be fewer distractions by superfluous items�

“Sensible commercial localisation�

Who the hell are you or anyone else to dictate what is a distraction, a superfluous item or sensible?

Y’know, mucker, it’s really difficult to discuss if you intend to carry on making these ridiculous and totally unfounded assumptions merely to present some sort of thin argument.

Nowhere on this thread will you find from me even one vague implication, let alone frequent ones, that any folks should be forced to do anything by apparatchiks. You’ve obviously got a fixed idea of what you think Socialism is and you’re fixing (and misunderstanding) my statements around that. Try actually comprehending what I've been saying all along about Socialism and what it truly represents.

Fewer distractions – let me give you an example of this: all the washing machines produced in all the European countries use inlet valves from the same manufacturer. There are only three variations; left, right and straight. The same washing machines use motors from two different manufacturers. It would therefore save resources to just produce one model and all the rest of the companies can turn their hand to producing other needed goods.

Is it really necessary to have a choice of 46 different holy-ghosters in a shop? Wouldn’t five or even ten be more than enough? One of the main reasons for any recession is over-production. At the same time, it’s why a lot of companies go belly-up – the car industry being a prime example. There’s no market for the goods. So the Capitalist system is permanently balancing along a knife-edge between over-production and short periods of relative affluence. Such a system is a guarantee for boom and bust, these surges that are the blight of so many folks’ lives. The question is: is it really sensible to perpetuate such wastefulness in view of the fact that so many natural resources on which we rely are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain?

The expression “sensible commercial location� should be self-explanatory. If it can be manufactured/produced locally do it, if not, ship it in. Any such decision would be made en situ by the relevant folks and wouldn't involve me, or any other outside influence, in any way.

So your pathetically pompous little phrase: “Who the hell are you …..�, is just you farting in a bottle

Originally Posted by Balleh

As for self-perpetuating oligarchies, the difference between capitalism and what you are advocating is that if a company goes tits-up everyone loses their jobs, but if there really is a market for its goods and services others will fill the gap, whereas your bureaucrats will merely move the goal posts whilst continuing to claim they know best and retaining their jobs.

I can’t believe this! First you say that if a company goes tits-up everybody loses their jobs, but on the other hand, if there’s a market for said company’s goods and/or services others will fill the gap. In your frenzied search for a simplistic argument, you've totally contradicted yourself. If the market exists, then the company wouldn't have gone tits-up in the first place.

Then you maintain that “my� bureaucrats will simply move the goalposts while continuing to claim etc. I don’t know whether you’re aware of it, but with that you’ve very succinctly described one of the main tactics of the Capitalist system.

It’s clear that you believe that the Capitalist system is far superior to Socialism. That may be because it's the only system you know and because you have difficulty envisaging a viable replacement for it, or it may be because you’re genuinely unaware and uninformed about Socialism. I strongly suspect that it’s the latter. My reason for this suspicion is that you’re presenting arguments that don’t really touch on the subject of Socialism, but rather support your already existing opinion that it must be bad because everybody says it is.

I'm sorry, pal, but you're just another victim of the insidious Capitalist propaganda. Which, in itself, is not tragic, since we all have the opportunity to go out and gather information for ourselves to round out the picture, so to speak. Have you ever thought of doing that?

MsG

Regarding your comment about the absurdity of a mere two companies producing the same components for washing machines, has it occurred to you that you are actually advocating monopolies?

On the matter of a company going tits-up, my point was that being a commercial operation it is subject to market forces.

Your apparatchiks, however, are merely warts and leeches on a country's economy. Paid by the taxpayer, they never directly suffer the consequences of their actions.