Global Capitalism

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, that's true. You can criticize free markets without ending up in a gulag. Would that Socialism were the same.

But what's more common is that the Socialists insist that their way doesn't HAVE to lead to economic collapse, murder, gulags and the end of freedoms, whereas in reality, that's exactly what's happened, in 100% of the cases.

Well, I'm glad to see you don't think, for example, that the Scandanavian countries have or have had socialism. Many conservatives in the US would.

But you said 'Yes, that's true.' And then what followed was not what I was saying, but the format implies it was.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, that's true. You can criticize free markets without ending up in a gulag. Would that Socialism were the same.

But what's more common is that the Socialists insist that their way doesn't HAVE to lead to economic collapse, murder, gulags and the end of freedoms, whereas in reality, that's exactly what's happened, in 100% of the cases.

Well, I'm glad to see you don't think, for example, that the Scandanavian countries have or have had socialism. Many conservatives in the US would.

Right. They have social programs of a limited kind, but they fund them off free enterprise. In Norway, for example, oil is the major source of wealth that allows them to keep their programs going. Denmark's market is actually more free, in relation to things like small business, than is the US.

There is no polity on earth in which Socialism has been able to sustain its programs, or even the basics for its people, without resorting to the avails of the very "Capitalism" it despises. China is now doing "Red Capitalism" to save the regime from collapsing of its own dysfunction, ideological-possession and veniality.

Social benefits have to be paid for. Socialists think there's "magic money" that appears from government. But the truth is that government itself HAS no money, in the sense that it creates nothing, sells nothing, produces nothing, invents nothing, and generates none of its own income. It only sucks up the money produced by others, particularly through taxation, and then "redistributes" it to whatever it wishes. And it's always slack and horribly wasteful and arbitrary in the ways it does, driven by political not economic expedients. So the loser is always the common people, particularly those among them who are actually productive.

[phyllo]

Remember that you only have two options ... capitalism or gulags, mass murder, the end of all freedoms.

Choose wisely!

"Capital" is just money. It's not an "-ism." Nobody worships it. It has no creed, ideology, manifesto or clubs. What you mean is free markets, I think.

As for "only two options," why? Why only two? Why is Socialism (i.e. economic collapse, gulags, murder and the end of freedoms) the only other alternative? Why not have a third? There have been many different political arrangments in human history, and probably some we have not yet invented or tried? So why make it just two?

Yeah, well yesterday you only gave two options:

The choice is between totalitarian Marxism and free markets.

So, why did YOU make it just two?

[Iwannaplato]

Right. They have social programs of a limited kind, but they fund them off free enterprise. In Norway, for example, oil is the major source of wealth that allows them to keep their programs going. Denmark's market is actually more free, in relation to things like small business, than is the US.

They have free medical care (very low amount before it gets free) Free dental for children up to 18. Free University education. A very broad and deep social support net (welfare). Very, very good state unemployment insurance. Free language education for immigrants. Much, much higher taxes. Extremely high taxes on high earners. Very very high social security tax employers pay. More than double the sales tax. Very large state owned property owners to keep rents low. Direct housing allowances or subsidies. Long mandatory maternity and even paternity leave. Each child in sweden gets a state allowance of over 100 bucks. They get free time subsidy in money. Unemployment insurance that is heavily subsidized by the state. 90% of the workers are covered by collective bargaining agreements affecting wages and benefits. Food subsidies. You can get 80% of your salary for any day you stay home with a sick child and this is on top of many more weeks of guaranteed vacations. Basing this mainly on Sweden, though the other countries are similar.

So, it's great that you don't even consider these states socialist, so presumably similar policies could be put in place in the US with it being called socialism, to you. This sets you apart from many conservatives in the US. Actually even from many liberals, if not most.

But here and in other philosophy forums there are people - Pezer, for example, is a classic example. Who blow a gasket and scream commie and mean something like Mao's China or Stalin's Russia, if one criticizes some policy associated with capitalism and not remotely on the order of suggestion polices like those I mentioned above.

So, Kudos to you.

And by the way: the behavior of Lefties or socialists has little to do with slippery slope binary thinking by those conservatives who have it. That's like the kid caught doing something wrong ratting out other kids as if that has something to do with his own behavior.

[Gary Childress]

Regardless of whether or not it's "socialism", it would be great if the US had the level of social programs that Norway does. The US is turning into a dump.

Regardless of what we want to call people like Musk, Bezos, and Trump (whether they be "capitalists" or "socialist") they and others of the uber rich have exploited and fucked our country over completely. We need better social programs. We don't need a "free" market where people are starving because they're mentally ill or too old to work anymore.

[Immanuel Can]

So, it's great that you don't even consider these states socialist, so presumably similar policies could be put in place in the US with it being called socialism, to you. This sets you apart from many conservatives in the US. Actually even from many liberals, if not most.

It's not so great. Take Canada: it has "free" healthcare. But it's bankrupting the system, losing all its doctors to the US, not having the latest machines and technologies, and having wait lines so long that people sometimes die instead of being treated -- in the waiting rooms, sometimes.

Immigration policy is terrible there, as it has proved to be in places like Sweden and the UK. Unmanage migration is making a mess of the culture, which is so destroyed that the last PM even denied there remained such a thing as "Canadian identity." Large swaths of the population now share neither language, nor culture, nor values. No wonder the place is coming apart at the seams.

Government-standardized education is also a mess, makes choice impossible, undermines parental authority and ends up being far too expensive on the taxpayers. But that's another story.

What's important is that none of this is actually free. It's taken out of the hides of the productive, and handed to the politicians, who squander it and get little done. In other words, the only functional parts of such economies are the non-Socialist ones.

But here's another important question, I think: who is pushing for Socialism right now? And who stands to benefit?

The Socialist story is that it's for "the commoners," "the poor" or "the proles." Really? Then why are the elites in business, the bankers, the media moguls and the Hollywood elite and so many rich politicians all pushing for it? Why does the WEF want it, and the elites in Europe? Do we really think that what they all have in mind is the good of the ordinary man? Or are we going to ask a question about what they think they're going to get out of it?

[Iwannaplato]

So, it's great that you don't even consider these states socialist, so presumably similar policies could be put in place in the US with it being called socialism, to you. This sets you apart from many conservatives in the US. Actually even from many liberals, if not most.

It's not so great.

You said something along the lines of all socialist countries have led to gulags etc. Since this has not happened in the Scandanavian countries, you do not consider them socialist, despite the kinds of policies laws and social support I mentioned. Which is great. I am not saying you think their systems are great. I am saying I think it is great that you do not consider them socialist countries, sometimes many conservatives would conclude.

[Immanuel Can]

So, it's great that you don't even consider these states socialist, so presumably similar policies could be put in place in the US with it being called socialism, to you. This sets you apart from many conservatives in the US. Actually even from many liberals, if not most.

It's not so great.

You said something along the lines of all socialist countries have led to gulags etc.

Yes. But that's all the countries where Socialism has actually been made the whole system, rather than, say, like Denmark or Norway, having a few social programs funded by my free enterprise taxation. Socialism only turns deadly when it has control. Before that, it's just wasteful, but not deadly.

Since this has not happened in the Scandanavian countries, you do not consider them socialist,

No, you're right: I don't. They aren't.

The sine qua non of Socialism, according to Marx, is the elimination of private property: so a place that does not destroy property rights isn't fully Socialist. But more, it seems it always involves things like the setting up of a uni-government (for Socialism cannot endure rivals), the destruction of basic freedoms, the control of the press, the legal inforcement of Socialist conformism, and so on. Often, it involves other things, like militarism, murder and executions, as well. It's a nasty package, but begins with the elimination of property rights.

I am saying I think it is great that you do not consider them socialist countries, sometimes many conservatives would conclude.

I don't know any informed conservatives who would say that, just as I don't know any informed liberals who will want to be Socialists...unless they have their own sneaky stake in exploiting other people. Rather, the liberals who support Socialism tend to want us never to think of Maoist China, or the USSR, or Cambodia, or Cuba, or Zimbabwe, or North Korea, but of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, as if the latter furnish any examples of Socialism.

They do not. They are not nearly Socialist enough to be genuinely pleasing to a real Socialist, and depend on "capitalist" enterprise for their survival. So any reference to Scandanavia is just a dishonest stratagem on the part of Leftists, intended to sanitize the record of Socialism by lying about what is really going on in those economies.

And maybe the conservatives you're encountering are not as well-informed as they need to be, just as the liberals I meet tend not to be.

[Iwannaplato]

No, you're right: I don't. They aren't.

Great. You're not a slippery slope fanatic.

[Immanuel Can]

No, you're right: I don't. They aren't.

Great. You're not a slippery slope fanatic.

No, the slippery slope is not appropriate here. But then, Scanadavian countries are not relevant to the Socialist debate. They're not an example of what Socialism really does.

[MikeNovack]

Yes, that's true. You can criticize free markets without ending up in a gulag. Would that Socialism were the same.

But what's more common is that the Socialists insist that their way doesn't HAVE to lead to economic collapse, murder, gulags and the end of freedoms, whereas in reality, that's exactly what's happened, in 100% of the cases.

Well, I'm glad to see you don't think, for example, that the Scandanavian countries have or have had socialism. Many conservatives in the US would.

But you said 'Yes, that's true.' And then what followed was not what I was saying, but the format implies it was.

[MikeNovack]

No, the slippery slope is not appropriate here. But then, Scanadavian countries are not relevant to the Socialist debate. They're not an example of what Socialism really does.

But then the problem is you are using the term "socialism" to mean something different than most of us do. Makes communication difficult and we aren't likely to agree on much.

OF COURSE if you define "socialists" as being ONLY those socialists (as the rest of us use that term) who favor repressive , undemocratic, etc. control and ones that don't "not really socialists" we're not going to argue with you about that EXCEPT to point out "that's not how the rest of us defined socialism.

[Immanuel Can]

But here's another important question, I think: who is pushing for Socialism right now? And who stands to benefit?

The Socialist story is that it's for "the commoners," "the poor" or "the proles." Really? Then why are the elites in business, the bankers, the media moguls and the Hollywood elite and so many rich politicians all pushing for it? Why does the WEF want it, and the elites in Europe? Do we really think that what they all have in mind is the good of the ordinary man? Or are we going to ask a question about what they think they're going to get out of it?

Answer: Big Government.

Getting the proles to advocate Socialism is merely the elite's way of getting everything under their control. You can see that the bankers and financiers, the resident rich, the Pelosis and Obamas, the Hollywood and media moguls, the owners of the near-monopoly businesses like Blackrock and Amazon, and so on, LOVE the idea of a Socialist government, because it eliminates private property and personal freedoms for the proles, and puts all power in the governmental system they already control.

All they have to do is get political office, then make everybody miserable and struggling, blame "Capitalism" or "conservatism" or claim that suffering is the result of "injustice" or "meritocracy," not of their manipulations, then promise the proles that they'll be taken care of if they vote Socialist. And the proles will hand over all power to centralized control.

Are we dumb enough to fall for that? We shall see.

[Immanuel Can]

No, the slippery slope is not appropriate here. But then, Scanadavian countries are not relevant to the Socialist debate. They're not an example of what Socialism really does.

But then the problem is you are using the term "socialism" to mean something different than most of us do.

I'm using it accurately. Socialism is a comprehensive political and economic system, not a few social programs overlaid on a free economy.