Socialism

[Thomek]

I'd say you need some kind of mix. Ideologies on both sides of the spectrum rarely does any good.

What I'm for is to TAX THE DEAD. *And tax the living less.

A problem in the world is that we get more and more money on fewer and fewer hands. (Because Money=Power=Money)

It effectively puts huge breaks on a Meritocracy, and hence the dreams and possibilities of 90% of people.

I.ex, Norway's richest man, John Fredriksen (worth about 11Billion USD) transfers his whole business to his ducks. Sorry, daughters:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


The man came from nothing, and built himself up to where he is. Still, from a quick glance at the above picture, it is unlikely that his daughters will run the house as well as he did, and likely spend millions on luxury (Effectively real waste, yes the money trickles down, but the resources spent don't), and much much worse: Bad business decisions, which are really just an incredible amount of wasted resources, which in the hands of someone competent would actually benefit society and all of us.

So, I'm for a meritocracy, but tax the dead, especially those that are accumulating enough money and businesses that they pose a risk of extreme luxury and resource waste for the inheritors. (50m USD+?) Gvnmt should simply take the businesses, and immediately sell them, by law.

* Less taxes to pay for everyone else
* Being born extremely rich is impossible
* Everyone will have better chances of success. (Not only those born into it)
* The dead doesn't care.
* Power is had by those with merits. And hopefully better decisions too, benefiting all.

Only those who made themselves rich themselves will be able to buy companies, everyone will have a better shot at getting the top jobs, based on their merits.

The point is not to take your familys normal house. The point is to stop the global and local trends of accumulation of wealth and power, actually leading us into Nepotism by birthright, not capitalism.

[BASNAK]

Can someone explain to me why people are being fired from mines, industries and have to decrease the amount of production (agriculture, industry etc) during a financial crisis? The amount of available resources are the same, the availability of workforce is still there, the industries and mines are still ready to use. All shut down because of some banks across the atlantic invested their money in the wrong places (and end up being bailed anyways - so much for free market+Capitalism)

Just sounds really stupid in my opinion and personally believe our current monetary system in the world is stupid - Better than what it used to be before of course but in need of change. I'm not really that educated in economy so if someone would like to convince me why Im wrong go ahead.

[FleetFox]

Can someone explain to me why people are being fired from mines, industries and have to decrease the amount of production (agriculture, industry etc) during a financial crisis? The amount of available resources are the same, the availability of workforce is still there, the industries and mines are still ready to use. All shut down because of some banks across the atlantic invested their money in the wrong places (and end up being bailed anyways - so much for free market+Capitalism)

Just sounds really stupid in my opinion and personally believe our current monetary system in the world is stupid - Better than what it used to be before of course but in need of change. I'm not really that educated in economy so if someone would like to convince me why Im wrong go ahead.

The thing is Basnak you are not wrong, its a really strange system the world economy, it's really hard to fathom the craziness of it all. I mean look at the USA for example, the Federal Reserve which is privately owned by banking conglomerates actually makes money out of thin air, the whole system runs on debt. It's quite fascinating but at the same time quite scary.

Very nice Thomek, essentially this would take away inheritance which would be brilliant for the state to be then distributed in a way which actually benefits society.

[[ptx]]

And what about Finland, then? No oil, hugely affected by WW2.

Is it as prosperous as Scandinavian countries? Not really. Also, it was affected by WW2, but... hugely? As hugely as most of Eastern Europe or Germany or France? Not really, no.

(click to show/hide)

Well sure, those that left Cuba or were killed were those who lost the most with the revolution, or that wanted to maintain the capitalist status Quo and exploitation by america ^^

Anyway I'm pretty sure we can all agree (at least I hope) that certain individuals can earn and accumulate so much wealth as immoral and quite frankly perverse. I mean right now the big meeting in Davos of the "World Elites": The top 85 of whom have the same amount of wealth than the bottom half of the Worlds total population. Pretty crazy really, and you can expect inequality to get even worse in our beloved free market system. Surely you don't have to be only left wing (socialist) to appreciate some of the shit that is put up with. I don't want to come across as really negative, but there isn't much hope things will change... Unless the banks fuck up again since they haven't changed their behaviour at all since 2008 which worries me deeply.

I would not be surprised if there is another financial crash in years to come, which will make countries like my Native Britain fucked ^^

Cubans, happy? lolwate. Have you actually been there? They're all just sitting there in the sun, with absolutely nothing to do, scratching their asses and begging foreign tourists for plastic bags.

(click to show/hide)

I'd say you need some kind of mix. Ideologies on both sides of the spectrum rarely does any good.

What I'm for is to TAX THE DEAD. *And tax the living less.

A problem in the world is that we get more and more money on fewer and fewer hands. (Because Money=Power=Money)

It effectively puts huge breaks on a Meritocracy, and hence the dreams and possibilities of 90% of people.

I.ex, Norway's richest man, John Fredriksen (worth about 11Billion USD) transfers his whole business to his ducks. Sorry, daughters:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


The man came from nothing, and built himself up to where he is. Still, from a quick glance at the above picture, it is unlikely that his daughters will run the house as well as he did, and likely spend millions on luxury (Effectively real waste, yes the money trickles down, but the resources spent don't), and much much worse: Bad business decisions, which are really just an incredible amount of wasted resources, which in the hands of someone competent would actually benefit society and all of us.

So, I'm for a meritocracy, but tax the dead, especially those that are accumulating enough money and businesses that they pose a risk of extreme luxury and resource waste for the inheritors. (50m USD+?) Gvnmt should simply take the businesses, and immediately sell them, by law.

* Less taxes to pay for everyone else
* Being born extremely rich is impossible
* Everyone will have better chances of success. (Not only those born into it)
* The dead doesn't care.
* Power is had by those with merits. And hopefully better decisions too, benefiting all.

Only those who made themselves rich themselves will be able to buy companies, everyone will have a better shot at getting the top jobs, based on their merits.

The point is not to take your familys normal house. The point is to stop the global and local trends of accumulation of wealth and power, actually leading us into Nepotism by birthright, not capitalism.

What motivates rich people to actually become rich? Is it not the prospect of securing the future of their family? What do you think the wealthy would do, if they knew that their fortune would be distributed/taken over by the government after their deaths?

[Thomek]

What motivates rich people to actually become rich? Is it not the prospect of securing the future of their family? What do you think the wealthy would do, if they knew that their fortune would be distributed/taken over by the government after their deaths?

They would probably try to spend it, which is the lesser evil than trying to hold it in the family. And they would have generally less to waste since they would generally have less time to accumulate their wealth. (As in not generations of time)

And again, these rules should only affect large amounts of money, not small and perhaps medium businesses. You would still have 50million USD to give to your family. Should be enough for a few generations.

Note that I'm not saying the companies should be owned and run by the state, because that most often becomes some sort of rigid nepotism. The state should simply sell them asap when someone dies. I'm also not saying there should be a limit to how much you can accumulate in your lifetime. Hence Jobs and Gates are still possible, and even more likely, because more people will have the possibilities that are now held by the lucky ones.

Now, this idea doesn't really work unless its enforced globally, and is unlikely to happen, since the richest and most powerful will resist it.

[[ptx]]

Or they will simply transfer the ownership to someone else before they die?

[Tagora]

Referring to the OP:

Socialism as an idea?  There is no combination of social and economic theory that is more beautiful than socialism.  It was born from those who were the first in Europe to understand the world through empiricism.  It was in those early days that academics began to analyze society, its markets, and the history of the world through an objective eye.  They discovered great imbalances of wealth for over 10,000 years, a period of time that accounts for only 1/10th the history of our species.  How was wealth distributed prior to then?  With that question arose countless others.  Through the work of many GREAT theorists, historians, and philosophers, Europe was shocked and enlightened by the work that they were doing.  The impact they had on society was so formidable that their ideas still form the basis of modern dialectics concerning socioeconomic theory.  Socialism as an idea is nothing short of excellent.

Then why does it have a bad rap?  Others have noted the horror of communism, an altogether different evolutionary stage in Marxism, and its implementation by authoritarian, and nearly always dictatorial regimes.  Because communism appeals to the working class, it's perfect for usurping power in poor nations, whose people are won over by slogans and manifestos.  They're quickly betrayed by their leaders who realize they took responsibility of one of the poorest nations in the world, with a bad outlook for diplomacy (Red Scare ftw!), and with way too much power in their fallible hands.  It's a disaster.  The economy collapses, millions die from starvation, money and resources are spent on frivolous and idealistic government projects, and a huge bureaucracy is made to enforce strict observance of domestic policy.  All of this fuels rhetoric in the west.  It gives capitalists some ammunition they can use on their working class counterparts.  "You think it's bad now, wait til them commies take over, " say the managers of private industry.  "Boss is right, I heard how bad it is over there, besides things ain't so bad."  Years go by and you think you're validated by the fact you're not jobless and starving to death. 

(click to show/hide)

Meanwhile, boss is worth a thousand times more than you, and he's banging your daughter who's struggling to earn money to become an "independent" adult like Dad.

[Teeth]

Marxist understanding of the world was wrong though, or at least their predictions based on their understand were plainly wrong. Marxist theory as a very poor empirical record as no nation has ever fulfilled the theory and properly reached the stage of socialism, let alone communism. The bad rep socialism gets is because it has only been implemented in perverted forms which didn't work that well, simply because the original socialism is an idea that is totally unrealistic.

Tell me how socialism is still relevant as an idea as even the socialist parties throughout Europe have changed their manifestos and removed all the references to cooperative ownership of production, production for use, and getting rid of capitalism in general and have embraced capitalism themselves. How does the current world not show you a victory of capitalism? Beautiful and excellent maybe, but practically useless.

[Xant]

Is it as prosperous as Scandinavian countries? Not really. Also, it was affected by WW2, but... hugely? As hugely as most of Eastern Europe or Germany or France? Not really, no.

Yes, it is as prosperous as Sweden and Denmark. Norway is way above both, though, because of oil. And yeah, Finland had to pay huge war reparations and got a big chunk and one of its biggest cities taken from it; obviously this has a big effect on the economy and everything else, not to mention the dead people. Whether it was as badly affected as Eastern Europe, Germany or France is academical, you still can't say that the damage WW2 did to Finland is in the same league as it was to Sweden, which is my point.

[Thomek]

Or they will simply transfer the ownership to someone else before they die?

Most countries with inheritance taxes already have laws to stop this.

[Tagora]

Marxist understanding of the world was wrong though, or at least their predictions based on their understand were plainly wrong. Marxist theory as a very poor empirical record as no nation has ever fulfilled the theory and properly reached the stage of socialism, let alone communism. The bad rep socialism gets is because it has only been implemented in perverted forms which didn't work that well, simply because the original socialism is an idea that is totally unrealistic.

There's never been a pure Marxist revolution.  Lenin's vanguard party and his successors reactions to Leninism eschewed many of the principles making up Marxist thinking.  You admit they perverted the ideology and still go on to claim that socialism is at fault?   Besides this, I find it very cheap of you to do like so many do when they refer to socialism as some cheap idealism, it denotes an impatient lack of understanding of the subject.  This brings me to your next remark

Tell me how socialism is still relevant as an idea as even the socialist parties throughout Europe have changed their manifestos and removed all the references to cooperative ownership of production, production for use, and getting rid of capitalism in general and have embraced capitalism themselves. How does the current world not show you a victory of capitalism? Beautiful and excellent maybe, but practically useless.

I admit this is pretty troll-y.  It presupposes that the centre politics of Europe and America are at all relevant to modern scholasticism.  Do you honestly think those that have spent their lives studying this care what Tony fucking Blair or François Hollande say?  If how the world is currently operating is any indication of the practicality of moderatism it couldn't hurt to try something new.

[FleetFox]

There's never been a pure Marxist revolution.  Lenin's vanguard party and his successors reactions to Leninism eschewed many of the principles making up Marxist thinking.  You admit they perverted the ideology and still go on to claim that socialism is at fault?   Besides this, I find it very cheap of you to do like so many do when they refer to socialism as some cheap idealism, it denotes an impatient lack of understanding of the subject.  This brings me to your next remark

I admit this is pretty troll-y.  It presupposes that the centre politics of Europe and America are at all relevant to modern scholasticism.  Do you honestly think those that have spent their lives studying this care what Tony fucking Blair or François Hollande say?  If how the world is currently operating is any indication of the practicality of moderatism it couldn't hurt to try something new.

Well said sir.


The thing I think is most important to note is that there has never been a true communist state. It has always been adapted communism to fit a countries context. The only way real communism could come about is if al countries were to adopt it at the same time, whereby countries and national borders would be obsolete. Yes it is utopia and no I don't think it is possible, but that does not mean capitalism can not be shaped to provide more for society through more emphasis on social security, the environment and of course much greater income equality. There are many think tanks working on such ideas, think tanks like the New Economic Foundation, who are looking at alternatives to this global system largely formed by the Anglo-American model (which fails so many people).

[Kafein]

Well said sir.


The thing I think is most important to note is that there has never been a true communist state. It has always been adapted communism to fit a countries context. The only way real communism could come about is if al countries were to adopt it at the same time, whereby countries and national borders would be obsolete. Yes it is utopia and no I don't think it is possible, but that does not mean capitalism can not be shaped to provide more for society through more emphasis on social security, the environment and of course much greater income equality. There are many think tanks working on such ideas, think tanks like the New Economic Foundation, who are looking at alternatives to this global system largely formed by the Anglo-American model (which fails so many people).

There has never been a true capitalist state either.

[FleetFox]

There has never been a true capitalist state either.

Well thank god, its hard for me to even think how bad that would be, I mean capitalism is all about making profit and having growth and more growth (GDP wise as most economists like to use), the planet would be seriously fucked because it can't support infinite growth. What am I saying... the planet is already fucked unless serious changes are made and countries get a bloody grip and realise how devastating Climate Change is and will be in the next 5-6 decades. Not enough is being done...

[Tagora]

Well said sir.


The thing I think is most important to note is that there has never been a true communist state. It has always been adapted communism to fit a countries context. The only way real communism could come about is if al countries were to adopt it at the same time, whereby countries and national borders would be obsolete. Yes it is utopia and no I don't think it is possible, but that does not mean capitalism can not be shaped to provide more for society through more emphasis on social security, the environment and of course much greater income equality. There are many think tanks working on such ideas, think tanks like the New Economic Foundation, who are looking at alternatives to this global system largely formed by the Anglo-American model (which fails so many people).

What is interesting to note is how defensive many working class people are of their capitalist keepers.  They believe in this myth of social mobility because of all the rags to riches stories in the media.  It's the kind of mass hysteria which takes place when people buy lottery tickets.  They're absolutely blind to their own captivity...I think there is a Platonic analogy like this.  Plato's cave?