Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Jun 28, 2021 11:10:57 GMT -8
Then let’s compare. You name all the economically successful socialist countries and I’ll draw up a corresponding list of economically successful capitalist countries…… …………..Luca And what will that demonstrate? Will it reduce the fear and ignorance on display here? No. Perhaps if more people knew about the actual history of actual socialism in this country they might not be so fearful and ignorant though...it's worth a try. Milwaukee had several socialist mayors over the years, including Frank Zeidler who was mayor during the McCarthy years... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_ZeidlerIn order to make sure we are discussing the same concept, "socialism" can be defined as a situation in which " the means of production, distribution and exchange are owned and regulated by the community as a whole." If you have a different definition then please enlighten. While the concept of socialism may appear attractive to some, as Winston once said: " However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."To answer your question, comparing a list of socialist versus capitalist countries will demonstrate which Is the more successful economic system. A current list of capitalist countries would include the USA, Germany, Japan, Singapore, France, South Korea and so on. The current list of socialist countries includes Algeria, Bangladesh, North Korea, India, Nicaragua, Portugal , etc. Take your pick, but it would seem that whatever "fear" you discern in this thread is well founded. The presence of "several socialist mayors over the years" in the US notwithstanding (for whatever significance you believe that implies. There have also been socialist high school valedictorians but I don't see what that portends, either), the United States has no "actual history of actual socialism." It strikes me as strange that you consider the historical existence of a handful of socialist mayors to be a significant point but ignore the actual documented history of failed socialist economies. The United States is a democratic capitalist country and always has been. Excluding whatever transient Walden II type enclaves you might have in mind, there is no such history to refer to. To put it in simple terms, even the most casual acquaintance with economic history over the last100 years makes it clear why so many abhor socialism.................................Luca |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jun 29, 2021 2:28:28 GMT -8
And what will that demonstrate? Will it reduce the fear and ignorance on display here? No. Perhaps if more people knew about the actual history of actual socialism in this country they might not be so fearful and ignorant though...it's worth a try. Milwaukee had several socialist mayors over the years, including Frank Zeidler who was mayor during the McCarthy years... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_ZeidlerIn order to make sure we are discussing the same concept, "socialism" can be defined as a situation in which " the means of production, distribution and exchange are owned and regulated by the community as a whole." If you have a different definition then please enlighten. While the concept of socialism may appear attractive to some, as Winston once said: " However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."To answer your question, comparing a list of socialist versus capitalist countries will demonstrate which Is the more successful economic system. A current list of capitalist countries would include the USA, Germany, Japan, Singapore, France, South Korea and so on. The current list of socialist countries includes Algeria, Bangladesh, North Korea, India, Nicaragua, Portugal , etc. Take your pick, but it would seem that whatever "fear" you discern in this thread is well founded. The presence of "several socialist mayors over the years" in the US notwithstanding (for whatever significance you believe that implies. There have also been socialist high school valedictorians but I don't see what that portends, either), the United States has no "actual history of actual socialism." It strikes me as strange that you consider the historical existence of a handful of socialist mayors to be a significant point but ignore the actual documented history of failed socialist economies. The United States is a democratic capitalist country and always has been. Excluding whatever transient Walden II type enclaves you might have in mind, there is no such history to refer to. To put it in simple terms, even the most casual acquaintance with economic history over the last100 years makes it clear why so many abhor socialism.................................Luca Thank you for your civil response. It's quite a bit better than any other response to be had here, but sadly you don't do any better when it comes to saying why you guys are so afraid of socialism. You just claim that it should be clear to all why so many are so afraid. To address some of your points... 1. Your definition is textbook, but since no country has ever had a textbook definition of socialism as their government system it's rather pointless. 2. Your obligatory Churchill quote is amusing but equally irrelevant. 3. Your attempt to compare economic systems is great but we're not talking about adopting a socialist government are we? No. We're talking about adopting some socialist policies, kind of like the NFL. You have any problems with the way the NFL does business? 4. My mention of Milwaukee's several socialist mayors is just my way of telling you people not to be afraid of socialism. It's been tried many times in this country sometimes with a great deal of success, and the "transient Walden II type enclave" that is the city of Milwaukee survived its experience quite nicely. There are no communists hiding in the woodpile. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 29, 2021 6:56:37 GMT -8
In my early grade school years, I thought Socialism / Communism was the form of gov't I'd like to live in.
Everyone worked together toward a common goal, and supported each other in harmony. No crime, free schooling and healthcare...a truly altruistic society of happy people.
Now all you have to do to make it sustainable over the generations, is eliminate all sin from the population. I'm not optimistic that's possible here on earth. For those of us who believe in God and heaven, that is what awaits us. In fact, and Credo might be able to attest to the notion that God is most likely the Supreme Socialist.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Jun 29, 2021 7:19:36 GMT -8
1). I had wanted to make sure we were talking about the same concept when we discussed "socialism." “Textbook socialism”, as you put it, means that the government owns and controls the means of production and distribution. Sometimes I think advocates say “socialism” when what they really mean is merely an increase in government regulation (and inevitably, higher taxes), as one might see in the northern European countries which are so often held up as an example. Leftism, so to speak. They are not "textbook socialist."
2). I disagree. Winston's quote is critical to any such discussion. How can history not be a guide and how can you say that? Socialism is a concept has been around for at least 150 years, if you want to consider Karl Marx the most recent widely known proponent. There have been many countries that have tried to institute his utopian ideals and every single one of them, if not an outright economic failure, is at least mired in poverty. It’s a bit facile – to put it mildly - for you to say that looking at the historical results are "pointless", as if somehow you or Bernie Sanders or Occasio-Cortez or whoever suddenly has the right approach where everyone else has failed. As Mark Twain said, “History may not repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Of course looking at the results are meaningful, as Winston said
3). Well, if we are talking about socialism I assume we are discussing “textbook socialism” as you put it. The NFL is not a socialist institution. It is a unique business model in which a relative handful of employees hold and utilize unique leverage, and employees/owners can opt in or opt out if they choose (which is why I wanted us to agree on our definition of socialism to start with). You cannot opt out of socialist government. It is inescapable government control of production and distribution.
4). Again, it strikes me is curious that you think the history of socialist failures "pointless" but feel that the presence of a handful of philosophically socialist mayors in the US is a highly significant point. A mayor has limited legal control of his city’s economy and virtually no influence on the US economy or degree of federal authority. I’m glad to hear that Milwaukee survived, but I think if you read a bit more you will see that Milwaukee was not a socialist enclave, and what ever policies that mayor instituted have not propelled the city to the economic forefront of the US these days.
To clarify, if you are simply talking about increasing government regulations, programs and its inevitable increase in taxes etc., (which we used to call simply "liberalism") then we are not talking about "socialism" as the rest of us understand it…………Luca
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 29, 2021 7:29:20 GMT -8
In my early grade school years, I thought Socialism / Communism was the form of gov't I'd like to live in. Everyone worked together toward a common goal, and supported each other in harmony. No crime, free schooling and healthcare...a truly altruistic society of happy people. Now all you have to do to make it sustainable over the generations, is eliminate all sin from the population. I'm not optimistic that's possible here on earth. For those of us who believe in God and heaven, that is what awaits us. In fact, and Credo might be able to attest to the notion that God is most likely the Supreme Socialist. This is also my perspective. For a long time, even dating back to the OCRegister forum, I've said communism/socialism sounds great on paper: It is only when we involve human beings (or, as Bick inferred, sinful human beings) that it falls apart. Jesus inasmuch as said so, although He does not get involved in political systems ("render unto Caesar..." and all that), He was quite clear about us caring for each other even more than we care for ourselves. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jun 29, 2021 8:14:24 GMT -8
I find little attractive in any system that does not reward hard work, creativity, determination, ability and loyalty more than it does those who don't have those qualities.
My parents came to this country with two little boys, a small wooden crate of clothing and kitchenware, and a couple hundred bucks. Within two years they made a down payment on a home they would live in for the next 50 years, paid if off in five years, put two sons through college, and lived comfortably on a small social security check every month because they saved their money. They did this by working their asses off, never taking a vacation, never going out to a restaurant and sacrificing for the future. To think they should have received the same outcome (or "equity", in today's popular euphemism) than those that spend their time playing video games, shouting liberal platitudes, not working, smoking grass, having babies and sponging off society makes me sick to my stomach.
|
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Jun 29, 2021 8:24:49 GMT -8
But Dad, the incentive is to advance human society!! Look how much innovation has come out of Venezuela!
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 29, 2021 8:58:31 GMT -8
I find little attractive in any system that does not reward hard work, creativity, determination, ability and loyalty more than it does those who don't have those qualities. My parents came to this country with two little boys, a small wooden crate of clothing and kitchenware, and a couple hundred bucks. Within two years they made a down payment on a home they would live in for the next 50 years, paid if off in five years, put two sons through college, and lived comfortably on a small social security check every month because they saved their money. They did this by working their asses off, never taking a vacation, never going out to a restaurant and sacrificing for the future. To think they should have received the same outcome (or "equity", in today's popular euphemism) than those that spend their time playing video games, shouting liberal platitudes, not working, smoking grass, having babies and sponging off society makes me sick to my stomach. Most people I know, including me, feel the same way. I'm not sure which "sins" are illustrated by your example, but laziness and envy might be 2 of them. Why can't I do the "activities" of playing video games, shouting liberal platitudes, not working, smoking grass, having babies and sponging off society as well? Not that either of us would do those things, but isn't that a form of envy? |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 29, 2021 9:14:52 GMT -8
I find little attractive in any system that does not reward hard work, creativity, determination, ability and loyalty more than it does those who don't have those qualities. My parents came to this country with two little boys, a small wooden crate of clothing and kitchenware, and a couple hundred bucks. Within two years they made a down payment on a home they would live in for the next 50 years, paid if off in five years, put two sons through college, and lived comfortably on a small social security check every month because they saved their money. They did this by working their asses off, never taking a vacation, never going out to a restaurant and sacrificing for the future. To think they should have received the same outcome (or "equity", in today's popular euphemism) than those that spend their time playing video games, shouting liberal platitudes, not working, smoking grass, having babies and sponging off society makes me sick to my stomach. I agree with this, from the practice of communism. But I see there are more motivators than just personal achievement. there is human compassion, and, as Zig Ziglar always said, "all you have to do tomghet ahead is help enough other people get ahead." |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jun 29, 2021 12:12:47 GMT -8
3). Well, if we are talking about socialism I assume we are discussing “textbook socialism” as you put it. The NFL is not a socialist institution. It is a unique business model in which a relative handful of employees hold and utilize unique leverage, and employees/owners can opt in or opt out if they choose (which is why I wanted us to agree on our definition of socialism to start with). You cannot opt out of socialist government. It is inescapable government control of production and distribution. Yes, the NFL is a unique business model, not socialism. Let's take a look at one team, the Green Bay Packers. It's the only professional sports team in this country that's community owned. After all expenses are paid all profits are distributed to charitable causes throughout the state by the Green Bay Packers Foundation. I don't think anyone here wants a socialist government, but I doubt anyone here can find fault with the way the Packers do business. A little socialism could do a great deal of good, but people are pretty afraid of the boogeyman. A shame really. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Jun 29, 2021 13:08:27 GMT -8
I knew the Packers were community owned but I didn't know that they distributed profits throughout the state. I cannot remember for certain but as I recall everybody in the city years ago was given a certificate of ownership which cannot be sold or transferred. It's mainly symbolic and I don't think profits are distributed to the "shareholders", who in fact don't have any real authority over the Packers' management.
With your observation that none of us likely wants a socialist government that pretty much deflates my previous comments. I assumed you were defending the idea of a socialist government, which is why I initially clarified the definition. Sure, it's great how the Packers run their business but I don't know how applicable that is to other businesses. It sure as hell isn't a for-profit entity and few investors would invest in it given that. Without investors you won't have much of an economy.
Instead, what it sounds like you're proposing is simply the concept of increasing government authority in production and distribution, and possibly wealth redistribution. That is traditional American liberalism and I can understand the attraction it has for some. But once you cede that kind of authority to any government it is very hard to stop its growth..........Luca
|
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Jun 29, 2021 13:54:16 GMT -8
I’m failing to understand the Packers-socialism discussion.
It’s a shareholder run non-profit corporation…
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Jun 29, 2021 16:09:40 GMT -8
I’m failing to understand the Packers-socialism discussion. It’s a shareholder run non-profit corporation… Do the shareholders actually have any say? |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,819
|
Post by thefrog on Jun 29, 2021 17:25:47 GMT -8
I’m failing to understand the Packers-socialism discussion. It’s a shareholder run non-profit corporation… Do the shareholders actually have any say? The companies I work with, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jun 30, 2021 2:42:08 GMT -8
I’m failing to understand the Packers-socialism discussion. It’s a shareholder run non-profit corporation… Do the shareholders actually have any say? Very little. Green Bay Packers, Inc. is the official name of the publicly held nonprofit corporation that owns the Green Bay Packers football franchise of the National Football League (NFL).
The Packers are the only publicly owned franchise in the NFL. Rather than being the property of an individual, partnership, or corporate entity, they are held as of 2016 by 360,760 stockholders. No one is allowed to hold more than 200,000 shares, which represents approximately four percent of the 5,011,558 shares currently outstanding. It is this broad-based community support and non-profit structure which has kept the team in Green Bay for over a century in spite of being the smallest market in all of North American professional sports.
Green Bay is the only team with this public form of ownership structure in the NFL, grandfathered when the NFL's current ownership policy stipulating a maximum of 32 owners per team, with one holding a minimum 30% stake, was established in the 1980s. As a publicly held nonprofit, the Packers are also the only American major-league sports franchise to release its financial balance sheet every year.
Even though it is referred to as "common stock" in corporate offering documents, a share of Packers stock does not share the same rights traditionally associated with common or preferred stock. It does not include an equity interest, does not pay dividends, cannot be traded, and has no protection under securities law. It also confers no season-ticket purchasing privileges. Shareholders receive nothing more than voting rights, an invitation to the corporation's annual meeting, and an opportunity to purchase exclusive shareholder-only merchandise.
Shares cannot be resold, except back to the team for a fraction of the original price. While new shares can be given as gifts, transfers are technically allowed only between immediate family members once ownership has been established.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers,_Inc. |
|
