Practical test of democratic Socialism

Iwasfrozen

Silverharp2 wrote: »

can you define what you mean by equal?

As in we are all born naked, wet and screaming. Prince or pauper, there is no difference upon birth.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

what significance or implication do you think it has?

Capitalism is by it's nature unfair, it favours those with more money.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

it dosnt ring true. I'd prefer to see it that there is a cyclical shift in power between the state and the individual. I can see no logical reason why or how the socialist model would end up carrying the torch for humanity

Acoording to Marx each progressive society will fail because each stage or epoch will create a new class or invention that will lead to its eventual downfall. In the case of capitalism the working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the "grave digger" of capitalism. The worker is not paid the full value of what he or she produces. The rest is surplus value - the capitalist's profit, which Marx calls the "unpaid labour of the working class." The capitalists are forced by competition to attempt to drive down the wages of the working class to increase their profits, and this creates conflict between the classes, and gives rise to the development of class consciousness in the working class. The working class, through trade union and other struggles, becomes conscious of itself as an exploited class.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#Capitalism

silverharp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As in we are all born naked, wet and screaming. Prince or pauper, there is no difference upon birth.

so a mother should just go into the nursury and pick up the 1st baby at hand to bring home? your statement doesnt convey any meaning accept as part of a dictionary definition of what happens at birth.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Capitalism is by it's nature unfair, it favours those with more money.

If capitalism is defined simply as spontaneous order via a price mechanism then it cant be unfair that one person contributes more and rightly receives more. it would be unfair if the lazy farmer was paid the same as the productive farmer no?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Acoording to Marx each progressive society will fail because each stage or epoch will create a new class or invention that will lead to its eventual downfall. In the case of capitalism the working class, to which the capitalist class gave birth in order to produce commodities and profits, is the "grave digger" of capitalism.

I dunno , capital is free to move around the planet. Unions might have been able to shake down the factory owner in the past and charge an economic rent for their work eg GM and Ford in the US circa 1970. but I doubt Marx had in mind the freedom with which platform companies can move around the globe today.

Iwasfrozen

Silverharp2 wrote: »

so a mother should just go into the nursury and pick up the 1st baby at hand to bring home? your statement doesnt convey any meaning accept as part of a dictionary definition of what happens at birth.

No a mother should not go into the nursury and pick up the 1st baby at hand. Where you got that stupid idea we'll never know.
My point is that all babies are born equal but once they leave the hospital thay are brought home to families of varying levels of income. Those brought into families of higher income are more likely to succed. That isn't fair.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

If capitalism is defined simply as spontaneous order via a price mechanism then it cant be unfair that one person contributes more and rightly receives more. it would be unfair if the lazy farmer was paid the same as the productive farmer no?

That would be true, if people succeded only by working hard but the thing is luck also plays a huge part. And having one person succede over another because he was more lucky is not fair.

Silverharp2 wrote: »

I dunno , capital is free to move around the planet. Unions might have been able to shake down the factory owner in the past and charge an economic rent for their work eg GM and Ford in the US circa 1970. but I doubt Marx had in mind the freedom with which platform companies can move around the globe today.

I don't see what the movement of capital has to do with Socialism.

Valmont

Iwasfrozen, you did not actually respond to any of the points I made even though you quoted them. Also, you will have to do better than "because Marx said so".

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

Iwasfrozen, you did not actually respond to any of the points I made even though you quoted them. Also, you will have to do better than "because Marx said so".

That's the thing. I did respond to your points.

Valmont

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's the thing. I did respond to your points.

I suppose you did if you want to label some throwbacks to something Marx said a response...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As for whether this is possible, according to Marx's theory of human history the replacement of Capitalism by Socialism is inevitable. Just as the replacement of Feudalism by Capitalism was.

Iwasfrozen

Valmont wrote: »

I suppose you did if you want to label some throwbacks to something Marx said a response...

When you state somehting like this, I don't seehow I can give a better answer.

Valmont wrote:

Considering that there is no possible way that this could ever happen, why bother?

You said that socialism isn't workable because a revolution cannot happen. I responded by saying according to Marxian tought the revolution is inevitable. What more do you want ?

Soldie

:pac:

Iwasfrozen

Soldie wrote: »

Gary L

I already dealt with Ludwig. This is ridiculous. You have valid points but your not directly debating my responses. Your arguments fit against the classroom definitions of Socialism but they don't hold when compared to the theory itself. Honestly I think it's bias.

Joe1919

One of my past interests (in political philosophy) was in comparing the US attitude to redistribution of wealth to the European attitude.
Anyhow, (afaik) there is no hard empirical evidence as to the superiority of the American liberal democracy type system to the more social democracy type system as found in Sweden.
Furthermore, it has been argued by some economists (Alesina & others) that the reason for the reluctance of Americans to redistribute wealth is down to politics and racism, 'American redistribution makes it quite clear that hostility to welfare comes in part from the fact that welfare spending in the US goes disproportionately to minorities.'(p.61).

I have posted a link to the paper below.
http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/423__0332-Alesina11.pdf

simplistic2

The Welfare State and Absolute Poverty Welfare state supporters typically contend that social-welfare programs reduce poverty. Critics argue that, over time, such programs instead may increase pov-erty by inhibiting growth of economic output and/or employment. A number of recent cross-country empirical studies have found that welfare state generosity is strongly associated with low relative poverty, but there has been virtually no cross-national analysis of welfare state effects on absolute poverty, which is at the heart of the critics' argument.

This paper uses Luxembourg Income Study data to examine the relationship between welfare states and absolute poverty for working-age households in Sweden, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s. Consistent with the critics' charge, there is an association across these five countries between wel-fare state generosity and rising pretax-pretransfer absolute poverty. Yet the larg-est decline in posttax-posttransfer absolute poverty during this period, and the lowest level as of the mid-1990s, were found in Sweden, the country with by far the most generous welfare state.


Canada's superior performance relative to the United States also suggests that social-welfare policies can help to reduce abso-lute poverty. To most supporters of the welfare state, one of its chief benefits is poverty reduction (Goodin et al. 1999). By redistributing income from the well-off to the poor, social-welfare programs help to raise the incomes of some households above the poverty line. In contrast, many welfare state critics (Alesina and Perotti 1997; Friedman and Friedman 1979; Lindbeck 1995; Murray 1984; Tullock 1997) and even some sup-porters (Arrow 1979; Okun 1975) contend that, over time, generous social-welfare programs reduce the growth of economic output and/or employment. As a result, the welfare state may increase poverty rather than reduce it. To a large extent, proponents of these two views talk past one another.


http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/8/1/0/pages108101/p108101-2.php