Hey Conservatives. Wanna feel uncomfortable?

FluffyMcDeath said:
Free markets DON'T function unless there is an effective referee. Completely unregulated markets self destruct as capital is repeatedly concentrated by the winners. The goal of monopoly is to own everything but imagine what the game would be like if, instead of packing it back in the box after someone won you were forced to keep on playing. There's no point. You need to pack up all the money and hotels and cards and then start over with everyone on an equal footing.
Click to expand...

free markets function between a willing buyer and a willing seller
 
metalman said:
free markets function between a willing buyer and a willing seller
Click to expand...
Willing peers who are honest or who can be counted on to be honest. Where cheating enters (and coercion) and the number of interactions increase humans can no longer know enough about the other party to know whether they are trustworthy which is when other institutions are needed such as registries, courts and police. Some enforcement of honest trade is required. Now the question becomes who should own those mechanisms of enforcement. If they belong to one or a small number of people they automatically become centers of power which can be used to curry favour and gain wealth (and more power) so logically the best option is to have everyone own these institutions so that they (in theory) serve everyone equally.
 
metalman said:
That is a moral characteristic of the society
Click to expand...
The behaviour of these people is more like the "rational" behaviour that many economists believe in. It's also typical behaviour across groups. You have much lower expectations of people outside of your own group. People outside of your own group can be cheated, tortured and killed for their stuff. The difference is that Western nations are ... NATIONS, that is that they have a very large in-group, i.e. everyone in that nation. Of course, certain groups inside the nation have their own "in-groups" defined by ideology and religion and race. It would be interesting but expensive and potentially unethical to conduct this sort of study across groups in, say, the USA.

Another possible influence could be that when you have "enough" money then it becomes affordable to decline the offer to make a point and the other party also understands this threat. Clearly in the business world this works very differently as employees are much more likely to take a crappy wage just to have a job than to insist on a fair wage and get fired.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Well, if you hate what Obama has been doing to the country ... you're on the same side as Noam Chomsky!
Click to expand...
There's no surprise on the left that Obama is a centrist. You are correct. The surprise would probably be on the right. They try to claim Obama is a liberal socialist. The fact is he's a bit more right-wing than Reagan.

America has become the land of two parties a large centrist (Democratic Party ) and the extreme right-wingers (Republican Party). Unfortunately there is not a true opposition in play.
 
Last edited:
metalman said:
Stalinism = Socialism in One Country
Click to expand...
Stalinism was not socialism. Stalinism exploited the workers for the gain of the elite bureaucrats, who held the power. There is no bureaucracy in socialism. Markets and rules are controlled by the communal power of the workers. In Stalinism the workers controlled nothing.
 
faethor said:
Stalinism was not socialism. Stalinism exploited the workers for the gain of the elite bureaucrats, who held the power. There is no bureaucracy in socialism. Markets and rules are controlled by the communal power of the workers. In Stalinism the workers controlled nothing.
Click to expand...

It was all the Kulaks fault!

"That is why we have recently passed from the policy of restricting the exploiting tendencies of the kulaks to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class."

Lenin nicknamed Stalin "Comrade Card-Index" because he was General Secretary, Premier was then most powerful position in the party

as General Secretary of the Politburo, Stalin was in charge of sending out letters asking for Politburo members to renew their memberships. What he figured out was he could consolidate his power by who he chose to not send membership renewals. He who controls the membership, controls the votes. He who controls the votes, controls the Party.

"One death is a tragedy, forty million is a statistic"
 
Last edited:
metalman said:
What he figured out was he could consolidate his power by who he chose to not send membership renewals. He who controls the membership, controls the votes. He who controls the votes, controls the Party.
Click to expand...
You hit it right square on the nose as to why Stalin was not a socialist. A Socialist system is a cooperative of power. Socialist systems are not one controlled by bureaucrats. Stalin's power was held by the bureaucracy.
 
metalman said:
[...] Stalin [...] What he figured out was he could consolidate his power by who he chose to not send membership renewals. He who controls the membership, controls the votes. He who controls the votes, controls the Party.
Click to expand...

In Canada, back in 1968 or so, the law was changed to require that MPs running for election would have to have the signature of their party leader to run.

Incidentally there is currently a bill before parliament (C-559) to fix that. I don't recommend holding your breath.
 
faethor said:
Stalin was not a socialist.
Click to expand...

Not true a Scotsman!

So your on the Trotsky side of that debate

how about Mao? was he a true socialist?

going to have to go down the list ...

only3.jpg


faethor said:
A Socialist system is a cooperative of power. Socialist systems are not one controlled by bureaucrats. Stalin's power was held by the bureaucracy
Click to expand...

Theory vs Practice!


leninmarxismspiral053111sequence.gif
 
metalman said:
Not true a Scotsman!

So your on the Trotsky side of that debate

how about Mao? was he a true socialist?

going to have to go down the list ...

only3.jpg




Theory vs Practice!


leninmarxismspiral053111sequence.gif
Click to expand...
Those aren't "Sociaslist" countries per se. Those are countries not integrated into the western banking system (i.e. outside of western financial control). Countries like norway and sweden seem to be missing from that lineup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top