Socialism will save us all (technology edition)

[Jack McOck]

There has never been a socialist country, ever.

Says the bloke who thinks that price calculations aren't important in an economy.

[Jack McOck]

The point is that Ford was part of big business and he and Hitler were bessie mates. You claimed that fascism was a strand of socialism, did you not? That is what we are discussing.

This is indeed what we were discussing, and a good part of the quotes that I found in which Hitler refers to Ford, speaks favourably of Ford's struggle agains the Jews. Hence, it would seem that Hitler's anti-semitism was perhaps stronger than his socialism, but that doesn't mean that he was not socialist.

0/10 for accuracy.

"In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters. In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power."

So like i said, willing to compromise his ideals for political gain. Like every other socialist in history, when faced with reality.

My grandmother is an Albatross.

Well it's good that you could refute those points.

[Emissary]

There has never been a socialist country, ever.

Says the bloke who thinks that price calculations aren't important in an economy.

Communists/socialists never have an answer for the economic calculation problem. I think most of them don't even really realise it's an issue until they are too far into the civil religion of Marxism. I have literally just been having an epic facebook discussion with a "marxist" (of course he owns all the latest apple gadgets, walk around in a designer suite and works for the public sector) The discussion took the form of me asking him simple questions like "do you believe in the non initiation of force" etc. etc. for which his answers were thousands of words containing quotes and references to obscure Marxist literature attacking the current system (which all good libertarians oppose anyway) and getting nowhere near the answer. Finally I asked about the economic calculation problem, to which he wrote lots of Marxist quotes and proceeded to tell me I was a locked in neo-liberal and that he transcended the economic calculation problem (it just wasn't an issue to him) I then pointed out some things that he could try to change in his life to actually live his life as a Marxist. Hilariously he then asked me to "stop telling me what to do", you couldn't make this shit up, I was literally crying with laughter. He has now disappeared and refuses to debate with me any more.

[Jack McOck]

er, with computers, using trial and error. It's no biggie. In the long run, the aim is to get rid of money. Prices only have to be calculated to make sure production is efficient. The main task is to make the right amounts of stuff.

Right, so here you are proposing that the entire world bow down to socialist coercive rule, and you don't even understand the most basic of economic principles. I believe you have just single-handedly relegated socialism from the status of political theory to that of "frustrated wet-dream".

You tell me what the problem allegedly is. Preferably in a way that relates to the real world.

Glady:

"Money, as a means of exchange, enables buyers to compare the costs of goods without having knowledge of their underlying factors; the consumer can simply focus on his personal cost-benefit decision. The price system is therefore said to promote economically efficient use of resources by agents who may not have explicit knowledge of all of the conditions of production or supply. This is called the signalling function of prices, as well as the rationing function which prevents over-use of any resource.[citation needed]

Without the market process to fulfill such comparisons, critics of non-market socialism say that it lacks any way to compare different goods and services and would have to rely on calculation in kind. The resulting decisions, it is claimed, would therefore be made without sufficient knowledge to be considered rational." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_c ... on_problem)


In other words, a socialist economic system will ineluctably suffer wide-scale shortages and surpluses, which in turn will destroy the system form within. An example of this is the US housing market crash, which was caused in part by the artificial surplus of credit created by the Marxian Federal Reserve.

[Jack McOck]

There has never been a socialist country, ever.

Says the bloke who thinks that price calculations aren't important in an economy.

Communists/socialists never have an answer for the economic calculation problem. I think most of them don't even really realise it's an issue until they are too far into the civil religion of Marxism. I have literally just been having an epic facebook discussion with a "marxist" (of course he owns all the latest apple gadgets, walk around in a designer suite and works for the public sector) The discussion took the form of me asking him simple questions like "do you believe in the non initiation of force" etc. etc. for which his answers were thousands of words containing quotes and references to obscure Marxist literature attacking the current system (which all good libertarians oppose anyway) and getting nowhere near the answer. Finally I asked about the economic calculation problem, to which he wrote lots of Marxist quotes and proceeded to tell me I was a locked in neo-liberal and that he transcended the economic calculation problem (it just wasn't an issue to him) I then pointed out some things that he could try to change in his life to actually live his life as a Marxist. Hilariously he then asked me to "stop telling me what to do", you couldn't make this shit up, I was literally crying with laughter. He has now disappeared and refuses to debate with me any more.

Debating people online is tricky—contrary to RL interactions, you can't just look into their eyes and observe their dead soul, you have to give them the "benefit of the doubt."

[Jack McOck]

the Marxian Federal Reserve.

"5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."

Oh, right, this since everybody isn't free and happy, it can't possibly be Marxism. Yes, I forgot that point that I made.

[Jack McOck]

Marx: Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly*."


The Federal reserve: The Federal Reserve System is the central banking system of the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System)

* I also love how Marx called for monopolies, the alleged potential for which, in a libertarian system, is normally the first criticism I hear from socialists.

[Emissary]

Once someone gives me a solution to the economic calculation problem or how you begin to impose socialism/communism without force then we can have a proper debate. Any takers?

[myrnova]

Once someone gives me a solution to the economic calculation problem or how you begin to impose socialism/communism without force then we can have a proper debate. Any takers?

You can't: capitalism is imposed with force and any alternative to it become a good excuse for capitalist nations to make war. It works like this: they let you "express your mind" because they are the masters. If "your mind" becomes too dangerous for them, they tend to destroy you. That's why any alternative solution to capitalism must be violent. No other way to fight capitalism, alas.

P.S. Seems China learnt the lesson well, they mixed the worst elements of stalinism and the more aggressive elements of capitalism. Now let's see how things will turn out...

[Jack McOck]

Once someone gives me a solution to the economic calculation problem or how you begin to impose socialism/communism without force then we can have a proper debate. Any takers?

You tell me the problem and I might think about trying to give a solution.

I did, but you chose to ignore it/didn't understand it.

As for the second bit, you do not 'impose' socialism. Of course some force is required. Any state has to use force. The legitimate use of force is part of the definition of a state.

The force required to begin establishing socialism would be legislation. The big companies would be taken into public ownership. It's not like it's never been done before. In the UK we has state-run industry a few years ago. That wasn't socialism, but it was nationalisation. If necessary you have the police to ensure that a company owner hands over his company. I dunno if it was ever needed. We took over the railways, the gas, electric, coal, buses, air travel, all sorts of things. Of course some things are still state run - the fire, police, ambulance, NHS and so on.

So to sum up your thoughts here, socialism is imposed by force. So that the people may be free and happy.

[Jack McOck]

Marx: Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly*."


The Federal reserve: The Federal Reserve System is the central banking system of the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System)

* I also love how Marx called for monopolies, the alleged potential for which, in a libertarian system, is normally the first criticism I hear from socialists.

Jack jack jack, jack jack ma body. Yes the Federal reserve is a quasi-state bank. Yes Marx called for a state bank. No the Federal Reserve does not have anything in common with Marx, Marxism, Marxists, socialism, communism, or the price of fish. Ok so I lied about the last one.

Ok, explain how Marx's central bank would differ from all the central banks we have today.

[Bean Machine]

As for the second bit, you do not 'impose' socialism. Of course some force is required.

"Required" for what, precisely? If you don't have anything to impose, what do you need force for? Huffing paint thinner, perhaps?

[Jack McOck]

Racism, or intolerence to difference, is one of the most fundamental of human instincts. It's far more useful to manage it than to treat it like a disease. To deny the existence of your OEM racist scripts is to ignore who you are.

No racism is not a deep human instinct, it is not a human instinct, it is a recent invention by capitalism to justify slavery and colonialism.

So these racist chimps (http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/arc ... vil/58643/) are just victims of libertarian indoctrination?

[Jack McOck]

Your reply is bullshit. Every libertarian I've ever talked to has no honest answer for what to do about the unchecked greed and corruption that individuals ganging together to promote their own financial interests would do at an even more alarming rate than they do now. It's a right wing fairy tale of a belief system complete with "socialist" boogymen that you all looove to hype on about being the end of freedom etc. You have no answers to how libertarianism would solve societies ills because it wouldn't, period, end of story. All the posturing and lame attempts at posing yourself as the intellectual superior in defense do nothing to detract from the fact it's an empty fairy tale you're selling.

Well to be fair, you have already demonstrated that you don't know either what corporations are or what racism is, so at the very least, I'm more knowledgable than you, at least on these matters.

Sorry Cocky, but you don't have any knowledge on matters political or economic. All your 'knowledge' is fantasy that bears no relation to reality and makes no sense. It is bullshit, invented by fanatical ideologists - apologists for rampant greed and exploitation. You slag the corporations but in fact your beliefs are fed to you by them so you can do what they want you to do - vote for anti-worker measures and accept tax rebates for the rich, things like that.

I notice you still haven't answered any of the questions we asked you.

[Emissary]

Once someone gives me a solution to the economic calculation problem or how you begin to impose socialism/communism without force then we can have a proper debate. Any takers?

You can't: capitalism is imposed with force and any alternative to it become a good excuse for capitalist nations to make war. It works like this: they let you "express your mind" because they are the masters. If "your mind" becomes too dangerous for them, they tend to destroy you. That's why any alternative solution to capitalism must be violent. No other way to fight capitalism, alas.

P.S. Seems China learnt the lesson well, they mixed the worst elements of stalinism and the more aggressive elements of capitalism. Now let's see how things will turn out...

How is the free exchange of goods and services force? you are once again confusing capitalism with corporatism (facism) that can only exist with the state. Even so, apparently it's bad for one system to impose force but fine for the other? what a big moral conundrum you have entered into with no escape.