Debt Releif - For People Or The Environment?

Cap'n Awesome wrote

I think you are confused on facism. Facism is state control over people's personal social liberties. The state can do whatever they want with you. According to the political scientists who put together The Political Compass Hitler was to the left, economically of Bush, along with Paul Martin, Jaque Chirac, Tony Blair and just about every other modern first world leader. And I'm not advocating corporate control, just personal responsibility. We should leave corporations alone and let people be responsible for thier own lives. As for Bush.... he ran his bussinesses into the ground because he is no good at bussiness. He didn't make a dime off of running them into the ground, in fact he lost millions of dollars doing it. It seems pretty simple to me, if he could have run them successfully, he would have. I'm afraid him (and every other leader up for election recently) are doing the same thing by expanding the welfare state we have in this country and running up our deficit to insane amounts.

No, I'm certainly not confusing fascism. In my experience, the Political Compass is extremely inaccurate about their use of terminology. Fascism, you may recall, began with Mussolini, an extreme anti-communist. Socialism, of course, is an economic system in which people control the government(yes, this is necessary; Marx recognized democracy as necessary to socialism), and through the government control business. If the people do not control the government, they do not control business, which isn't socialism(it has been variously described as state-capitalism, Stalinism, and even fascism).

In fascism, corporations have close ties to government, which leads to business setting the economic agenda of the government. Hitler's social programs are something of an aberration, until you consider that the rise of communism was a potent threat in post-Wold War I Germany. Hence, the Nazi, or National Socialist, Party. It's a sort of pretend socialism.

If I recall, you suggested earlier that the richest few percent should set the agenda for everyone else("influence stuff the way we want it to go"). That is, of course, corporate control. What you actually want, though libertarian capitalism, is for people to influence the way things go through use of informed use of their money.

You're perfectly free to believe Bush lost money in his business career if you like, as I doubt any information I find will come from a sufficiently neutral source to convince anyone. However, look at Bush's close friends and allies in the business community, such as Ken Lay, who also drove companies into the ground. You'll find that most of them escaped with their fortunes intact, or even increased.

"The idea of greed as a negative only exists in our culture because of 'Christian Morality' anyway. One of the Seven deadly sins and all that bunk. The Desire to have more stuff then you have isn't a negative."
Like I said above - greed is defined as a negative. If you don't think that someone's acquisitious desires are bad, then they aren't greed in your opinion. Just as murder is defined as illegal or unjust killing - if it isn't illegal (or unjust, depending on context), it isn't murder.
I think the car example fits admiriably - for me, no amount of hard-earned cash justifies the desire for a Monday ferrari. But that's just me. I consider everyone who ones a Hummer, for example, to be greedy (not to mention probably stupid - I worked with enough HMMWVs in my day to never, ever want to own one). But again, that's me. You don't see that as greed, just silliness. Which is fine. We just have different parameters for what constitutes greed.

By the way, I'm still interested in any examples of a true capitalist government.

By the way, I'm still interested in any examples of a true capitalist government.

I would agree that there isn't one today, not that I know of. I know that the Early United States certainly leaned far more that way then it does today, income tax being illegal, and government programs and control being very limited, but I concede that I do not have enough knowledge of political history to say if there is or has been one. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be one though.

Socialism, of course, is an economic system in which people control the government(yes, this is necessary; Marx recognized democracy as necessary to socialism), and through the government control business. If the people do not control the government, they do not control business, which isn't socialism(it has been variously described as state-capitalism, Stalinism, and even fascism).

A little confused on this, if democracy goes hand and hand with socialism, what happens if the people vote out the socialist governments? It would seem to me that democracy doesn't neccesarily universally support any economic system.

What you actually want, though libertarian capitalism, is for people to influence the way things go through use of informed use of their money.

Correct.

You're perfectly free to believe Bush lost money in his business career if you like, as I doubt any information I find will come from a sufficiently neutral source to convince anyone. However, look at Bush's close friends and allies in the business community, such as Ken Lay, who also drove companies into the ground. You'll find that most of them escaped with their fortunes intact, or even increased.

I've heard this before, and it just doesn't make sense. You seem to be suggesting that Bush wanted to fail at bussiness to make more money? Wouldn't he make more money if he succeeded at bussiness. It would seem to me that Ken Lay would be infinately better off if Enron had been a profitable company. Isn't this just common sense?

"Socialism, of course, is an economic system in which people control the government(yes, this is necessary; Marx recognized democracy as necessary to socialism), and through the government control business. If the people do not control the government, they do not control business, which isn't socialism(it has been variously described as state-capitalism, Stalinism, and even fascism)."

If you reread the above several times, you might realize I claimed democracy is necessary for socialism. Which means, if you don't have democracy, you don't really have socialism. It does not mean that socialism is necessary for democracy.

As for Bush, let's say his company is going broke, right? Now, Bush has a choice of actions. He can pour personal assets in, and hope for the best. He can try to save the company of resources it has. Lastly, he can suck the company dry of every penny he can, and profit before it goes entire bankrupt. We know that Lay, and many other executives at Enron, received rather large bonuses shortly before the company collapsed, and sold their stock in the company.

So, yes. If they can keep their company going, they're likely to make a lot more money. If they can't--why wouldn't they take everything they can get?

[Rhinoqulous]

Cap'n Awesome wrote

A little confused on this, if democracy goes hand and hand with socialism, what happens if the people vote out the socialist governments? It would seem to me that democracy doesn't neccesarily universally support any economic system.

Don't confuse the direction of the necessity relationship. Democracy is a necessity for Socialism, but Socialism is not necessary for Democracy.

Rhinoq

Rhinoqulous wrote

Don't confuse the direction of the necessity relationship. Democracy is a necessity for Socialism, but Socialism is not necessary for Democracy

Viole wrote

If you reread the above several times, you might realize I claimed democracy is necessary for socialism. Which means, if you don't have democracy, you don't really have socialism. It does not mean that socialism is necessary for democracy.

I would say you guys have a deffinition of socialism generally not excepted as the norm. Which is fine, but certainly Fidel Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao would have disagreed with your definition.

Also I never meant to imply that you were saying socialism is neccesary for democracy. That would be stupid, no economic system is neccesary for democracy, because democracy can vote in or out leadership that supports any economic system, so democracy doesn't go with socialism the same way it doesn't go with capitalism or anything else. You are just trying to use it to make the economic system you favor look some how holier then an alternative. Also can you provide the quote where Marx claims democracy is neccesary for socialism?

"...I concede that I do not have enough knowledge of political history to say if there is or has been one. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be one though."
Agreed, although I am more interested, personally, in the political system than in the economic system.

"I would say you guys have a deffinition of socialism generally not excepted as the norm."
Socialism is a very, very broad term. You have dictionary.com's definition:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

As well as it's definition of socialism as defined by Marxism-Leninism (which is what was going on in the USSR, of course):

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

You also have Wikkpedia's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism]article[url]on it, which states that

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production.

And also lists the different branches of socialism, complete with a chart. All this means that, yes, different people have different ideas of what socialism means - for many capitalists (as well as Marxist-Leninists), socialism's definition includes some sort of totalitarian regime, which is unfortunate, as the two do not go hand in hand.

Motivations are a murky business at best. Stalin, of course, wanted power. Lenin, though it's hard to say, truly wanted to create communism, but actively suppressed the opposition parties, laying the path for Stalin upon his death. As communist parties around the world took their marching orders from the Kremlin, until the collapse of the USSR, Stalinist bureaucracy was their main export. Castro distrusted the Kremlin after the Cuban Missile crisis, which helps explain why Cuba managed to survive the last fifteen years.

As for why I claim Marx supported democratic government as necessary to the revolution, I found it rather obvious. How's this, though;

"We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.(Communist Manifesto, p. 20)” Followed by; “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest[...] all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the [proletariat state].”

Leon Trotsky, in The Principals of Democracy and the Proletarian Dictatorship, makes it even more clear;
“[F]or the working class it is always expedient, in the long run, to preserve the essential elements of the democratic order.”

As a bonus, here's a quote from Vladamir Ilyich Lenin; in Chapter 5, Section 4 of State and Revolution, he writes, “So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.” Sounds awfully similar to the libertarian's claim, doesn't it?

[Rhinoqulous]

Cap'n Awesome wrote

I would say you guys have a deffinition of socialism generally not excepted as the norm. Which is fine, but certainly Fidel Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao would have disagreed with your definition.

How about a quote from the CPUSA's website?

What will be the goals of our socialist society?

A life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness.
An end to racism, national oppression, anti-Semitism, all forms of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. An end to the unequal status of women.
Renewal and extension of democracy; an end to the rule of corporate America and private ownership of the wealth of our nation. Creation of a truly humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering of the human personality, creativity and talent.

Rhinoq

Cap'n Awesome wrote

Plus it isn't a 'mild inconvience' for the people and families who rely on the Banana industry for thier well being, if everyone were to eat apples instead.

And it's also an extreme inconveniance for native tribes when the forest they rely on for survival is cut down and replaced with banana plantations. What are they going to do then, when the place they had spent their entire lives has been destroyed? They will either starve to death of die of desease, if they are not shot by farmers for eating their bananas.

The people who work at the banana plantations will not have their jobs for long anyway. The average banana plantation will only last for five or so years, and after that the workers will be left behind, as the company moves on to find more land and people to exploit. People will not stop eating bananas, however it would be good if they were to eat a few less of them, and a few more apples.

Now the countries that you are talking about are not getting debt relief. Neither Brazil nor Indonesia are on the list.

I never said that Brazil and Indonesia were getting debt releif, i said they should be.

Could it be that these countries might just spend the money on something other then rebuilding thier enviroment?Tell me again how debt relief will help the Brazillian Rainforest.

How many bloody times must i tell you the same thing!???
How about you read what i have already written?