The book the 1% don't want you to read

[Samseau]

Well, what do you know. Another socialist who bullshitted his numbers to support a bad thesis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/u...rong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes

 

[strengthstudent]

Well, what do you know. Another socialist who bullshitted his numbers to support a bad thesis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/u...rong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes

It doesn't matter, the author is rich now and socialists can keep citing the book for a decade from now on. It is not about the facts, it is about the rhetoric

 

[Crackshot]

The FT and Economist have desperately been trying to attack Piketty as he challenges the whole raison d'etre of the journalists that suck up to the elite

 

[Deluge]

Well, what do you know. Another socialist who bullshitted his numbers to support a bad thesis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/24/u...rong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes

Please
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/31/u...t-thomas-piketty-vs-the-financial-times.html?

Capital is no doubt the most talked about book in modern history that barely anyone has actually read. People are harping way too much about Piketty's own proposed solutions in part 4 of the book. To paraphrase his own words, you can come up with your own alternative ideas for part 4 to Capital, but that doesn't mean you won't get a lot of value out of part's 1, 2 and 3, which is where the crux of the work actually lies.

And why do Americans abuse the term Socialist to such a ridiculous extent? You label people as socialists who are actually right-wing anywhere outside of America (i.e Obama and almost all of the Democratic party). I have to put up with actual Socialists (Trotskyists to be specific) trying to make me sign petitions or sell me stupid socialist newspapers literally every single day when I have to walk past their permanent presence at strategic choke-points on my university campus in Australia. Thankfully everyone here whose not a member universally loathes them for their violence, idiocy and generally shitty behaviour. Call a Social Democrat like Piketty a Socialist here and you'd be laughed out of the room, be thankful you don't have to put up with real Socialists in America.

 

[Samseau]

Socialism = high taxes, welfare state, and redistribution schemes. Sounds to me like Australia just has very radical socialists.

 

[Deluge]

Socialism = high taxes, welfare state, and redistribution schemes. Sounds to me like Australia just has very radical socialists.

Every dictionary in the world would disagree with you. Your sort of definition is a pure Americanism, maybe it's a relic of Cold War paranoia.

 

[Vicious]

And why do Americans abuse the term Socialist to such a ridiculous extent? You label people as socialists who are actually right-wing anywhere outside of America (i.e Obama and almost all of the Democratic party). I have to put up with actual Socialists (Trotskyists to be specific) trying to make me sign petitions or sell me stupid socialist newspapers literally every single day when I have to walk past their permanent presence at strategic choke-points on my university campus in Australia. Thankfully everyone here whose not a member universally loathes them for their violence, idiocy and generally shitty behaviour. Call a Social Democrat like Piketty a Socialist here and you'd be laughed out of the room, be thankful you don't have to put up with real Socialists in America.

The answer is intellectual lazyness, a straw man of of sorts.

The people retorting to this level of debate can't readily acknowledge that among the top 10 nations of the world with highest standard of living, QoL, safety, happiness etc some kind of welfare state is present. So they have to attack something it is not.

 

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Socialism = high taxes, welfare state, and redistribution schemes. Sounds to me like Australia just has very radical socialists.

Every dictionary in the world would disagree with you. Your sort of definition is a pure Americanism, maybe it's a relic of Cold War paranoia.

Look guys! Socialism was created by the super-rich - it was never meant to bring real economic freedom for the masses. Just as capitalism the end stages are all about control and total tyranny.

You've got to start by first getting rid of state debt via interest free money creation - that will cut down 50% of all prices since it is factored into each economic step (read Dr. Margrit Kennedy).

Either way - economic systems are not that difficult to determine. Any system can be quickly field-tested, whether it is beneficial to 99% of the population. Just look up Woergl 1932. You can even take part of a municipality to test the vailidity of the model.

But this won't happen, since the elite know fully well, that those positive changes will likely result in them losing power sooner or later. So instead they create various sort of -schisms, left, right, libertarianism, socialism, communism, New Deal, Reaganism, Thatcherism etc. only to keep the sheep quarreling amongst each other.


Fifteen Steps to Corporate Feudalism: How the Rich Convinced America's Middle Class Eliminate Themselves
http://www.amazon.com/Fifteen-Steps-Corporate-Feudalism-Themselves/dp/0983711208
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjqzWsOeZRQ

Steve Keen - Debunking Economics - one of the few teaching professors who actually teach much sense within the economics departments which are mostly masters in connology (know this, since I studied it myself):
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-Economics-Revised-Expanded-Dethroned/dp/1848139926
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZKjQtrgdVY

Real Alternatives:
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/interest-free-economics/


You won't get those "dangerous" ideas taught at universities and they certainly won't even be mentioned in the mainstream media or at political campaigns.

 

[strengthstudent]

Definition of socialism in English:
socialism

1A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of
production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


1.1Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

1.2(In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the
realization of Communism.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/socialism


I think it is a common fallacy to think because all the rich Western countries are welfare-states to some extent, the prosperity is due to the welfare-state policies; when in reality is is most likely the other way around: welfare, environmentalism, education etc are the effect of the prosperity caused by capitalism driven economic growth.

 

[Samseau]

^ Deluge loses again.. even Oxford supports exactly what I said, not that dictionary definitions matter. The term socialism was coined by Marx and he clearly defines what Socialism is within his works, there's really no need for any other definition.

 

[Deluge]

^ Deluge loses again.. even Oxford supports exactly what I said, not that dictionary definitions matter. The term socialism was coined by Marx and he clearly defines what Socialism is within his works, there's really no need for any other definition.

Lol. Everything you say is a joke. According to the Oxford definition of socialism you just said you agree with, there is no such thing as private property and/or the allocation of resources in the economy is directed by the government rather as opposed to the free market. "Socialism" actually predates Marx's writings by decades, but that's besides the point. Have you read any of Marx's work? It'd be blatantly clear to you if you had that his definition of socialism is fundamentally at odds with yours. If "Socialism = high taxes, welfare state, and redistribution schemes" then during the Cold War West Germany was a Socialist country and there never would have been the need for the Berlin Wall and every Western developed economy outside of America is Socialist.

I'm certain that deep down you actually know what socialism actually is. Most people who throw the term socialism around all the time will admit when push comes to shove that someone like Piketty or the economies of say Australia, Germany or Sweden are not socialist. But not you, no matter what I or others say in this thread you will never publicly concede to what Socialism actually is or any of the other million things you've been factually incorrect about. Quintus was right, you are irrationally stubborn to the extreme.

 

[KorbenDallas]

Deluge:

Socialists in America have understood for a long time that to openly call themselves socialists or communists would be a huge mistake. That's why there are books that guide them in how to present themselves to the public such as, "Rules for Radicals" and organizations like the Fabian Socialists whose image of a wolf in sheeps clothing strongly resembles their actions.

Americans call Democratic policies of support for the welfare state, using the IRS (our tax collectors) to target their political enemies while leaving every single large corporation untouched by audits (look it up if you don't believe me), and high taxes on small businesses and the professional class, socialists, because socialism is their ultimate goal.

There have been numerous professional democratic politicians who went into business after office. George McGovern is a prime example. McGovern is an interesting case for his strong support of heavy regulations as a politician, but after going into small business entrepreneurship after leaving office, remarked on the idiocy of his actions as politician and lamented how stifling government is to the American commoner.

The fact is that the policies of high taxes, welfare, and redistribution schemes, decrease wealth, increase immorality, and feudalize the population very similarly to actual socialist regimes like the Soviet Union. It doesn't matter if you personally see these things as totally different simply because one system is voted in by the people and one is forced on them. The results are the same and the rest is arguing over semantics.

 

[Deluge]

Deluge:

I had to reverse image search what that is. I'm not sure about the original British Fabian Society, but in Australia the "socialists" associated with our Labor Party including the Fabian Society have been socialist in name only (quite literally) for a long time now. Even The Greens are firmly capitalist. Socialists here are only prominent at universities campuses (among students, not the academics or the administration) and within the trade union movement, and even there they're a (very vocal) small minority.

EDIT: so Wikipedia says the British Fabian Society is now a forum for New Labour, it's founders must be rolling in their graves

 

[KorbenDallas]

Your ignorance of Fabian Socialists is remarkable considering the casualness for which you deride the opponents of the welfare, high tax, warfare state in the United States as being ignoramuses, simply because they see a striking resemblance of America to the Socialist Soviet Union which America fought for 50 years.

Ignorance is strength. Truly.

 

[Deluge]

Americans call Democratic policies of support for the welfare state, using the IRS (our tax collectors) to target their political enemies while leaving every single large corporation untouched by audits (look it up if you don't believe me), and high taxes on small businesses and the professional class, socialists, because socialism is their ultimate goal.

If "socialists" are letting large corporations get away with that they're pretty shitty socialists in my books.

The fact is that the policies of high taxes, welfare, and redistribution schemes, decrease wealth, increase immorality, and feudalize the population very similarly to actual socialist regimes like the Soviet Union. It doesn't matter if you personally see these things as totally different simply because one system is voted in by the people and one is forced on them. The results are the same and the rest is arguing over semantics.

Saying the end result of social democracy is the same as socialism is a sick joke. How can you compare Scandinavians (the happiest and some of the most well-off people in the world) to those who lived under the brutal socialist regimes of the 20th century? This is why Americans incorrect use of socialism bugs me, it cheapens the term and belittles the experiences of those who actually went through socialism.

Your ignorance of Fabian Socialists is remarkable considering the casualness for which you deride the opponents of the welfare, high tax, warfare state in the United States as being ignoramuses, simply because they see a striking resemblance of America to the Socialist Soviet Union which America fought for 50 years.

Ignorance is strength. Truly.

I'm not a socialist, nor am I British, why should I be expected to know a lot about the Fabians? The rest of that paragraph is a complete strawman. When did I every deride conservative Americans for their views in this thread? When did I ever say that I'm pro-warfare, or even pro high taxes?

EDIT: And in no way shape or form should any American conservatives mistake me for defending socialism, I'm a Finance major for Christ's sake. All I'm saying is that using the term Socialism where it shouldn't be used is as Vicious said, intellectually lazy, and cheapens both the meaning of the term and the experiences of it's victims.

 

[KorbenDallas]

I didn't say the end result of democracy is socialism, but its a possibility. It happened in Germany. It's arguably happening in the United States.

With regards to Scandinavians, Vicious talks a lot about how most people aren't supportive of their recent government policies there. There are like 7 major political parties in Sweden, and there is a very large counter-culture there as well, as well as many malcontents.

I would argue the Swiss, whose government is a Republic, are much happier and more prosperous than the Scandinavians.

Calling Samseau's definition "pure Americanism... paranoia". Sounds derisive.

Why should you know about Fabians? Because it gets to the heart of the matter concerning the label "socialism" in America (I don't know as much about Britain). American socialists have operated behind a cloak of plausible deniability for decades. Supporting the destruction of the limited Constitutional government along with the economic freedom that goes with it, all the while claiming that calling them "socialists" is just preposterous!

Edit: Fair enough point. I think its just semantics. Americans would consider France a socialist state and the Soviet Union solely communist. Americans don't think of Cuba, Soviet Union, and North Korea as socialist. They see them as communists.

 

[Deluge]

Calling Samseau's definition "pure Americanism... paranoia". Sounds derisive.

You're reading derisiveness where there isn't. An Americanism is a term (in this case a definition) that's unique to America. What I meant was that Samseau's definition of socialism is unique America. I hypothesized that the unique way Americans use the term might have something to do with Cold War paranoia. American politicians and commentators (most notable Reagan and his ads about "socialized medicine") would often refer to the expansion of the social safety, universal healthcare etc. as the first step towards socialism in America during the period, so I think that's a valid point.

Ironically, while Americans were afraid that these things would led to socialism in America, all the other free Western countries were rapidly expanding the very same things because they too were afraid of socialism spreading to their countries.

I would argue the Swiss, whose government is a Republic, are much happier and more prosperous than the Scandinavians.

Studies show the Scandinavian countries are the happiest in the world (Denmark is often touted as no 1), but Switzerland and the other Western social democracies are not far behind them. I don't see how Swizterland being a Republic is relevant here :huh:

 

[RexImperator]

If it sounds like socialism to Joe the Plumber, it must be socialism... In American political discourse there's not much distinction between "social democracy" and communism.

Both US and Western Europe have mixed economies, a blend of capitalism with some welfare policies designed to take the rough edges off, though Europe has a stronger welfare state. The US has a larger military. Europeans at least feel like they get something for their higher taxes. Maybe because their defense is subsidized by the US (they can get away with spending less on defense thanks to being under the US umbrella).

 

[Samseau]

^ Deluge loses again.. even Oxford supports exactly what I said, not that dictionary definitions matter. The term socialism was coined by Marx and he clearly defines what Socialism is within his works, there's really no need for any other definition.

Lol. Everything you say is a joke. According to the Oxford definition of socialism you just said you agree with, there is no such thing as private property and/or the allocation of resources in the economy is directed by the government rather as opposed to the free market. "Socialism" actually predates Marx's writings by decades, but that's besides the point.

Socialism before Marx was fantasy. The term socialism became proper when there was a divergence between radical Marxists and conservative Marxists. Radical Marxists believed a revolution was the only way to a Communist utopia, while conservative Marxists believed in reforming the system into Communism.

Over time, the radical Marxists called themselves Communists, and the conservative Marxists called themselves Socialists.

Both sides of the same coin.

Have you read any of Marx's work? It'd be blatantly clear to you if you had that his definition of socialism is fundamentally at odds with yours. If "Socialism = high taxes, welfare state, and redistribution schemes" then during the Cold War West Germany was a Socialist country and there never would have been the need for the Berlin Wall and every Western developed economy outside of America is Socialist.

What are you talking about? The wall was necessary because Russia was ruled by a bunch of violent thugs and needed to keep their population from escaping.

And pretty much every Western economy today has large elements of Socialism. To the extent that they produce wealth they are capitalist, and to the extent they waste tax dollars on useless government programs they are socialist.

I'm certain that deep down you actually know what socialism actually is.

I know what it is, but you have no clue.

Most people who throw the term socialism around all the time will admit when push comes to shove that someone like Piketty or the economies of say Australia, Germany or Sweden are not socialist.

Of course they are. Time to brush up on your intellectual history.

But not you, no matter what I or others say in this thread you will never publicly concede to what Socialism actually is or any of the other million things you've been factually incorrect about. Quintus was right, you are irrationally stubborn to the extreme.

You've got a bad habit of revealing details of your private PM's in public. People aren't going to trust you for much longer.

 

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Socialism = state ownership of the means of production

Socialism does not necessarily imply a welfare state, although most socialist countries do have a welfare state. It is possible for a country to have a relatively free economy and a large welfare state e.g. The USA and the Nordic countries.

Most fascist countries had essentially socialist economies.