16-04-2004 20:19									#31
	Increase the size of your Attachments

You conservatives and Liberterians have a strange view of communism.

I don;t agree with marx's calculations in a lot of economic topics, but still, you can;t hold a real discussion on a topid with a jaded and inherently incorrect view of the other side.

	16-04-2004 20:20									#32
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Spiffor, could you explain how social-democrats plan on making Welfare and capitalism meld together? IMO, social-democrats want government control/regulation of all capitalistic outlets (buisnesses) so that they may "properly" fund welfare. In my model the government will be cut out insofarasmuch that they would control/regulate direct buisness responisbility towards welfare, cutting the government out as a middle man between welfare supplier and welfare recipient.

	16-04-2004 20:22									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Japher Spiffor, could you explain how social-democrats plan on making Welfare and capitalism meld together?

They've ben doing it for over fifty years, in case you hadn't noticed. Try reading Keynes.

	16-04-2004 20:27									#34
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Japher Spiffor, could you explain how social-democrats plan on making Welfare and capitalism meld together? IMO, social-democrats want government control/regulation of all capitalistic outlets (buisnesses) so that they may "properly" fund welfare. In my model the government will be cut out insofarasmuch that they would control/regulate direct buisness responisbility towards welfare, cutting the government out as a middle man between welfare supplier and welfare recipient.

what? without the government taxing and forcing business to fund welfare, how would welfare get funded? Oh yeah, I'm sure corporations would "voluntarily" fund social programs.



And I thought Communists had a dillusional view of things.

	16-04-2004 20:32									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Japher Spiffor, could you explain how social-democrats plan on making Welfare and capitalism meld together? IMO, social-democrats want government control/regulation of all capitalistic outlets (buisnesses) so that they may "properly" fund welfare.

Government control != government regulation. Regulations are the boundaries in which a private business is free to act. Just like laws are the boundaries in which you, individual, are free to act: would you consider yourself "controlled by the government" because it is forbidden to kill?

Social-democrats generally want to tax the capitalist economy. Very rarely is the public ownership of a company a scheme to make money: in general, the social-democrats only nationalize companies to provide a general-interest service.

	16-04-2004 20:32									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Ozzy, I'm curious - in which European states does the government own more means of production now than they did, say 25 years ago?

When did I ever suggest countries did?

	16-04-2004 20:35									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Statist socialism, although such did not happen in western Europe. The most 'socialist' country of western Europe (Statist actually), France, was called a "mixed economy" because the very large private sector was complemented with State-owned majors. Welfare is not communism by any standards, because it doesn't act upon the "who owns the means of production" question. Welfare and capitalism can meld together very well, and all social-democrats on this planet support such a model. It is possible to have a welfare State with a very tiny public sector (Bismarck's Germany comes to mind, but postwar Germany comes to mind as well)

I didn't say welfare was communism, I said it was a step towards communism. France clearly has more state-ownership than the United States. It has clearly gone farther down the path towards communism than some other nations. This does not make it communist. What one day was the United States can end up like France, what what day was France can end up the Soviet Union.

	16-04-2004 20:36									#38
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP When did I ever suggest countries did?

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP Look at Europe now (or 20 years ago), state owned industries, huge welfare states, etc. Communism creeps in slowly, as the government takes over more and more of society until there is nothing left and a communist state exists. Sure thats not Marxism, but it looks like thats whats happening to me.

I don't know how you could state it any more blatently.

	16-04-2004 20:38									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap You conservatives and Liberterians have a strange view of communism. I don;t agree with marx's calculations in a lot of economic topics, but still, you can;t hold a real discussion on a topid with a jaded and inherently incorrect view of the other side.

Fine I'm a crazy idiot. But that must make you a troll for not addressing any real questions here, just criticizing me. A society where the government owns 100% of industry and there is no private sector, that isn't communism? Then what the hell is it?

	16-04-2004 20:40									#40
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP Fine I'm a crazy idiot.

I tought that went without stating here.

	16-04-2004 20:41									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki I don't know how you could state it any more blatently.

I think that was a pretty clear reference to the fact that things were more state-owned 20 years ago than today. How the heck did you get so confused?

	16-04-2004 20:46									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Try reading Keynes

I read som critiques about him and about the subsiquent dismantling of his "policies" in the US... I will read more, it sound rather interesting. Though, my knowlege in economics is very limited, especially in macro.

	16-04-2004 20:47									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP I think that was a pretty clear reference to the fact that things were more state-owned 20 years ago than today. How the heck did you get so confused?

quote: originally posted by OzzyKP Communism creeps in slowly, as the government takes over more and more of society until there is nothing left and a communist state exists. Sure thats not Marxism, but it looks like thats whats happening to me.

Perhaps you should read what you wrote one more time, and think about it. In case you don't want to, allow me to do it for you:

You say that communism creeps in slowly, with the govenrment increasingly owning more and more and then reference Europe. And then you say that's what it looks like is happening to you. Now you are doing an about face and saying that in fact that things are less state owned now than 20 years ago. What happened to the creeping communism and the trend you were so clearly seeing?

	16-04-2004 20:48									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP Fine I'm a crazy idiot. But that must make you a troll for not addressing any real questions here, just criticizing me. A society where the government owns 100% of industry and there is no private sector, that isn't communism? Then what the hell is it?

IN Theoretical communism, which si what Speer brough up, there is no state.

As Spiffor said, that is Statist Socialism, which is really what you can say the USSR was-an attempt to build communism through a single party socialist state as oposed to waiting for the final stages of capitalism to bring forth the revolution.

And the welfare state is in no way even close to this since the state is not taking control of the means of production, ismply taking a bite out of the profits to fund the programs.

	16-04-2004 20:55									#45
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP I didn't say welfare was communism, I said it was a step towards communism. France clearly has more state-ownership than the United States.

Again, the two are only indirectly related, and they're not connected by the communist route.

1. France has a very long tradition of State involvement in the economy. Louis XIV's prime minister (Colbert) had many manufactures built, and there was a state-driven pre-industrialization. We still speak of our Colbertist tradition, which was especially revigorated under De Gaulle, and which explains our trust for public companies.

2. The social-democrats (who are the ones pushing for welfare) around the world are capitalists at heart, in that they believe capitalism is a superior form of economy, but they don't trust private enterprise to provide everything the society needs. As such, social-democrats are more prone than liberals to have public companies provide public services. The aim of this method is not to give workers control over the means of production (the State has control), but to make sure the company's leadership will follow the needs of the State/the citizens, even if that means losing money.

As such, when the social-democrats are at the helm, you can expect several of their ideas to be applied: welfare on the one hand, public ownership of general-interest companies on the other hand.
The reason why welfare States generally have more public ownership than corporate bordelloes, is because the social-democrats have other ideas than liberals, when it comes to a functioning capitalist society.

	16-04-2004 21:00									#46
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GePap IN Theoretical communism, which si what Speer brough up, there is no state. As Spiffor said, that is Statist Socialism, which is really what you can say the USSR was-an attempt to build communism through a single party socialist state as oposed to waiting for the final stages of capitalism to bring forth the revolution.

OK, you've gotten yourself into a trap. Communists today, despite frequent denials, must necessarily be Statist Socialists in the mold of USSR and Stalin. This I believe is what we've all been talking about all along. Whenever anyone points out a flaw in Communism (using this model) then they fall back to the theoretical utopian marxism, with no state or property or anything. But if this was the kind of communism you were seriously advocating then you would not call yourself a communism, and you would not work for greater welfare state provisions, you instead would call for more capitalism. As Marx stated the most advanced capitalist state would be the one to naturally spark the revolution to bring about his utopian communist state.

So which is it? You can't go both ways.

quote: And the welfare state is in no way even close to this since the state is not taking control of the means of production, ismply taking a bite out of the profits to fund the programs.

Der, how many times to I freaken have to say it, Welfare State IS NOT Communism. It isn't. They are not the exact same thing. I never said they were. Now be a darling and read what I type here, thanks.

The welfare state is state-owned charity. Now the United States is looking at state-owned health care. Perhaps next they will look at state-owned utilities. State-owned industry. State-owned everything else. In France the state owns many major industries. As I stated above, the US is on its way towards France, and France is on its way towards the USSR. Keep up here.

	16-04-2004 21:03									#47
	Re: Re: Doesn't the service industry preclude communist revolt? Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara proletariat != factory workers. proletariat= those who have nothing to sell but their ability t do work That means a lot of service workers are proletarians. The vast majority of people in the U.S. and Europe are proles. Our productivity is just so great that we can live a "middle-class" life-style. The real middle-classes are people who own their own small means of production, such as farmers and shop keepers, and also those who sell trained services, from land scapers to laywers. The people who work for them, however, are proles.

By your definition, though, a lawyer would be a proletariat - he has nothing to sell but his labor. His labor just happens to be worth a lot.

Btw, virtually all Americans own some small means of production. A computer is a means of production. Most people have some stock. Almost all Americans are "capitalists".

	16-04-2004 21:05									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: The vast majority of people in the U.S. and Europe are proles.

Vast majority? Wouldn't stock ownership preclude people from being in the proletariat? If yes, then the majority of Americans aren't in the proletariat.

	16-04-2004 21:07									#49
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP As I stated above, the US is on its way towards France, and France is on its way towards the USSR. Keep up here.

UPDATE:
Most nationalizations occured in France in 1945 (as a punishment against capitalist collaborators of nazi Germany, and as a mean to influence the reconstruction efforts drastically), and in 1981 (as the Socialist Party took power, before throwing away all its beliefs).

Since then, France hasn't known any significant nationalization, yet most State-owned companies have been privatized, or are in the process of being so. There is no public bank anymore, there is no public car industry anymore, there is no public air transportation anymore, and electricty and railroads are on the brink of privatization.

We are heading to become a sub-UK or sub-US right now. There are even talks of privatizing healthcare

	16-04-2004 21:09									#50
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Vast majority? Wouldn't stock ownership preclude people from being in the proletariat? If yes, then the majority of Americans aren't in the proletariat.

I just made that point

	16-04-2004 21:09									#51
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I think you should've had state owned utilities a long time ago, even under capitalism. Private regulated utilities are nothing more than private monopolies.

	16-04-2004 21:16									#52
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by OzzyKP OK, you've gotten yourself into a trap. Communists today, despite frequent denials, must necessarily be Statist Socialists in the mold of USSR and Stalin. This I believe is what we've all been talking about all along. Whenever anyone points out a flaw in Communism (using this model) then they fall back to the theoretical utopian marxism, with no state or property or anything. But if this was the kind of communism you were seriously advocating then you would not call yourself a communism, and you would not work for greater welfare state provisions, you instead would call for more capitalism. As Marx stated the most advanced capitalist state would be the one to naturally spark the revolution to bring about his utopian communist state. So which is it? You can't go both ways.

Communists are a wide gorup that includes orthodox Marxists, Leninists, Stalinits, Maoists and so forth/ So "communist" must not believe in Socialist sattism to be communits.

In fact, this was part of the Menshevik, Bolshevik split.

Communist are under no obligation to ask for the fastest route towards what will eventually happen anyway. It becomes a question of the greater good-better a lot of misery and fast revolution, or a slower pace towards revolution but with less misery?

I pick the later.

	16-04-2004 21:23									#53
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

You're a communist, GePap?!

	16-04-2004 21:23									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I thought you like Nietzsche, GePap why worry about the suffering caused by the overthrow of the old system?

	16-04-2004 21:24									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Only in so far that, with everything he got wrong, marx was right about capitalism setting up its own fall.

Otherwise I am a social-democrat.

	16-04-2004 21:25									#56
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich I thought you like Nietzsche, GePap why worry about the suffering caused by the overthrow of the old system?

Becuase while I like his annalisys on so many things, at the end I don't agree with him on more than 50% of the things.

	16-04-2004 21:30									#57
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Only in so far that, with everything he got wrong, marx was right about capitalism setting up its own fall.

Personally, I begin to doubt that, with all the media power, and other influence that capitalism has. I wonder what will happen in the end. *sigh*

	16-04-2004 21:36									#58
	Get a bigger avatar today!

This is a problem shared by commies since 1848. There's a reason why a revolution always needed an avant-garde. That's because the bourgeois society spreads its values, making quite a few proles opposed to us. Think of the 19th century's Lumpenproletariat. No literacy, no media influence, but already an efficient mind control organized by the Church and the capitalists.

	16-04-2004 23:42									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The whole thing about communism arising out of infinite productivity is interesting, but it really doesn't seem to say anything about capitalism. If we had infinite productivity, then we would still be capitalist; it's just that we would be communist, if not in the strictest sense of no ownership of the means of production, but in terms of distribution of resources. By the time communism could be implemented without conflict (which occurs whenever you have a redistribution of limited resources), it will already have arrived.

	17-04-2004 00:47									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

That nice little infinite productivity tho' will not happen as the natural resources are limited. Hence I always love the arguement that states capitalism is raping the environment, when it is the very same conditions (only much worse) that they argue in order to enable their utopian communistic society.