Socialism Is The Future

Anthem of the 'Wobblies' !!!

 

Thing is that I as a leftie I have been very critical of the leadership in Venezuela, I was of Chavez at the beginning

A demagogue plays to a base be it Trump or Chavez they manipulate and they direct – it is never good for the country in which it takes place because it is extremely divisive.

Given the context of Venezuelan socio-economic history it’s not surprising that the leadership claimed to be socialist and given the context of US socio-economic history I’m not surprised Trump has collect the base he has.

To me neither was working for the interests of that base or the country their concern was themselves and holding onto power.

 

Before the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq was very socialist "Baathist" and had an authoritarian government. That part was not good. However, Iraq during these years had a very strong economy. The government got it's revenue mostly from the international oil sales. The people who engaged in business were largely left alone. So if a man had a business importing air conditioners and washing machines, he was left to prosper. The government controlled the importation of certain things, like alcohol and weapons. But if a man imported clothes, furniture, or motorcycles, he was let alone. Iraq's economy was strong and so was its health care system, which was the envy of the entire Middle East. If a man wanted to operate a tourism company, he could do it and get rich, and still have free medical care. His children could have a free education. Because of socialism, Iraq's women had equal pay for equal work. If a woman worked as a school teacher, she got the same pay as a male school teacher. And because Iraq's economy was so strong, so was its currency. The Iraqi Dinar before 1990 was worth three and a half American dollars. After the Gulf war, Iraq's Dinar became worthless, thanks to American interference and capitalism.

 

I am not so sure everybody is down on Cuba. I know conservatives who have been to Cuba, and enjoyed it.
Trump only says he against Cuba so that he can try and garner the Cuban refugee vote in south florida. I say fuck those people.

Too many people try and lump "ism" ideologies with dictatorships. That's not always true.

 

When I was in Libya, I was treated by Cuban doctors. They were nice and smart and professional.

 

The right wing Republican extremists always astonish me. They say they don't like socialism. However, when it comes to their own pocket book, they like to work in jobs which pay very well, as in Union jobs. Union scale pay is always better, and comes with full benefits, as in health care insurance, with overtime, and vacation pay. Fifty years ago I was working for $1.25 per hour and saw lots of these right wing extremists go and accept Union jobs at the local truck manufacturing plant for $14.65 per hour. Today, the same extremists seek out Union jobs which pay upwards of $100,000 per year on Union scale. Ironically, they never want to talk about Union jobs being a form of socialism, a form of worker rights, and a form of equality. No Sir! What's good for them is not good enough for us colored people.

 

This is another example of people voting against their own best interests. If trump. and the republicans had their way, there would not be any unions.​

 

The Apocalypse, Harmonic Convergence, etc. must be near. I actually agree with part of what VG is saying, namely his concept of socialism. One of the big problems of our current thread is an inability to define the term, leading to shifting ground and people talking past one another--and confusion with other concepts. In a free country, we can use language as we want, and some use it for propaganda, but if we want to be clear and to communicate, I suggest that we agree on some basic terminology. Socialism tends to get confused with two other things: social democracy (welfare state) and communism (Marxism-Leninism, which is a form of socialism, but also a system of totalitarian dictatorship).

Socialism, the Economic System: I agree with VG that socialism, as an economic sytstem, entails collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and/or exchange in a society. Why? Because that's the way the term is used by most scholars.
https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/socialism

Pardon the simplistic video.



I think it's a relative term--a matter of extent and degree. So the question: "Is Canada a socialist country" can be answered by asking: are the factories, mines, oil and gas pipelines, farms, transportation and communication systems, and financial institutions owned by the government or in private hands? If so, how many, or to what extent? If the government or community has either full, majority or significant minority ownership of major the enterprises in these sectors, a system can be called "socialist" to some degree. Syndicalism, where control is given to workers' organizations, can be regarded as a variant or a closely related system. So are any means of production, distribution and exchange in Canada state-owned? Well there are a few: the federal "Crown corporations" in which the government retains the controlling shares the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Canada Post, the Bank of Canada, Teleflim Canada, and Via Rail. Those are all in the distribution and exchange categories. The major industries are privately owned, though subject to significant government regulation. In several provinces, electricity, water, and telecommunications are under provincial control. So I'd say that Canada has a mixed economy that is predominantly capitalist but a few socialized enterprises. The United States is more capitalist--Amtrak and TVA being major exceptions, although both have private competitors. In China, on the other hand, the land, most banks, and the communications media are state-owned, and over a third of business activity is from state-owned enterprises--yet significantly less than it used to be under Mao before Deng's economic transformation, when it was 100%. Of course, party officials get a piece of the action with the private corporations, and have become rich without business prowess. "China's Grip on Economy Will Test New Leaders". Mao and Marx might both turn over in their graves to learn that "Communist" China has the most billionaires in the world (248 more than the United States). 30 Countries With The Most Billionaires, 2018 > CEOWORLD magazine The Chinese economic system can be described as a form of state capitalism in which the State uses its political power to give a competitive advantage to domestic enterprises in competition with foreign interests.

Socialism and Communism. Bringing Communism into the picture adds a whole new level of complexity to the argument. Of course, there are two meanings to the word "communism" that seem almost contradictory. The original meaning, retained in classical Marxist ideology, was an ideal of stateless society in which people would act cooperatively, each contributing as much as (s)he was able, and receiving according to need. That ideal has been realized most fully in some hunter-gatherer societies and religious communities (e.g., early Christianity), but has never been even closely approximated in any modern nation. The more common meaning refers to the political system that attempted to implement "scientific socialism" (Marxism-Leninism) by means of violent revolution and creation of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" under the control of the Communist Party, which would liquidate capitalism and establish a socialist society. Communism, in the classical, stateless, egalitarian sense, was said to be the ultimate goal, but the intermediate objective was totalitarian dictatorship. We come closest to this in countries like North Korea and Cuba. China was another example, and still retains the political apparatus of totalitarianism as fully as any other country on earth. So while its economic system may be less socialist than it was, its political system is just as communist in the dictatorial, totalitarian sense.

 

wait a minute, the other day in the other thread(covid 19) you said Bill Clinton didn't stop countries from becoming Communist, in the 90s. Now you tell us that there only two communist countries. Make up your mind.

 

Which scholars? The American ones? Some nations NATIONLIZE a business or factory or agriculture, but it is never the same production, just the one at hand.

 

I think it also confusing because admirals and generals go on the news and throw around the term not knowing what it means - it's come to mean dictatorship - and muddying the waters considerably. When the word "communist" is used it usually has a negative connotation and is derogatory. What did Karl Marx really mean? I don't think his intentions were malicious, authoritarian, or totalitarian.

 

Socialism - Definition | The Business Professor
https://www.history.com/topics/industrial-revolution/socialism
Comparative economics in a transforming world economy [electronic resource] : Rosser, John Barkley, 1948- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Comparing economic systems : a political-economic approach : Zimbalist, Andrew S : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Socialism vs. Capitalism: What Is the Difference?
socialism you tube - Yahoo Video Search Results
Sanders & Socialism: Debate Between Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman & Socialist Economist Richard Wolff | Democracy Now!

If you can cite some non-American scholars who have a different definition of socialism, I'd be happy to reconsider. The important thing is to have a definition we can all accept, or at least acknowledge, so we aren't talking past each other in different languages.

 

K thank you

 

I am seeing -and have seen for a long time- disparate versions of socialism in a bunch of nations. Often it is Nationalization of their main national export, as in oil. Other smaller businesses are left to do as they please and often a sole proprietorship.

 

You probably don't want to go there, it's not the best example

I pay through the tax system 1% of my gross income for Medicare and another 1.5% of my gross income for the Medicare levy. 2.5% in total, which for me is thousands per year....and the last 30 years I've only ever used the health system to get a scale and clean at the dentists twice a year, which is only a few hundred if I paid up front

The difference with what I have paid over the last 30 years vs what I have used, I could have brought a farm next door to glenglen by now with that difference

It's hardly "free" and no more qualifies as socialism than your car insurance does

 

Yes, but I'm sure that you are responsible for helping many in your country that were much less fortunate than yourself. Good on you.

 

Yeah, I think socialism is a matter of degree. Nationalization of an export crop or product would be a first step, but a lot depends on what percentage of GNP that amounts to and what the rest of the economy is like..

 

Will it cover you when you're old? Chronic illness and all that? If you're diabetic for example... I'm just curious. I'm assuming it will do that. That's not bad insurance.

But you're saying it's too expensive, or too high a percentage. That may be true... =-/

 

Probably exactly why he hates it so much... Fuck those people.