Ending poverty, especially extreme poverty

[commenter]

**Fascism **is socialism. No fascist state allowed for free enterprise. It ostensibly allowed for private ownership of companies when it suited them, and as long as the company did exactly what it was told, but that isn’t capitalism. That is socialism - government control and/or ownership of the means of production. There were plenty of businesses in NAZI Germany because it served the needs of the government, and had they not produced what the government required of them, they would have lost their property (and probably life ).

Okay, I think that is what I’ve been saying, except that authoritarian government regulation over the means of production effectively renders private ownership moot, and therefore has the impact of socialism.

Fascism is socialism. Not only did it shift decision making from families, and the private sector over to government, but also centralized within the public sector. Under fascism, local and provincial governments made no policy or decisions on their own, but became just an extension of the national government. Fascist systems were working towards moving all decisions to an international basis - Berlin - just as socialists today all support the UN, the EU, or any international authority.

Fascism/socialism tries to move all education away from control of the family, or town, to the central authority. The alternative to fascism/socialism, or to multinational capitalism, is distributism. Read Chesterton, Belloc, etc.

 

[Robert_Sock]

He is still listed as the richest man with $75 billion, so not sure what he has given away yet.

“So far, both Buffett and Gates have backed their bullhorns with their own billions. Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway, the Nebraska holdings conglomerate, has pledged to give away 99 percent of his current $45 billion fortune (much of it to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation), and the Gateses have pledged to donate the “vast majority” of their $54 billion net worth.”

csmonitor.com/Business/Guide-to-Giving/2010/1120/Can-Warren-Buffett-and-Bill-Gates-save-the-world

 

[JonNC]

Fascism is socialism. Not only did it shift decision making from families, and the private sector over to government, but also centralized within the public sector. Under fascism, local and provincial governments made no policy or decisions on their own, but became just an extension of the national government. Fascist systems were working towards moving all decisions to an international basis - Berlin - just as socialists today all support the UN, the EU, or any international authority.

Fascism/socialism tries to move all education away from control of the family, or town, to the central authority. The alternative to fascism/socialism, or to multinational capitalism, is distributism. Read Chesterton, Belloc, etc.

Where capitalism goes wrong is when government has too much power. When government is powerful enough to grant favors in return for “special considerations”, the wealthy will take advantage. If the federal government were limited to the enumerated powers, it wouldn’t be worth the time of wealthy corporations.
That done, and prudent anti-monopoly laws in place, the free markets will again be an engine of economic growth, increasing opportunities for all Americans who are willing to work hard.
I speak in terms of America, but the process applies to all people

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Are you under the mistaken impression that socialism ends the natural swings in economics? All socialism does is make the upswings very low, and the recessions even more devastating. Look at the two Germany’s coming out of the fall of Soviet socialist tyranny. Which Germany would you have wanted to live in: essentially capitalist west, or socialist east? The greatest wealth, even for the poorest, exists in a capitalist nation.

Socialism/communism does end “the natural swings in economics”, because the purpose of it is to abolish exchange value entirely. The crises that capitalism finds itself in are the result of the contradictions found between wage labour and capital, things that can only exist as long as exchange value does, and are not natural or unavoidable things. These crises also help to enforce artificial scarcity, which is what capitalism essentially is - under capitalism you can’t produce more than the market can consume. Communism is a stateless, classless society without any kind of market, where people take whatever they want at anytime and contribute whatever they need. In such a society, exchange value does not exist and so the market laws that lead to these “natural swings” also wouldn’t.

Your last statement is only true if you radially redefine what it means to be capitalist. As I have said, look at the poorest in capitalist Nigeria.

People in the United States are not confined to one job. People change jobs all the time. But in a socialist state, you’re either working for the government directly, or indirectly.

But this does not constitute actual control over my labour. What I can or can’t do with my labour is still dictated to me, and I have no control or ownership over the things I produce. Under capitalism, I only work in order to remain alive. I am alive because I work, I do not choose to work because I am alive. It is easy to imagine a mode of production where I work purely out of choice and free from any kind of external pressure to survive. Under capitalism, labour is never really voluntary. You will find that for the vast majority of people life begins as soon as their labour ends, and they take no pleasure in their work but simply do it to survive.

Compared to capitalist countries, socialist states are worse than stagnant. Advances in medicine, agriculture, technology, almost always come out of the profit motive. This is why it is false to claim that socialism is more compassionate.

Yes, I agree that the “socialism” of the 20th century was repugnant, but that’s not what I’m arguing for. That isn’t what people like Marx were arguing for. The 1917 revolutions failed because they tried to build socialism in a backwards and isolated country. If socialism had quickly become international, things would not nearly have been so bleak. There were attempts at revolution in advanced countries such as Germany in 1919. If they had succeeded we most likely would not be living in a capitalist world.

It almost completely comes from free markets. From the Wright brothers, Gates himself, Ford, you name it! Even government relies on the inventiveness of marketplace. Shark Tank, for what its worth, is a small example of this.

Shark Tank is a silly reality show where millionaires exploit people with easily marketable ideas. It certainly doesn’t represent the majority of invest in new technology in capitalist countries. Capitalists are remarkably short-sighted, and won’t invest in important technology if it won’t give them a profit in the short-term. As Bill Gates pointed out in that article, this is why the public sector tends to lead the way in investing in world-changing technology, such as renewable energy. Capitalists would rather invest billions in producing a slightly different smart phone, something that will easily produce them a profit. This is very wasteful, and it’s easy to see how a socialist economy could better utilize the time and resources that go into developing useless technology.

Government doesn’t create wealth. It doesn’t create capital. And it isn’t compassionate. Socialist governments are the cause of their own economic malaise, and blaming others for it just doesn’t wash.

Governments don’t, no, but socialism isn’t just where the government controls the economy. It is a society where everyone controls the economy. The means of production are held in common by all. The point isn’t to just maintain the rules of the capitalist market economy but have the economy owned by the state. The point is to abolish the capitalist market entirely, to abolish exchange value, capital and wage labour.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The reason Nigeria is not a rich nation is because it has corrupt government, not because of Shell. Look at Venezuela. Citco is basically government owned ( Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A.) - I think we can agree that the people there are not living a better life under a socialist paradise. Corrupt government goes arm in arm with socialism.

The problems Venezuela is faced with are different to those of Nigeria, but it’s important to understand that Venezuela isn’t socialist and its problems are the result of the capitalist market. Increased spending in public welfare based on the value of a certain commodity is great until the value of that commodity plummets. Chavez also did ridiculous things like set controls on prices while leaving the economy in private hands. The Venezuelan people should have seized the economy for themselves, and placed it entirely in public control.

The Nigerian government is undoubtedly corrupt, but this is a problem of capitalism. Countries like Nigeria are exploited by western capitalists, and are basically puppets of them. If the Nigerian government decided to use the oil wealth to improve the lives of their own people, there would be huge international backlash, as there was when countries like Cuba nationalized foreign oil refineries.

If Nigeria is being harmed by Shell, then it is likely a result of crony capitalism, a close relative of socialism.

Crony capitalism is something that exists directly as a result of capitalism, not despite it. It is not a separate beast to normal capitalism. If you allow capital to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands then monopolies are going to develop, and these monopolies are going to seek support from the state. The only way to prevent this would be to try to limit the accumulation of capital, but of course this would contradict the principles of the free market.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I may be naive, but I think I can see drastic, positive changes in the world. For example, I understand that Bill Gates donated half his wealth to fight extreme poverty. His team, which includes the World Bank, claim that not only will extreme poverty be extinct by 2030, but other forms of poverty will be helped as well.

I used to see capitalism as an evil that was at the root of poverty, but now I’m beginning to see where it will evolve into something good to help alleviate all the needless suffering in the world by evolving into a more special type of “socialism.”

For those of us who truly value brotherly LOVE, good days are ahead of us. I predict that materialism is going to decrease, and true spiritualism will increase.

I suggest you read what the catechism of the Catholic Church says about both socialism and capitalism not only that but also read what Pope Francis has said about capitalism socialism and communism you’ll be surprised to know that Pope Francis is not a communist. communism denies the need for God socialism denies the need for a private property and capitalism denies the respect for a man’s work in fact all of those denied the respect for man’s work the truth is there has to be something else take what is Good from all of those and throw out what is bad we need God but we also need private property. I think it must be remembered that Pope Francis himself said that private property is a right so definitely not socialist since socialism denies the right to private property. the rights of the property owner of however must be oriented toward social use. I think you should read Rerum novarum and Quadragesimo anno.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I suggest you read what the catechism of the Catholic Church says about both socialism and capitalism not only that but also read what Pope Francis has said about capitalism socialism and communism you’ll be surprised to know that Pope Francis is not a communist. communism denies the need for God socialism denies the need for a private property and capitalism denies the respect for a man’s work in fact all of those denied the respect for man’s work the truth is there has to be something else take what is Good from all of those and throw out what is bad we need God but we also need private property. I think it must be remembered that Pope Francis himself said that private property is a right so definitely not socialist since socialism denies the right to private property. the rights of the property owner of however must be oriented toward social use. I think you should read Rerum novarum and Quadragesimo anno.

I’m not trying to promote communism here, but show me where it must deny God? Just because it denied God at one point in human history does not necessarily mean that it must deny God at some other point of future history. The same goes for capitalism exploiting workers at one point in history does not mean that it absolutely has to always exploit workers.

Never did I say, or imply, that Pope Francis was a communist!

 

[JonNC]

=Regular Atheist;14333210]Socialism/communism does end “the natural swings in economics”, because the purpose of it is to abolish exchange value entirely.

Perhaps, in that it imposes full-time, widespread poverty, except for the ruling class.

The crises that capitalism finds itself in are the result of the contradictions found between wage labour and capital, things that can only exist as long as exchange value does, and are not natural or unavoidable things. These crises also help to enforce artificial scarcity, which is what capitalism essentially is - under capitalism you can’t produce more than the market can consume. Communism is a stateless, classless society without any kind of market, where people take whatever they want at anytime and contribute whatever they need. In such a society, exchange value does not exist and so the market laws that lead to these “natural swings” also wouldn’t.

Can you give me an example, past or present, of a communist nation that was stateless, a classless society without any kind of market? Just one example of such a place, but the examples I have of a communist state are places like Mao’s China, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Castro’s Cuba.

Your last statement is only true if you radially redefine what it means to be capitalist. As I have said, look at the poorest in capitalist Nigeria.

The radical redefining going on here seems to be what communism and socialism are.

But this does not constitute actual control over my labour. What I can or can’t do with my labour is still dictated to me, and I have no control or ownership over the things I produce.

Of course you do. You get to choose where you work, for whom you work, at what rate of compensation you work at. You even get to choose to open your own business if you choose, assuming the government doesn’t get in the way.

Under capitalism, I only work in order to remain alive. I am alive because I work, I do not choose to work because I am alive.

I’ve never looked at it that way. When I owned a business, I worked because I loved what I was doing, and was excited to provide for my family. Now I teach, and I still love what I’m doing. No one made me sell my business. No one made me take the job I have. No one forced a wage scale on me. I personally signed a contract. People who worked for me personally agreed to the compensation package I offered.

It is easy to imagine a mode of production where I work purely out of choice and free from any kind of external pressure to survive.

You have that choice now, but it sounds like you want others to provide for you if you don’t work. Asking others to do that when you can work is asking others to be slaves to your needs.

Under capitalism, labour is never really voluntary. You will find that for the vast majority of people life begins as soon as their labour ends, and they take no pleasure in their work but simply do it to survive.

That isn’t my experience. Is work work? Of course it is, and it doesn’t matter what the circumstances are.

Yes, I agree that the “socialism” of the 20th century was repugnant, but that’s not what I’m arguing for. That isn’t what people like Marx were arguing for. The 1917 revolutions failed because they tried to build socialism in a backwards and isolated country. If socialism had quickly become international, things would not nearly have been so bleak. There were attempts at revolution in advanced countries such as Germany in 1919. If they had succeeded we most likely would not be living in a capitalist world.

So, it sounds like you want capitalism to build countries up, make them advanced instead of backwards, then make them socialist.

Shark Tank is a silly reality show where millionaires exploit people with easily marketable ideas. It certainly doesn’t represent the majority of invest in new technology in capitalist countries. Capitalists are remarkably short-sighted, and won’t invest in important technology if it won’t give them a profit in the short-term. As Bill Gates pointed out in that article, this is why the public sector tends to lead the way in investing in world-changing technology, such as renewable energy. Capitalists would rather invest billions in producing a slightly different smart phone, something that will easily produce them a profit. This is very wasteful, and it’s easy to see how a socialist economy could better utilize the time and resources that go into developing useless technology.

Renewable energy. Like Solyndra. I think that’s an excellent example of how socialism fails. Capitalists will invest billions of dollars in things that people want to buy, therefore making profits, therefore employing people, therefore raising the standard of living.

Governments don’t, no, but socialism isn’t just where the government controls the economy. It is a society where everyone controls the economy. The means of production are held in common by all. The point isn’t to just maintain the rules of the capitalist market economy but have the economy owned by the state. The point is to abolish the capitalist market entirely, to abolish exchange value, capital and wage labour.

Again, give me an example, current or past, of a successful socialist nation. To abolish free market capitalism is to abolish prosperity, and freedom.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Regular Atheist;14333226]The problems Venezuela is faced with are different to those of Nigeria, but it’s important to understand that Venezuela isn’t socialist and its problems are the result of the capitalist market. Increased spending in public welfare based on the value of a certain commodity is great until the value of that commodity plummets. Chavez also did ridiculous things like set controls on prices while leaving the economy in private hands. The Venezuelan people should have seized the economy for themselves, and placed it entirely in public control.

Of course Venezuela is socialist. Madura is a socialist. He’s a fascist, but he’s a socialist. The government exercises strict government control over the means of production.

The Nigerian government is undoubtedly corrupt, but this is a problem of capitalism. Countries like Nigeria are exploited by western capitalists, and are basically puppets of them. If the Nigerian government decided to use the oil wealth to improve the lives of their own people, there would be huge international backlash, as there was when countries like Cuba nationalized foreign oil refineries.

There was backlash on Cuba because nationalizing property is theft. It is tyranny. But that’s what socialists do.

Crony capitalism is something that exists directly as a result of capitalism, not despite it. It is not a separate beast to normal capitalism. If you allow capital to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands then monopolies are going to develop, and these monopolies are going to seek support from the state. The only way to prevent this would be to try to limit the accumulation of capital, but of course this would contradict the principles of the free market.

Crony capitalism happens as a result of too much power being in the hands of too few. It happens in centralized governmental systems. It is far more closely akin to socialism than to free market capitalism. The only way to prevent crony capitalism is to limit the accumulation of government power.

Jon

 

[abinjoy]

It’s not the economic system that is at fault, but the roots of the economic system: The lack of brotherly love, intense competitiveness, and materialism. Is it any wonder that we have such high crime and poverty rates? .

This is true. How many times we are ready to buy an expensive something from a mall knowing that the company which produced it is charging us 200$ when it should have cost us only 100$ but are so reluctant to give a $2 coin to a person whom we find at the street?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Perhaps, in that it imposes full-time, widespread poverty, except for the ruling class.

On the contrary, the abolition of exchange value would have to bring about equality, as with it wage labour and capital would have to be abolished. Instead of some people having to work to survive while others live off of the labour of those who are working, people would work as they want and take whatever they want at anytime. Although the term makes little sense in an economy where exchange value doesn’t exist, everything would be “free” and nobody would be coerced into performing any labour.

Can you give me an example, past or present, of a communist nation that was stateless, a classless society without any kind of market? Just one example of such a place, but the examples I have of a communist state are places like Mao’s China, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Castro’s Cuba.

No, communism has never existed. What the actual economic systems present in those countries you describe were is something different Marxists/communists will give different answers to - some will say they were socialist, others will say they were a transitional period towards socialism, others will say they were state capitalist. Whatever the case, none of those countries would claim to be communist. They would all to varying degrees claim to be in some way Leninist (something I would dispute), but a significant point of Leninism is the idea of a transitional society towards socialism, one in which a state still exists to regulate distribution of goods until there exists an abundance and to protect the socialist society from external forces, at least until socialism becomes an international phenomenon. In theory it was never imagined that this state should be anything but democratic, more so than a capitalist state since it would be a state run by the majority of the population rather than one designed to oppress the majority of the population. These countries would claim to still be in that period of development towards communism.

I’d just like to clarify that I do not consider any of those countries to be a healthy example of this transitional society. For a variety of reasons that I’ll explain a bit more further down, socialism needs to be built in an advanced capitalist society, one in which the means through which we produce things allows us to produce enough goods to not leave much of the population wanting, and to accomplish this needs to spread internationally. If society cannot produce enough objects to at least satisfy everyone, this will lead to social antagonisms between those who have things and those who don’t. In the USSR the low productive output of the country meant that these antagonisms were particularly pronounced, which meant that a strong, undemocratic bureaucracy formed in order to maintain the country and manage these antagonisms. This is obviously a terrible thing, but if socialism were to be implemented on a world scale in today’s economy this would almost certainly not be an issue. The productive capability of the modern economy is remarkable, the only thing holding us back is the economic system we have.

The radical redefining going on here seems to be what communism and socialism are.

Not at all. The definitions I am using are the older definitions, and the idea that socialism refers to welfare capitalism is a modern use of the term while the conflation of it with a scary dystopia where the government owns and controls everything is just nonsense. Marx and other early socialist thinkers used the term socialism and communism interchangeably, and communism always referred to the stateless, classless society I described.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Of course you do…

That isn’t really true though. Most people don’t have the luxury of selecting whatever job they want whenever they want. Many people simply have to grab any job they can to survive. You’re also really over-emphasizing the negotiating power that any individual worker has over their wages. If I ask most employers if they can pay me more before they hire me, they’ll simply hire someone else. However, the more important fact is that no work under capitalism is without coercion. If I don’t work I don’t earn the money through which I buy the things to sustain myself. I need to work to survive, it’s a choice between working or dying, so there isn’t really any choice there. If I force someone to do something by refusing to give them the things which they need to survive if they don’t do it, that is still a form of coercion.

I’ve never looked at it that way…

Agreeing to something doesn’t mean you aren’t coerced into agreeing to it. The majority of people don’t enjoy their job and would rather not do it, but they agree to do it because if they refuse they will lose their standard of living and possibly starve.

You have that choice now…

Well firstly the people in capitalist society who live off of the labour of others are the capitalists. If you own capital you appropriate the surplus value produced by the worker, and so you do not produce anything yourself but live off of what is produced by others. I might work for a business and earn $20 a day, but produce $40 worth in exchange value. Where does the $20 difference between what I earn and what I produce go? To the owner. That is having others provide for you. To end private ownership would also end what you describe, the act of people living off of the labour of others.

Secondly, I am not calling for a society where I live off of the labour of others, but a society in which people are free to perform whatever labour they like while society regulates the general production. The point of communism is to establish a society in which people have total control over their labour, and in that sense they won’t have jobs as we understand them. I will be free to perform whatever task I want whenever I want. I can work at the pizza place in the morning, and then help out collecting rubbish in the afternoon, and then work at a bar in the evening. All the labour I perform will be done entirely freely, without coercion, because I want to. More importantly, the labour I perform will not even appear to me to be fulfilling an actual material need. I will make a pizza because I enjoy it and find the labour fulfilling, and although it will feed someone me producing the object itself will be divorced from the actual biological need the pizza fulfills. Labour under capitalism is not like this. I am well aware that I work a job to earn the money I need to survive. The act of performing labour is not divorced from the need to stay alive, as it should be. People will perform whatever labour they want whenever they want, but this will be enough to fulfill everyone’s needs. Since the act of labour is so divorced from the material need of the goods produced under communism, it wouldn’t make sense to speak of anyone living off of the labour of others.

Marx had a particular view of human nature, and how humans perform labour. For Marx labour is what made humans human. Animals may produce things, but they only do it to fulfill some kind of base biological need, while humans consciously shape the world through our labour. We can imagine how the world should be in our mind and then consciously shape the world to our desire. Labour is how we interact with the world, and how we express ourselves, and is something essential to being human. Under capitalism, however, people do not have control over their labour and so Marx would say they are “alienated” - they are separated from something that inherently makes them human, and so they are unable to achieve self-actualization. For Marx labour should be the reason that we live, while for most people under capitalism labour is simply a means to stay alive. We lack control of our own labour, as we are made to perform the same menial tasks over and over again with no opportunity to express ourselves or true freedom over what we produce, but instead have to follow some kind of guideline dictated to us within the confines of one particular job. We also lack control over the things we produce, as we have no control over what we have created. Under capitalism I may create a pizza while working at Dominoes, but it is not really my pizza as it is appropriated from me by the capitalist, who sells it on as if it were their own. I have no control over what happens to it. This is significant as, for Marx, the object of our labour is an expression of our personality and holds significance as coming from our ability to engage in labour, the reason that we are alive. Normally I might take pride in a thing I produce, and I will see it as a reflection of myself. Under capitalism, however, the thing that I have created is appropriated from me and sold on as if I have played no part in producing it, and this is an awful and degrading process. I can take no pride in what I produce as I cannot claim it as my own. Instead the whole process of labour is cheapened, as all I receive from it are the means through which I need to live. I become no better than an animal, engaging in work merely as a means to subsist rather than as a means to express myself.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I apologize for the length of these replies. I’ll stop posting now, and if you’re still interested I’ll continue after you reply. Honestly I recommend you read some literature from some socialist theorists if you’re interested, it’s good stuff. Sorry that some of these answers are long and complex, but I don’t see an easier way to give them, and even then I am a bit unsatisfied with many of them.

That isn’t my experience. Is work work? Of course it is, and it doesn’t matter what the circumstances are.

There is certainly a difference between alienated and unalienated labour. I may enjoy gardening as a hobby because it is unalienating labour. I enjoy it, see it as a way to express myself, and can take pride in the plants I grow. I don’t get that same experience with a job that I am coerced into doing simply for the money.

So, it sounds like you want capitalism to build countries up, make them advanced instead of backwards, then make them socialist.

This is somewhat reductionist, but yes! I already explained why a socialist economy needs to have a certain productive capability earlier, but Marx also had a particular analysis of history. He argued that the main force for societal change is material factors, the economy, and this influences the rest of society. For Marx, changes in the way humans produce the things we need to survive would bring about new forms of society. Contradictions and antagonisms would develop in the economy which would lead to a new mode of production, new economic relations between people in society. For example, the transition from feudalism to capitalism involved the rise of a new property owning class, the bourgeoisie, which came into conflict with the old feudal relations. The contradictions between these two relations led to the abolition of the old mode of production and the creation of capitalism, which also has its own internal contradictions. The conflict between these contradictions is essential to produce a socialist society, and since these contradictions only exist within capitalism, capitalism had to exist before socialism could. These contradictions are those between wage labour and capital, and will ultimately result in some kind of revolution that will overturn capitalism and create a society without these contradictions.

Again, give me an example, current or past, of a successful socialist nation. To abolish free market capitalism is to abolish prosperity, and freedom.

Such a society has never existed, but that doesn’t mean we can’t anticipate it from looking at the problems inherent within capitalism.

 

[otjm]

I’m predicting that big businesses will eat up most of the small businesses and soon afterward control the world. The nature of capitalism is bound to change under such a scenario, similar to that of corporate socialism.

you need to buy a new crystal ball.

Big business is not going to destroy the entrepreneurial activities of people. And we have had the “too big to fail” routine; but recent history has shown that is not always the case.

Big Farming was predicted to eat up all small farms; and the result was the entrepreneurial response of the small “niche” farmer, as one example.

 

[otjm]

I apologize for the length of these replies. I’ll stop posting now, and if you’re still interested I’ll continue after you reply. Honestly I recommend you read some literature from some socialist theorists if you’re interested, it’s good stuff. Sorry that some of these answers are long and complex, but I don’t see an easier way to give them, and even then I am a bit unsatisfied with many of them.

There is certainly a difference between alienated and unalienated labour. I may enjoy gardening as a hobby because it is unalienating labour. I enjoy it, see it as a way to express myself, and can take pride in the plants I grow. I don’t get that same experience with a job that I am coerced into doing simply for the money.

This is somewhat reductionist, but yes! I already explained why a socialist economy needs to have a certain productive capability earlier, but Marx also had a particular analysis of history. He argued that the main force for societal change is material factors, the economy, and this influences the rest of society. For Marx, changes in the way humans produce the things we need to survive would bring about new forms of society. Contradictions and antagonisms would develop in the economy which would lead to a new mode of production, new economic relations between people in society. For example, the transition from feudalism to capitalism involved the rise of a new property owning class, the bourgeoisie, which came into conflict with the old feudal relations. The contradictions between these two relations led to the abolition of the old mode of production and the creation of capitalism, which also has its own internal contradictions. The conflict between these contradictions is essential to produce a socialist society, and since these contradictions only exist within capitalism, capitalism had to exist before socialism could. These contradictions are those between wage labour and capital, and will ultimately result in some kind of revolution that will overturn capitalism and create a society without these contradictions.

Such a society has never existed, but that doesn’t mean we can’t anticipate it from looking at the problems inherent within capitalism.

As some wag said, Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money. There are a number of socialist countries in Europe who are beginning to see socialism appear to be approaching the end of its string.

 

[otjm]

How is it that a big businessman was just elected president of America?

Well, if you look at it dispassionately, there are definite tell-tales.

One of those was the report covering only two states - Pennsylvania (100,000+) and Michigan (60,000+) Democrats who changed parties before the primaries, to vote fro Trump.

They were interviewed; their responses were interesting. The Democratic Party of 50 years ago was one which represented the little businessman and the laborer/union person against Big Business.

However, they perceived the Party as ignoring them entirely: what once was a commonly accepted morality (read, sexuality/marriage/family), a Party which believed in merit (which moved to preferential hiring when more merited {trained and capable tradesmen] were passed over for “quotas” based on other issues), became a party of environmentalists who appeared extreme (stop all logging, not some; stop pipelines, stop coal, etc.); a party which pursued the destruction of the family (welfare available only if the man was not in the home; and unlimited multiple abortions up to and including at birth; no fault divorce as a pandemic rather than as a means of providing a divorce procedure for necessity and became a party which appeared to be reigning over the decimation, if not worse, of the middle class.

And they perceived the Party moving to the fringes.

Prior to Trump arriving on the scene, they saw no support within the Republican party, with the possible exception of the pro life wing.

In short, they saw politicians on both sides being careerists, with absolutely no connection whatsoever with the people outside the Beltway, Martha’s Vineyard, and Academia. Trump was plain spoken about addressing their issues

And they elected a non-politician to the Presidency, because they at the same time repudiated the Republican Party leaders, gurus, wonks and policy makers.

Coupled with them were the Evangelicals, who saw the Democratic party, and Hillary in her public statements, and the decisions of state and federal courts including the Supreme Court as rewriting the First Amendment in regards to separation of Church and State.

They rebelled at the Democratic Party’s support for LGBTQ as far, far beyond the issue of “We just want to be tolerated” to “We have arrived and we will not tolerate you”; were appalled that a woman with a deeply held biblical belief would have a judgement against her for not making a wedding cake for a gay “marriage” at $140,000, taking her business, her home and her entire retirement. And they voted for Trump as they saw all too many of the other Republican candidates as RINOs, and feared that anyone else running would roll over and propose a moderate for the Supreme Court position(s) that are or may come up in the next four years. They heard Hillary when she said, openly, that “religion must change”.

There was much more afoot, but those seem to be some of the greatest issues that pushed Trump to the position.

 

[JonNC]

As some wag said, Socialism works until you run out of other people’s money. There are a number of socialist countries in Europe who are beginning to see socialism appear to be approaching the end of its string.

Some wag?
That “wag” was Margaret Thatcher!

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The actual post I’m quoting in that long essay of mine above are from JonNC. I somehow managed to mess up the quoting thing so that it is saying that I quoted adamhovey, when I didn’t.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Well, if you look at it dispassionately, there are definite tell-tales.

One of those was the report covering only two states - Pennsylvania (100,000+) and Michigan (60,000+) Democrats who changed parties before the primaries, to vote fro Trump.

They were interviewed; their responses were interesting. The Democratic Party of 50 years ago was one which represented the little businessman and the laborer/union person against Big Business.

However, they perceived the Party as ignoring them entirely: what once was a commonly accepted morality (read, sexuality/marriage/family), a Party which believed in merit (which moved to preferential hiring when more merited {trained and capable tradesmen] were passed over for “quotas” based on other issues), became a party of environmentalists who appeared extreme (stop all logging, not some; stop pipelines, stop coal, etc.); a party which pursued the destruction of the family (welfare available only if the man was not in the home; and unlimited multiple abortions up to and including at birth; no fault divorce as a pandemic rather than as a means of providing a divorce procedure for necessity and became a party which appeared to be reigning over the decimation, if not worse, of the middle class.

And they perceived the Party moving to the fringes.

Prior to Trump arriving on the scene, they saw no support within the Republican party, with the possible exception of the pro life wing.

In short, they saw politicians on both sides being careerists, with absolutely no connection whatsoever with the people outside the Beltway, Martha’s Vineyard, and Academia. Trump was plain spoken about addressing their issues

And they elected a non-politician to the Presidency, because they at the same time repudiated the Republican Party leaders, gurus, wonks and policy makers.

Coupled with them were the Evangelicals, who saw the Democratic party, and Hillary in her public statements, and the decisions of state and federal courts including the Supreme Court as rewriting the First Amendment in regards to separation of Church and State.

They rebelled at the Democratic Party’s support for LGBTQ as far, far beyond the issue of “We just want to be tolerated” to “We have arrived and we will not tolerate you”; were appalled that a woman with a deeply held biblical belief would have a judgement against her for not making a wedding cake for a gay “marriage” at $140,000, taking her business, her home and her entire retirement. And they voted for Trump as they saw all too many of the other Republican candidates as RINOs, and feared that anyone else running would roll over and propose a moderate for the Supreme Court position(s) that are or may come up in the next four years. They heard Hillary when she said, openly, that “religion must change”.

There was much more afoot, but those seem to be some of the greatest issues that pushed Trump to the position.

Trump reminds me of a used car sales person. His true aim is to fill the White House with big business persons who will control the government. But I do not see that as being a necessarily bad thing. Look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and notice all the big business persons contributing large sums of money in it. With the help of the World Bank, it’s being predicted that extreme poverty will come to an end by 2030. And not only that but that many living in regular poverty will be lifted as well. If true, it looks like we will become a two-class society, with much unnecessary suffering associated with poverty ended. The key is for big business persons to truly value brotherly love.

 

[otjm]

Some wag?
That “wag” was Margaret Thatcher!

Yep - but I would not be the least bit surprised to find that Maggie borrowed it from someone else.