Like I said before, its always gonna work the next time.
Just needed a little more tweaking.
FL Gov. Ron DeSantis Signs Civics Bill Requiring Students to Learn Evils of ‘Communism, Totalitarian Ideologies’
- Thread starter windriverrange
- Start date
Like I said before, its always gonna work the next time.
Just needed a little more tweaking.
It’s silly of us to argue over what is the economic system employed by Norway. You insist it is socialist, I insist it is a high tax welfare state. It has proved to be highly successful for a tiny population with a singular language and culture that enjoys the proceeds derived from privately owned oil companies drilling in the portion of the North Sea claimed by their government. I’m happy for them and am glad they are happy for themselves.
Every form of government, even liberal democracies, look badly compared to my Utopian libertarian society. That may be because every form of government is collectivist to one degree or another. A Utopian libertarian society is not possible, human nature will not allow it. I’ve said that many times on this board. It is the standard by which people should compare to how their government/society is organized, and it is the standard toward which every society should aspire. Obviously the more collectivist a society is the further removed it is from the standard.
Let me switch gears for a minute. You say Norway is socialist and claim government ownership of some of the means of production is proof. I suspect the government of North Korea owns an even higher percentage of its means of production, and unlike the government of Norway North Korea proudly claims to be socialist. Can you explain how a small country similar to Norway with a singular ethnicity and culture that is more socialist than Norway lags so far behind in health, wealth and happiness? What makes one socialist country like Norway so prosperous and another even more socialist country like North Korea so disparate in outcome?
Democratically owned and controlled means of production vs Un family owned and controlled means of production.
There is also the matter of NK being undeveloped when it switched to socialism and then facing some very serious geopolitical problems.
Government ownership and control of the means of production is socialism regardless what type of government is involved. A socialist bureaucrat is a socialist bureaucrat, charged with making all decisions regarding what products are to be manufactured, which resources are to be directed toward that manufacture, in which quantities to each individual factory, what expenditures will be permitted, at what price the product may be sold, along with thousands of other decisions only the socialist in charge is permitted to make. It really is immaterial whether the socialist bureaucrat is representing a democracy or a family, socialism is socialism, and your contention all along has been the more socialist an economy is the better it is for the society. North Korea is far more socialist than Norway. Using your logic NK should be far ahead of Norway in wealth, health and happiness. And yet the opposite has occurred. Maybe socialism isn't as good as it's been made out to be.
No argument from me there. During the war the USA bombed NK into the Cave Age, literally the Cave Age, as much of its population retreated to caves to survive the bombings. So it would make sense that it would take time for them to recover from such horrendous circumstances. But according to you socialism is so superior it does not make sense that NK is still so primitive. Socialism should have brought them into the 21st Century by now. Instead the only progress it has made has been in rocket science (the technology of which it got from China who got the technology from the free market countries). No, Pilt, I'm sorry. This "excuse" doesn't wash. Free market South Korea may have started several steps ahead of socialist North Korea, but it has lapped NK several times over. If socialism is the economic godsend you claim NK should be much closer to SK in wealth, health and happiness, perhaps ahead.
It seems to me that Norway remains the only socialist country in history that you can point to that has survived without turning to authoritarianism and tyranny. And they don't claim to be socialist. If you believe in God you must get on your knees every night and thank Him for providing a country to which you can turn when defending your economic system of choice, even though there is serious debate as to whether it is what you say it is.
Dan this is a nonsense contention. All those decisions are made by bureaucrats under capitalism, democratic socialism and kleptocratic socialism, the differences in the systems are the constraints and incentives. Under capitalism the bureaucrats are constrained by the the market and incentivized to maximize profits for the owners of capital. Under kleptocratic socialism bureaucrats are constrained by the ruling family and incentivized to make the ruling family as happy as possible. Under democratic socialism the bureaucrat is constrained by markets and incentivized to maximize value created for the demos.
So you see it is of the utmost importance who the bureaucrat is serving.
I am trying to find anywhere where I said such nonsense. In fact the bulk of my arguments in this thread have been that the success of a mode of production, especially socialism, is highly contingent on circumstances and context. I do not recommend socialism for cave age people with regrettable geography and in opposition to the world's hegemonic commercial power.
One country of cave age people under constant threat from a super power under the autocratic control of a kleptocratic ruling family, and one country of at least iron age people with massive subsidies and investment from said super power and more or less democratically controlled government. Have you considered that "socialism" might not be the main driver of the disparity?
It is the only socialist country that started with an advanced economy and a political culture of liberal democracy. Are you really surprised when a country with a history of autocratic and authoritarian rule can't kick that habit by changing their mode of production?
State ownership don't lie.
I’ll get to the rest of your reply later, I’m kind busy at this moment. But let me address you last segment. Norway is “the only socialist country they started with an advanced economy…”. How did that advanced economy come about absent socialism? You surely aren’t a born again Marxist are you?
“State ownership don’t lie.” But somehow North Korea’s state ownership does lie?
Dan, socialism is the next step after fully developed capitalism. A developed capitalist economy is a necessary condition for successful socialism. Socialism comes from capitalism just as capitalism came from feudalism.
Who said NK's state ownership lies?
So Norway had fully developed capitalism before it turned into Pilt-style socialism? How soon before Norway becomes full frontal communist? Isn’t that the next stage?
Yes, by what they are incentivized to optimize.
The are employees in both scenarios Dan. There is management in both scenarios. Its merely a question of whether the management answers to capitalist bureaucrats (like Jeffery Immelt answered to GE's capitalist bureaucrats) or to socialist bureaucrats.
"Under capitalism the bureaucrats are constrained by the the market and incentivized to maximize profits for the owners of capital." No I understand that quite well.
The same thing that happens when shareholders signal their satisfaction.
Yeah Dan we already talked about the importance of democratic control rather than autocratic authoritarian control.
I am very clear. In advanced economies with traditions of liberal democracy.
Dan, you left out: "...under constant threat from a super power under the autocratic control of a kleptocratic ruling family,"
I absolutely agree that NK would be better off under capitalist liberal democracy.
So if I understand you correctly you believe America has reached its capitalist zenith and is now ready to slide smoothly into benign socialist democracy. I have my doubts!
We have been doing some liberal democracy back sliding lately.
Why? Norway seamlessly went from capitalist to socialist, and by all appearances is a very mature socialist country now, according to you. What’s to prevent it from taking the purifying plunge into communist bliss? Isn’t that the goal?
Uh-oh. You mean the transition may be rocky? That’s contrary to plan, isn’t it? Don’t these transitions take place without a hitch? If there’s a hitch doesn’t that mean it’s not time to transition yet?
The class conflict that provides the driving impulse for the move to socialism has been ameliorated by the amount of socialism that they already have.
Yeah could be rocky. The legitimacy of our democratic institutions isn't at its highest. First step on the path the US socialism is a repair of liberal democratic institutions.
And? So what’s the holdup on swooping into communism? Won’t Norway be even better once it goes the whole way?
How long do you think that will take? And what policies do you think are needed to reestablish legitimacy? There are two sides that are about as far apart as they can get without civil war. What are you thinking is needed to bring them together?
Nothing is a certainty in life. People have to have motivation to make big moves. I predict that if Norway does make it to full communism it will be by a slow process of gradually expanding state ownership.
Could take forever. Step by step. Making voting easier and more secure. Ending gerrymandering. Abolishing the Senate and Electoral college. Maybe even some court reforms to make it less partisan.
It’s interesting to me to learn what you mean by liberal democracy. Liberalism in its truest sense is individualist and advocates a reduction of state power. How does a society with such a belief transition into socialism, which is collectivist and advocates increasing state power? What’s the nonviolent voluntary method that gets a society from individualist and little state power to a collectivist society with overwhelming state power?
And I keep asking this, but you always sidestep an actual answer. Maybe this time you can lay it out exactly as you see it. One of liberal democracy’s primary characteristics is its tolerance for outliers. We’re a liberal democracy but if you want to form a socialist/collectivist society within our ranks please feel free to do so. A liberal is individualist even to the point of tolerating non-liberals/collectivists as long as their actions and memberships are voluntary. Where is the tolerance in a collectivist/socialist society? What happens to the outliers, the stubborn individualists who reject all forms of collectivism and refuse to participate or cooperate? What does your collectivist/socialist society do with them?
Liberalism is not incompatible with collectivism, and collectivism isn't incompatible with minimalist state power.
Imagine things as they are today with different labor laws and property rights.
Liberalism is not incompatible with voluntary collectivism. As soon as volunteerism is removed collectivism becomes a different ballgame from
Liberalism.
What are those different labor laws and property rights? If the collective determines it has ownership of my pig farm, but I’m a radical individualist that defies the collective and refuses to grant ownership to the collective, how does the collective react? What does it do to me? I’m an unbeliever, an outlier, a dissident. What happens to me if I protect the individualist ownership of my pig farm? Please try to be specific. You always answer in generalities, in generic whitewash. What does the collective do to the outliers, the rebels, the naysayers?
The same thing that happens to you under capitalism when you try to protect you ownership of something that isn't/can't legally be your legal property.
I wonder if the Constitution says anything about federal government expropriation of private property...
Which is? Just once I’d like to see you say it out loud. What happens to the dissenter?
You don't know what happens under capitalism when there is a disagreement about property or someone possesses something illegally?
Can’t bring yourself to utter the words? What becomes of the defiant in a non-volunteer collectivist society?
The same thing that happens to someone who defiantly breaks property laws under capitalism, Dan. This isn't hard.
No, it’s not hard. Not hard at all. It’s easy in fact. And yet you can’t bring yourself to say the words. How odd.
I keep saying them but you keep ignoring them because they aren't a part of the narrative you are going with. The state enforces property law via normal means same as under capitalism dare I say same as your libertarian utopia assuming you have property rights that require enforcement and arbitrating.
It should be a simple narrative to follow. What exactly happens to a pig farmer that refuses to turn his farm over to the collective? Disregard your attempt at equivalence. Say the words! What happens to that guy?
The same thing that would happen to me if I claimed to own your pig farm and refused to turn it over. I'm sure there would be court orders and maybe a visit from the sheriff if you didn't heed to court.
I'm sure there would be court orders and maybe a visit from the sheriff if you didn't heed the court.
