Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

I asked what would be self-correcting about the collapse of the financial industry, probably the world over, because millions of people facing financial uncertainty through no fault of their own doesn’t seem particularly corrective to me, not what was self-corrective when governments around the world bailed out their financial institutions.

Insurance is all well and good, but what about pensions? How do people get paid, or pay for their stuff, when their bank doesn’t exist anymore to process those payments? What happens to the stock market when the brokerages collapse? What happens to mortgages and business loans? Credit cards? Corporate accounts? Government accounts? The insurance industry?

[EuchreJack]

Only one way to answer all that baggage

As for me, I have no pension.  I have debt but no assets.  Few stocks.  No mortgage.
And for historical perspective, I had less of all that in 2008.  So yeah, wouldn't have hurt me much.

I am also sort of arguing that the collapse would not have been of the entire financial industry.
I will also admit the root case of the problem that needed the bailout was lack of regulatory safeguards on the secondary financial market. As far as I understand.
I'm not a banker.  Frankly, I see the whole 2008 bailout as the banks being too clever for their own good.

Have I satisfactory responded to your inquiry, or do you have other things/responses?

[voliol]

Before we embarrass ourselves arguing over whether the US having the biggest military and police force ever makes them the most socialist country in history because those things are funded with taxes and socialism when govermint pay for thing, I would urge all who come to comment herein to take a looksee at the socialism wiki article. Especially the first sentence: "Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership."

If you really want to go down this dark and winding road, I think some terms are gonna have to be defined and their definitions agreed upon unanimously (pinned to the first post maybe) or everyone is just going to be talking past each other, arguing with strawmen, like every other internet conversation about socialism vs. capitalism.

I second this, as well as the Socialism definition. Should EuchreJack or MS be the ones suggesting one, since they are 'for'?

[McTraveller]

If the ledger-based banking system collapses, we'll just go back to barter.  This is an extreme form of correction, sure, but I'm not sure what that has to do with evaluations of systems based on private versus public ownership of means of production.

[EuchreJack]

Add this to your mandatory reading list: Capitalism

But yes, I would be happy to update the Opening Post with definitions and resources.

[Svarte Troner]

Ok so if we agree that socialism = social ownership of the means of production and capitalism = private ownership of the means of production then I think we can all also agree that Socialism > Capitalism. Case closed *Internationale plays*

[scriver]

Before we embarrass ourselves arguing over whether the US having the biggest military and police force ever makes them the most socialist country in history because those things are funded with taxes and socialism when govermint pay for thing, I would urge all who come to comment herein to take a looksee at the socialism wiki article. Especially the first sentence: "Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership."

If you really want to go down this dark and winding road, I think some terms are gonna have to be defined and their definitions agreed upon unanimously (pinned to the first post maybe) or everyone is just going to be talking past each other, arguing with strawmen, like every other internet conversation about socialism vs. capitalism.

I second this, as well as the Socialism definition. Should EuchreJack or MS be the ones suggesting one, since they are 'for'?

I disagree. This definition sets the discussion down the path of following the false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism set up by liberal thinkers which disqualifies democratic socialist initiatives and reforms from being socialist for not immediately resulting in a 100% capitalism-free utopia, and ignores the greater part of the socialist grassroots movement in favour of a red wine scholar-with-his-head-up-the-arse-of-his-encyklopedia-edition definition that disregards the actual worker movement's history and practice. And also makes state-capitalist states like the USSR and company who in practice failed completely to be uncapitalist technically count as socialist when in actuality they were only socialist on the barest of political/ideological levels.

Edit: I furthermore propose that all who enter this thread must agree beforehand that democratic socialism and social democracy are synonymical and has always been so throughout the history and usage of the socialist movement. That neo-liberal political parties of today call themselves social democrat does not change this fact -- just like the Labour party becoming a neo-liberal mire does not make the labour movement non-socialist -- as their party names predate their change of ideology.

And absolutely no discussion about socialism can be had without acknowledging that, despite having become increasingly neo-liberal since the 80's, the historical success of Sweden and the Nordics absolutely was socialist, and is not disqualified from being socialist simply for being reformative socialism rather than revolutionary. In addition, absolutely no use of the word "Swedish Model" is allowed in reference to the post-80's systems, as since then Sweden had been working increasingly less and less by the Swedish Model and more and more according to neo-liberal agenda.

Thank you.

[Svarte Troner]

Scriver, what does socialism mean to you?

[scriver]

Apropos which of the parahraphs?


In a few words: The ideology of erasing classes and class hierarchy, and of creating a communal society where people work in solidarity with and for each other; and as movement-within-capitalist-society the struggle for just work conditions (including the right to own the product of your own work and the means by which you produce it), against poverty and it's horsemen (eg against starvation/undernourishment, home insecurity, not-having-enough-time-to-rest-ness, etc)

I am also a social democratic socialist. But that's more what I believe in rather than something a believe socialism to be defined by.

[EuchreJack]

Ah, but what is Society?

[MrRoboto75]

Ah, but what is Society?

Bottom Text

[anewaname]

I think I agree with scrivner (but words are slippery things that change meanings in the next sentence).

I wrote the below separately and without any intent to parallel, using the understandings of capitalism as "private ownership of the means of production" and socialism as "public ownership of the means of production", where "the means of production" represents both resources from the land and from the labor of individuals.
-------

Capitalism and socialism are not on opposite ends of the same vector. You can have a high degree of capitalism and a high degree of socialism in the same system.

The "means of production" always includes both resources from the land and from the labor of individuals, so the concept of capitalism often becomes merged with the idea that forms of slavery are acceptable. This includes actual, economic, and social slaveries.

Since any form of slavery causes a loss of individual representation, any system that expresses capitalism without expressing socialism is a system where the individuals who are best at mis-representing others move to the top of the heirarchy. At the top, you will find people who are a source of lies, coercion, and selective murder, and at the bottom of the heirarchy you will find people who are used like cattle in all the best and the worst ways.

Any system that expresses both capitalism and socialism is a system where the individuals who are best at fairly representing a diversity of individuals would move to the top of the heirarchy. At the top, you will find people who are a source of transparency, diplomacy, and evaluation. A highly capitalist and highly socialist system is one that doesn't allow one sub-group of its people to apply social, economic, or actual slavery to another group, within or without of their system.

Currently, in our world and time, there are politicians within the EU, the US, and other nominally democratic countries/federations, who are involved in hidden alliances and trade with countries that have actual slavery.

[MaxTheFox]

If the ledger-based banking system collapses, we'll just go back to barter.  This is an extreme form of correction, sure, but I'm not sure what that has to do with evaluations of systems based on private versus public ownership of means of production.

Barter is shitty, inefficient, and only works in small and/or primitive communities.

Imagine I am a baker in a barter economy and I want a graphics card for my new computer. I only have bread to sell. But the graphics card manufacturer doesn't want my bread. So I'd have to devise a silly chain of deals to get from bread to a graphics card, which could potentially take dozens of steps. See how stupid this is?

The USSR was socialist. It was just authoritarian. I want basically a slightly watered-down version of its economic policy, with small businesses permitted but everything else under a planned economy.

[Rolan7]

Simply PTW, believe it or not.  There's plenty of iron on the fire.

[McTraveller]

Imagine I am a baker in a barter economy and I want a graphics card for my new computer.

If you are in a barter economy, the only graphics cards are ones that were produced before the Collapse, so trading food for a graphics card is something that indeed would be possible.  You wouldn't need a ton of intermediate trades.  If the barter situation lasted long enough, you'd have the re-emergence of "merchants" who collect various things in one location, so you just do a direct trade with them.  The merchants become the new price-setters.  Gee I wonder how the banking system started, and by whom...

But yes very few modern places have actual full complete "public owned means of production" in the sense that the profits are distributed equally to all members of that society.  Maybe in some tribes or co-ops.  In most places with state-owned factories, the profits are given to some oligarchs or what-not, maybe used to fund some public works perhaps, but that's about it.

Places lauded for being socialist today usually have some sovereign wealth fund, where that particular institution does distribute funds to everyone (Alaska, Norway), but that is just one or a very few companies, usually not even an entire industry, let alone the entire economy.

The other ideas posted here - like about espousing a culture of valuing people over dollar profit, I would totally get behind that, but I don't think that's a capitalism vs socialism thing.  I think that's an altruism vs selfishness thing.