About Socialism

Basic error. There are variations in market socialism, designed to avoid problems with calculation, completely at odds with that. It can be via the allocation role of free trade or, more likely, the protection of property rights (i.e. the value of the
worker's labour).

 

Again sir the government for centuries only acted in cases of out and out theft. Hell the first patent laws don't show up until the industrial revolution.

 

Labor isn’t property

 

Except it is the government that determines the value of that labor which is why the years leading up to Lady Thatcher were marked by strikes more than a few of which turned violent.

 

Like in Weimar Germany?

 

Your understanding of history is warped. The Miners Strike was effectively a revenge mission, given previous government was brought down by the NUM. The violence was engineered by the authorities. See, for example, the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign.

Of course your post also didn't make any sense. It's not government that determines value. That's determined by the worker owned enterprise.

 

Very few of which existed in Britain and the miners weren't the only ones striking.

 

I've selected the Miner's Strike as it dominated the early 80s. It happened to be engineered by the government and enforced through police brutality. I'm sure you'll condemn such actions as right wingers aren't fans of government authoritarianism. But I've been wrong before!

 

Of course, I detest that sort of thing, but again the whole period from the mid sixties on was dominated by strikes by sanitation worked train conductors you name it every union in the country was out on strike with frequency.

 

Also untrue. The period was determined by the success of price and incomes policy. That obviously required union cooperation. We effectively saw inflated strike activity through government macroeconomic incompetence. I'm sure you'll condemn government incompetence as right wingers aren't fans of government authoritarianism. But I've been wrong before!

 

Things like a public library are a service, open to all without qualification. Same is true of a public highway system or utilities- things being provided which are usually impossible to do through private means, but most importantly- that have benefit, or available benefit to all. Socialism, on the other hand starts serving selective people, at the expense of others not eligible for the benefits. It de-incentivizes people, encourages them to do less and expect more- that somebody else who is willing to do more must pay for. The entire scheme punishes productivity, and rewards lack of it. You don't have to be too smart to see that such a scheme has a built in fatal flaw, but those who value free things and blame their frustrations in life on others love the idea. They don't look ahead very far, aren't concerned with the longer term consequence. Right now, it free money, free stuff.... and they are for that. They will sell their self-respect to get it, because they don't have much or value it anyway.

 

An illogical comment, given its capitalism where workers do not receive the value of their productivity. In socialism, profits go to the workers. It goes way further than the incentive systems offered by profit-related pay.

 

Then workers should apply their productivity directly and cut the employer out of the chain.

 

An impossibility. As soon as the worker starts to work for himself without an employer to exploit him, he becomes an evil entrepreneur and if he's successful enough, an employer himself.

 

Nothing wrong with entrepreneurial behaviour. Indeed, we'd expect more of it in market socialism. A positive effect of reduced inequalities.

 

That would be capitalism, not socialism. Only capitalism protects property rights. All other economic systems have to take away property rights in the name of redistribution of wealth.

 

Funny how that doesn't happen, isn't it. It's almost like getting rich is a positive motivator for entrepreneurial behavior.

 

Capitalism doesn't as workers are paid below their worth. That's essentially theft.

 

Government is socialism. It really is that simple.

 

You'll find, for example, self employment rates significantly higher in social democracies. Facts are a pain!

 

the poor and uneducated are the most dangerous as they usually are poor and uneducated out of their own account (no-one forced it upon them) and then want to forcibly take stuff and take liberties away from those who succeed, produce and work the hardest. Socialism empowers these people, it's that simple. The fact of the matter is that someone who doesn't care about getting an education, is lazy, doesn't work hard and doesn't respect the law doesn't deserve what someone who gets an education, works hard, takes risks/makes sacrifices, respects laws and succeeds has. The more poor and uneducated there are, the more dangerous socialism becomes as more of the unproductive, uneducated are empowered. It can work in Finland, not in Venezuela... purely because Venezuela has a mob in the underground that cannot run a Country and have ruined Venezuela. The US at this point has amassed too many poor, uneducated (many illegal immigrants), racially motivated people so at this point, reached a stage where socialism may be destructive. simple stuff.. keeping it high level.

 

Stereotyping is not economics. And, our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror have some direct influence on regional instability.

 

i'm talking about facts.... which you cannot refute. Go to Venezuela and see who's in charge, you will not stay more than one day if you can get a flight out. Go to Finland and see who's in charge, you may want stay a while... both claim they have socialism, but the people running the Country are apples and oranges. Uneducated, ignorant, irresponsible, non law abiding people cannot run a country and DO NOT deserve what those who succeed on merit have, FORCING EQUALITY HERE is WRONG.

some facts are hard to swallow but doesn't mean they are not FACTS.

 

I define "worth" as how much the market is willing to pay you vs. how much you're willing to work for. When those two numbers meet and you get a job, that's how much you're worth. So no theft involved. The minimum wage essentially robs from employers who would pay those workers less because they are worth less.

 

lousy right wing management does that. A corps of engineers could have been engineering better solutions at lower cost.