how democratic socialism would work - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14270094
ronimacarroni wrote:You wouldn't get designer jeans

It's almost like you hate the human spirit or something.

ronimacarroni wrote:you wouldn't get m&m's

I am literally going to buy a pack of M&Ms from a snack machine as soon as 1730 comes around, just to spite you. I don't even like M&Ms, so I'll probably end up giving them away anyway.

Conscript wrote:Don't worry, you'll probably be too dead to care after the socialist revolution.

Not if fascists get a hold of you first. I'd say that fascists are pretty good at killing you guys wholesale.
Last edited by Rei Murasame on 12 Jul 2013 16:13, edited 2 times in total.
#14270095
The issue, ronimacarroni, is that you treat things as given. Such as "fuel efficient cars".

When you eliminate people's options, you are also eliminating any scope for improvement. Competition between producers for consumers drives innovation - people want to do better.
#14270100
There's no issue, Soix. Don't you get it?! Everyone would be [magically] bound together with a urge to produce for the masterful state. Innovation would flourish (never mind any uniqueness in products would be suppressed). If you produce art the vanguard does not enjoy, then guess what? It is purged! All bourgeoisie art and mindset is purged!
#14270102
Also, it seems to me that Democratic Socialists in this thread seem intent on banning the luxury car companies, even though those same companies at the ones that are involved in the green development projects. Toyota produces the 'Lexus' brand of high-end cars, 'Toyota' mid-end cars, and the 'Daihatsu' brand of low-end cars, but they also do from the excess revenue of those things, R&D into hybrid cars and electric cars that the leftists seem to like so much.

Also, can anyone tell me which places have green towns that are constructed entirely by government and company initiative? That's Japan and South East Asia now, because of Panasonic's 'Smart Town' project, which cuts CO2 emissions by a full 70% and runs hybrid cars. The first test of this will be in Fujisawa in Kanagawa Prefecture.

But I guess if socialists come to power and ban everything, they'll magically become 'jack of all trades' overnight and figure out how to run a government and simultaneously develop new products as well?
#14270107
Not really. You clean up the mess after the revolution is defeated by liberals, as you are spawned by a failed socialist revolution and stay relevant so long as we are a threat.

Oh, and you fight us in the streets before we take state power.

I'm not really worried about your ilk. The real threat is the ruling liberal state, you're just a bunch of rabid dogs that get put down whenever you show up in force.
#14270110
Eran wrote:Credit losses are an inevitable consequence of life's uncertainties.

A dynamic economy requires speculative, entrepreneurial ventures, some (of not most) of which will fail.

Without motivating investors by offering them higher interest rates and/or equity shares, only the safest of new ventures will be funded.

ronimacarroni wrote:Well there could be investments that are a bit risky but would likely be funded. Like speed rails, green technology or internet towers.


I mean what kind of response is this?? Absolutely ridiculous. It's as if he/she has absolutely no understanding of venture capital. Can you please elaborate how funding of projects would work, romina? And don't reply "democratically".

Eran wrote:Being paid zero interest rates plus suffering from the occasional credit losses means that your public credit unions would be at a severe competitive disadvantage relative to private banks.

ronimacarroni wrote:I think their credit loses would be far lower considering the fact that the investors would be the consumers.


Don't understand this response at all, romina - can you clarify please?

[quote="ronimacarroni"]On the plus side people would have democratic control over the economy though.[quote]

What?
#14270111
Eran wrote:Credit losses are an inevitable consequence of life's uncertainties.

A dynamic economy requires speculative, entrepreneurial ventures, some (of not most) of which will fail.

Without motivating investors by offering them higher interest rates and/or equity shares, only the safest of new ventures will be funded.

ronimacarroni wrote:Well there could be investments that are a bit risky but would likely be funded. Like speed rails, green technology or internet towers.


I mean what kind of response is this?? Absolutely ridiculous. It's as if he/she has absolutely no understanding of venture capital. Can you please elaborate how funding of projects would work, romina? And don't reply "democratically".

Eran wrote:Being paid zero interest rates plus suffering from the occasional credit losses means that your public credit unions would be at a severe competitive disadvantage relative to private banks.

ronimacarroni wrote:I think their credit loses would be far lower considering the fact that the investors would be the consumers.


Don't understand this response at all, romina - can you clarify please?

ronimacarroni wrote:On the plus side people would have democratic control over the economy though.


What?
#14270113
Husky wrote:Everyone would be [magically] bound together with a urge to produce for the masterful state. Innovation would flourish (never mind any uniqueness in products would be suppressed).


If there ain't a penny in it for me then what motivation do I have to innovate and improve on anything, except for the threat of the gulag?

Mises wrote:The salesman thanks the customer for patronizing his shop and asks him to come again. But the socialists say: Be grateful to Hitler, render thanks to Stalin; be nice and submissive, then the great man will be kind to you later too.

Rei Murasame wrote:it seems to me that Democratic Socialists in this thread seem intent on banning the luxury car companies, even though those same companies at the ones that are involved in the green development projects. Toyota produces the 'Lexus' brand of high-end cars, 'Toyota' mid-end cars, and the 'Daihatsu' brand of low-end cars, but they also do from the excess revenue of those things, R&D into hybrid cars and electric cars that the leftists seem to like so much.

Precisely.
Mises wrote:Luxury is the roadmaker of progress.


It is ironic (or perhaps not) that those who most disdain authority are the most authoritarian. They are not happy unless they are king, but they wouldn't readily admit this because it goes against what they think they ought to believe. They've become what they most hated.
Mises wrote:Every socialist is a disguised dictator.
Last edited by Soix on 12 Jul 2013 16:40, edited 1 time in total.
#14270114
Conscript wrote:I'm not really worried about your ilk.

Good, I like the prospect of taking you all by surprise.

Conscript wrote:The real threat is the ruling liberal state, you're just a bunch of rabid dogs that get put down whenever you show up in force.

Apparently the liberal ruling elite are not that bad to you, since when it comes down to a firefight, the first thing you guys do is hide behind America's liberal elitist trouser leg as it firebombs Germany and nukes Japan.
#14270121
Conscript wrote:If you're at war with our revolutionary state, yes, we will ally with certain imperialists.

This is getting off topic, PM me if you want to continue.


*PM me so we can continue our purely hypothetical conversation about how the communists intend to plan a slow, painful death for the fascists?
#14270124
Conscript wrote:If you're at war with our revolutionary state, yes, we will ally with certain imperialists.

Oh, I like that euphemism, 'certain imperialists'. The Soviet Union was preparing ahead of time to break the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact, and you guys were taking supplies from the Americans and well as helping the Americans' terrorist agenda in China and Manchuria.

The only reason that the Soviets didn't get to strike first, was because National Socialist Europe caught onto what was going on and struck you first. Were it not for Adolf Hitler's fast trigger finger, the Soviets would have been all over the whole of Western Europe.
#14270134
Husky wrote:
*PM me so we can continue our purely hypothetical conversation about how the communists intend to plan a slow, painful death for the fascists?


It's actually pretty historical, but don't worry I didn't expect you to know that.
#14270277
ronimacarroni wrote:But yeah the amount of choices for consumer goods would probably go down.
You wouldn't get designer jeans, you'd get normal jeans, you wouldn't get m&m's, you'd get plain chocolate, you wouldn't get a ferrari, you'd get a fuel efficient car.
Socialism is like vanilla I suppose, plain, dependable and it tastes good enough.

Well, that is how a centrally-planned kind of socialism would work, where the state decides what gets produced and what doesn't. On the other hand, under libertarian socialism, there would be in many ways a greater variety of goods produced, because brand names would give way to more personalized craftsmanship. What we have under capitalism is specialized factories that mass-produce a single good. It's a profitable system for the capitalist, but not conducive to creativity or variety. What we could have instead under socialism is more generalized factories in every community that could produce a variety of different goods depending on what people want to produce. Communities could trade raw materials with one another(or pay for them using mutual credit) and then use these hyper-modular factories to produce whatever their hearts desire. This would democratize creativity rather than leaving it in the hands of brand-name producers, thus allowing for a much greater variety of goods than was previously possible. Of course, there would be certain goods for which there would be less variety. One doesn't, for example, need the wide variety of toothbrushes currently available(but if one wished to be creative about it, there'd be nothing stopping them). But it would be far from the "vanilla" world you describe.
#14270325
Paradigm wrote:Well, that is how a centrally-planned kind of socialism would work, where the state decides what gets produced and what doesn't. On the other hand, under libertarian socialism, there would be in many ways a greater variety of goods produced, because brand names would give way to more personalized craftsmanship. What we have under capitalism is specialized factories that mass-produce a single good. It's a profitable system for the capitalist, but not conducive to creativity or variety. What we could have instead under socialism is more generalized factories in every community that could produce a variety of different goods depending on what people want to produce. Communities could trade raw materials with one another(or pay for them using mutual credit) and then use these hyper-modular factories to produce whatever their hearts desire. This would democratize creativity rather than leaving it in the hands of brand-name producers, thus allowing for a much greater variety of goods than was previously possible. Of course, there would be certain goods for which there would be less variety. One doesn't, for example, need the wide variety of toothbrushes currently available(but if one wished to be creative about it, there'd be nothing stopping them). But it would be far from the "vanilla" world you describe.

Well the way I see it, resources are limited, so people voting on what to do with those resources would have to make careful considerations and would be more likely to be risk averse.
Whereas capitalists can be as wasteful as the amount of money they're willing to risk.
capitalism comes at the cost of wealth inequality, instability, alienation, pollution, mental illness... though
I think I can trade in my m&m's to get rid of those things.
edit:Rei you advocate fascism. They'd probably take away your m&m's because they'd think candy makes people fat.
#14270424
ronimacarroni wrote:edit:Rei you advocate fascism. They'd probably take away your m&m's because they'd think candy makes people fat.

M&Ms are symbolic of basically candy shaped into funny shapes. If it wasn't that form of candy, it'd be something else. There is no known precedent for fascists trying to ban candy. The fascist solution to the problem has always involved aggressive media promotion of fitness, physical education in schools, and inspections at work, to keep people from gaining weight.

Regulations can also be placed on the table for limiting packet sizes.

All of this is an aside, since neither of us even eat those forms of candy anyway. I'm fine with just lollipops if they have a pink swirl on them. Or pocky. Or cake.

Image

But seriously, all jokes aside, the issue is that you democratic socialists seem to want to prevent the sale of luxury items, and when you start doing that, you are killing part of the incentive for people to bother working for you.

You really should have responded to what I said about the 'smart towns' project, rather than responding to the point about M&Ms.

The energy demands of the developing world, wher[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

It was never in reference to Epstein's suicide(Au[…]

And if we use someone’s past history as an indica[…]

The Evolution Fraud

Yes, and thank you for defining which things are […]