Your "Socialism" section/forum caught my eye

Murrmurr said:
Do you not believe a gov't can corrupt it's economic system?
Click to expand...
I believe a government will serve its ruling class. In the US that would be the top, richest capitalists. Every president has done so with the help of every Congress. To the eyes of the working class (most of whom are not very class-conscious) it commonly LOOKS like "corruption of the economic system".
 

JimBob1952 said:
I'm trying to come up with an example of a communist democracy but I'm having a hard time. Maybe you can help me out.
Click to expand...
Not a country, but part of one. The "Red Regions" of Italy consider themselves communist, and the Italian Communist Party (PCI) is in power and democratically elected. For example Bologna has had a democratically elected Communist government since 1945.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party
 
Verisure said:
This is very important to understand and it shouldn't be a profound issue at all but Americans...think that corruption is baked into Communist philosophy while whatever it is the US calls itself "can" be corrupted only by specific misdeeds by a ne'er-do-well who just happens to have found his/her way into political influence, and misuses it. This is why my earlier statement (post #18) met with disbelief ... and worse. :cautious:

I'll wager that your wager won't find any "takers" once the chips are down. (y)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess you have to fault a corruptible education system for that.

Currently, my rule of thumb is; if you've never heard of a country, it's probably close to perfect. That's why I yearn to visit Lichtenstein. You never ever hear about it in the news; gotta be a great place, right?
 

Senter said:
I believe a government will serve its ruling class. In the US that would be the top, richest capitalists. Every president has done so with the help of every Congress. To the eyes of the working class (most of whom are not very class-conscious) it commonly LOOKS like "corruption of the economic system".
Click to expand...
When Congress literally creates or supports laws that allow big business to monopolize a field or resources, and to build umbrellas where they can hide their taxable revenue, and they do it for gain, that doesn't just LOOK like corruption.
 
Senter said:
I believe a government will serve its ruling class. In the US that would be the top, richest capitalists. Every president has done so with the help of every Congress. To the eyes of the working class (most of whom are not very class-conscious) it commonly LOOKS like "corruption of the economic system".
Click to expand...
You admit you can’t point to a successful socialist state. Why has it failed over and over again wherever it has been tried? You don‘t know because you have never seriously tried to find out. Do us both a favor and search “failure of socialism”. Read at least 40 or 50 of the hundreds of hits and get back to me with the real reasons for failure after failure.
 
Murrmurr said:
When Congress literally creates or supports laws that allow big business to monopolize a field or resources, and to build umbrellas where they can hide their taxable revenue, and they do it for gain, that doesn't just LOOK like corruption.
Click to expand...
You seem to have not understood me. Corruption is certainly a valid characterization for what you describe, but also realize that it does serve business to the detriment of the public. That's all I'm saying. I never intended for my comments to suggest such things are not corruption. Rather, it's a class question like everything else in class society.
 
Senter said:
You seem to have not understood me. Corruption is certainly a valid characterization for what you describe, but also realize that it does serve business to the detriment of the public. That's all I'm saying. I never intended for my comments to suggest such things are not corruption. Rather, it's a class question like everything else in class society.
Click to expand...
Apparently I did misunderstand. (y)
 
ElCastor said:
You admit you can’t point to a successful socialist state. Why has it failed over and over again wherever it has been tried? You don‘t know because you have never seriously tried to find out. Do us both a favor and search “failure of socialism”. Read at least 40 or 50 of the hundreds of hits and get back to me with the real reasons for failure after failure.
Click to expand...
So you think after my 50 years of interest in socialism and following it that I'm baffled as to what happened in the USSR, China, Cuba, and other countries? Really? Instead of asking about it you attack me as "never seriously trying to find out"? You really have some nerve. Try something "revolutionary" for you: ASK! Then try reading my post HERE. THEN ask some more questions. You might actually learn something.
 
Senter said:
So you think after my 50 years of interest in socialism and following it that I'm baffled as to what happened in the USSR, China, Cuba, and other countries? Really? Instead of asking about it you attack me as "never seriously trying to find out"? You really have some nerve. Try something "revolutionary" for you: ASK! Then try reading my post HERE. THEN ask some more questions. You might actually learn something.
Click to expand...
Ask? Clearly I can learn Nothing from you.
 
ElCastor said:
Ask? Clearly I can learn Nothing from you.
Click to expand...
Right. You've been steeped in capitalist propaganda all your life as I also have, but I bothered to question it and discover things you never thought of. But you know it all. You know nothing reliable about this subject but somehow you know it all. Strange. Then please go away. Put me on "ignore".
 
Verisure said:
That requires a lot of thought. If majority rule is not respected (and has actually been circumnavigated in the examples you've given) then isn't it proof positive that Democracy, in the instance, is absent? In other words, isn't the practice of using the Electoral College anti-Democratic ... pure and simple? Fascist, maybe? Collective dictatorship? Just plain Dictatorship?
Click to expand...
The electoral college is to me a curious anachronism. It skews the process of electing a president because of some notion of states' rights. In this century I fail to see why a popular vote, conducted on a national basis, would in any way be detrimental to citizens in the smaller states.

Is there another republic anywhere else that has a system comparable to the US electoral college?
 
ElCastor said:
You admit you can’t point to a successful socialist state. Why has it failed over and over again wherever it has been tried? You don‘t know because you have never seriously tried to find out. Do us both a favor and search “failure of socialism”. Read at least 40 or 50 of the hundreds of hits and get back to me with the real reasons for failure after failure.
Click to expand...
Name one successful state with a 100% free market economy. Do a search for "failure of capitalism" and get back to us after reading 40 or 50 of the millions of hits.
 
Murrmurr said:
Yeah, I guess you have to fault a corruptible education system for that.
Click to expand...
A good start for sure. We should have a closer look. I've got an extra magnifying glass you can borrow. If we go together we can save time. As Jackie says, "I'll go this way, you go that way".
Murrmurr said:
Currently, my rule of thumb is; if you've never heard of a country, it's probably close to perfect.
Click to expand...
You might be right.
Murrmurr said:
That's why I yearn to visit Lichtenstein. You never ever hear about it in the news; gotta be a great place, right?
Click to expand...
I've been to (and through) Liechtenstein. It's a pretty place but boring. So maybe "boring" is an important element in being "close to perfect"? :)
 
SeniorBen said:
Name one successful state with a 100% free market economy. Do a search for "failure of capitalism" and get back to us after reading 40 or 50 of the millions of hits.
Click to expand...
The essence of a free market economy is freedom. Freedom of ownership, speech, and economic decisions. A free market economy is self regulating in that its members will automatically step up to satisfy needs in this or that sector. A socialist economy on the other hand is guided by instructions from the top, instructions that are often politically motivated and ill advised. If those ill advised decisions worked we wouldn’t see countries like China and Russia abandoning socialism. You socialists also are compelled by a need to regulate thought. Do you find yourself lusting after the need for hate speech laws. Those laws, and a very flexible interpretation of that word “hate”, frequently proliferate in a socialist leaning environment and spell the end of freedom of speech and thought,
 
Last edited:
ElCastor said:
The essence of a free market economy is freedom. Freedom of ownership, speech, and economic decisions. A free market economy is self regulating in that its members will automatically step up to satisfy needs in this or that sector. A socialist economy on the other hand is guided by instructions from the top, instructions that are often politically motivated and ill advised. If those I’ll advised decisions worked we wouldn’t see countries like China and Russia abandoning socialism. You socialists also are compelled by a need to regulate thought. Do you find yourself lusting after the need for hate speech laws. Those laws, and a very flexible interpretation of that word “hate”, frequently proliferate in a socialist leaning environment and spell the end of freedom of speech and thought,
Click to expand...
I repeat:
Name one successful state with a 100% free market economy. Do a search for "failure of capitalism" and get back to us after reading 40 or 50 of the millions of hits.

The theory that free markets are "self-regulating" has been totally debunked. Even Alan Greenspan admitted that his world view was wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan

And it's a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/invisiblehand.asp
 
SeniorBen said:
I repeat:
Name one successful state with a 100% free market economy. Do a search for "failure of capitalism" and get back to us after reading 40 or 50 of the millions of hits.

The theory that free markets are "self-regulating" has been totally debunked. Even Alan Greenspan admitted that his world view was wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/oct/24/economics-creditcrunch-federal-reserve-greenspan

And it's a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/invisiblehand.asp
Click to expand...
Here is a source that ranks Economic freedom. Here are the top seven - all ranked "Free":
1Singapore84.4-5.35Luxembourg80.6+4.6
2Switzerland84.2+2.36Taiwan80.1+1.5
3Ireland82.0+0.67Estonia80.0+1.8
4New Zealand
The United States is in the next group of 27, considered to be "mostly free".
Then comes Moderately Free, Mostly Unfree, and Repressed. Therein we will probably find your favorites -- Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea?
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking/
 
Murrmurr said:
I just went to Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein

If you don't trust Wikipedia, there's a list of other sources and references at the bottom of that page.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it does say that. It says free-enterprise and apparently, that's the same thing as free market. Wait... let me see where they get that from...

They don't cite their source. If you look at that Wikipedia entry on the Economy of Liechtenstein, this is what you'll find:

The Principality of Liechtenstein also is known as an important financial centre, primarily because it specializes in financial services for foreign entities. The country's low tax rate, loose incorporation and corporate governance rules, and traditions of strict bank secrecy have contributed significantly to the ability of financial intermediaries in Liechtenstein to attract funds from outside the country's borders. The same factors made the country attractive and vulnerable to money launderers, although late 2009 legislation has strengthened regulatory oversight of illicit funds transfers.[citation needed]​
​
Liechtenstein has chartered 17 banks, three non-bank financial companies, and 71 public investment companies, as well as insurance and reinsurance companies. Its 270 licensed fiduciary companies and 81 lawyers serve as nominees for, or manage, more than 73,000 entities (primarily corporations, institutions, or trusts), partly for non-Liechtenstein residents. About one-third of these entities hold the controlling interest in other entities, chartered in countries other than Liechtenstein. The Principality's laws permit the corporations it charters to issue bearer shares. Until recently, the Principality's banking laws permitted banks to issue numbered accounts, but new regulations require strict know-your-customer practices for all new accounts.[11]​

There you go. It's not exactly a "successful" free market economy when it's laden with corruption and they've enacted regulations to contain some of the abuses.
 
ElCastor said:
Here is a source that ranks Economic freedom. Here are the top seven - all ranked "Free":
1Singapore84.4-5.35Luxembourg80.6+4.6
2Switzerland84.2+2.36Taiwan80.1+1.5
3Ireland82.0+0.67Estonia80.0+1.8
4New Zealand
The United States is in the next group of 27, considered to be "mostly free".
Then comes Moderately Free, Mostly Unfree, and Repressed. Therein we will probably find your favorites -- Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea?
https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking/
Click to expand...
Singapore has its share of socialism:

The sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings holds majority stakes in several of the nation's largest bellwether companies, such as Singapore Airlines, SingTel, ST Engineering and MediaCorp. Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, or simply Temasek, is a Singaporean state holding company owned by the Government of Singapore.

The Singapore government owns two investment companies, GIC Private Limited and Temasek Holdings, which manage Singapore's reserves. Both operate as commercial investment holding companies independently of the Singapore government, but Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his wife Ho Ching serve as chairman and CEO of these corporations respectively.

In May 2022, six major banks agreed to pay $64.5 million to resolve antitrust allegations that they worked together to rig benchmark Singapore interest rates. The banks involved included Credit Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG, The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, ING Bank N.V., Citibank N.A. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Both media ownership and content are carefully regulated by the Government. Given how government-linked companies appear to exercise a near monopoly over the mainstream media in Singapore, the view has been taken that the mainstream media take a predominantly pro-PAP stance in their reporting and suppress or disregard the viewpoints of opposition parties.

They have elections in Singapore, but often they are uncontested, meaning there's only one candidate.
 
Personally, I'd prefer a hybrid system like they have in Nordic countries, which are considered social democracies. They have well regulated capitalism for most things but socialism for things that are essential to our well being, such as healthcare, education, child services, and strong labor force protections.
 
SeniorBen said:
Personally, I'd prefer a hybrid system like they have in Nordic countries, which are considered social democracies. They have well regulated capitalism for most things but socialism for things that are essential to our well being, such as healthcare, education, child services, and strong labor force protections.
Click to expand...
Well I think we know where both of us stands. What I find hard to believe is the Forum management's attitude toward a Socialism thread. At any rate, good luck in November -- you'll need it. I'm done with this topic.
 


Back
Top