Socialism/Marxism and balance.

[Blind groper]

This thread is dedicated to Seth, who needs a little education on the subject.

According to the Collins dictionary.

Marxism is : the economic and political theory and practice originated by the German political philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, that holds that actions and human institutions are economically determined, that the class struggle is the basic agency of historical change, and that capitalism will ultimately be superceded by communism.


Socialism is : 1. An economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterised by production for use rather than for profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absense of competitive economic activity,and usually by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels.
2. Any of various social and political theories in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system.
3. a transitional stage after the proletariat revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism, characterised by the distribution of income according to work rather than need.

I have two points to make from these definitions.

A. Marxism and socialism are not the same. They are very different.

B. It is entirely possible to take a part only of the socialist idea, and apply that while still applying capitalism to the rest.

This is balance. Capitalism and socialism in balance. Production and distribution of goods and services for profit, while taxation is used as a means for obtaining resources to assist those people who need extra help.

A socialist can, and most do, reject Marxism.
A socialist can have a balanced view in which he or she adopts the best parts of both capitalist and socialist ideas.

[Hermit]

Forget it, BG. Seth is terminally rusted on to his views.

[piscator]

Forget what? OP has declared that taking part in the socialist ideal of government owning and controlling production, distribution, and exchange of goods and services and letting capitalism take care of whatever remains is something he declares is "Balance".
That's real nice, but so fucking what?

[Hermit]

Forget what?

The idea that Seth is susceptible to education.

[pErvinalia]

yep.

[piscator]

That's rather presumptive.

[Hermit]

It's historically true. I'm a good inductivist turkey.

Are you by any chance expecting Seth to see the errors of his ways because of BG's - or anybody else's - posts? If so, good luck to you.

[laklak]

No more than I think BG will see the error of his because of Seth.

[Blind groper]

To laklak

At least I am not stuck on some extreme. I accept the good in both socialism and in capitalism, and the need to balance the two. Where we draw the balance point, of course, is infinitely debatable, and I am certainly not going to be obstinate about that.

[JimC]

Forget what? OP has declared that taking part in the socialist ideal of government owning and controlling production, distribution, and exchange of goods and services and letting capitalism take care of whatever remains is something he declares is "Balance".
That's real nice, but so fucking what?

Not so. In practice, most mixed economies leave the production of goods and farmed material to private enterprise, while retaining a significant government role in some parts of infrastructure development (bridges, roads, harbours etc.) and provision of community services. The exact mix is one that evolves, and is at least in part controlled by the will of the electorate, dismissing governments that do not reflect the current social view on what constitutes a workable balance.

[piscator]

Forget what? OP has declared that taking part in the socialist ideal of government owning and controlling production, distribution, and exchange of goods and services and letting capitalism take care of whatever remains is something he declares is "Balance".
That's real nice, but so fucking what?

Not so. In practice, most mixed economies leave the production of goods and farmed material to private enterprise, while retaining a significant government role in some parts of infrastructure development (bridges, roads, harbours etc.) and provision of community services. The exact mix is one that evolves, and is at least in part controlled by the will of the electorate, dismissing governments that do not reflect the current social view on what constitutes a workable balance.

OK then, accept that for the US and move on. My posts have addressed the middle school level of OP and the narcissistic presumption of some here that they can "educate" their goddamn dogs, much less other posters, in economic realities.

[laklak]

My dog figures anything I eat I should share with him. I've tried educating him, but he just goes off about capitalist oppressors and dialectic inevitability. Fucking Marxist.

[cronus]

Smells like a Communist plot to redefine America in terms of countries less free? Never trust a Commie....or a Commie map.

[pErvinalia]

That's rather presumptive.

We've been dealing with him for probably nearly 10yrs. Nothing presumptive about it. He seriously holds that everyone who isn't a full blown right libertarian, is either a Marxist or a "Marxist useful idiot". It's idiotic in the extreme.

[rainbow]

According to the Collins dictionary.

Capitalism: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.