Socialism/Marxism and balance.

[Blind groper]

Yep.

The epitome of 'pure' capitalism was those guys who owned coal mines in Victorian Britain, and worked their miners to death. I am saying that capitalism need control, generally by the State, and that a degree of socialism is needed to provide back up for the more vulnerable members of society.

'Pure' capitalism, and 'pure' socialism are both disasters for society.

[Seth]

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determined, that the class struggle is the basic agency of historical change, and that capitalism will ultimately be superceded by communism.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.

And Socialism is the economic model proposed and used by Marxists worldwide in their struggle to attain utopian communism.

I have two points to make from these definitions.

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

Indeed. Socialism is the child of Marxism. It's the practical implementation of the Marxist dialectic. Or didn't you know that? They are different because one is a political and economic theory, or more accurately a political theology, whereas Socialism is part of the actual economic and political blueprint for achieving the Marxist ideal society: Communism.

So, while they are different things, Socialism inevitably flows from Marxist ideology and the Marxist dialectic, and is therefore properly categorized as "Marxism" because to do otherwise is to, as you have tried unsuccessfully to do, deny the roots and influence of Marxism on all Socialist societies.

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

Please demonstrate how. The core fundamental precept of socialism is, as YOU quoted, " 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."

I see no room for capitalism in that definition of Socialism. Capitalism = profit. Ergo socialism is entirely antithetical to capitalism.

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.

That's not socialism.

A socialist can, and most do, reject Marxism.

That's because they are Marxist useful idiots.

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

Not possible I'm afraid because capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive economic models.

There are no good parts of Marxism, and Socialism is fruit of the poisonous tree, so you're wrong. Wishy-washy Socialists can try to obscure the roots and influence of Marxism in all Socialist societies by plastering a veneer of capitalism over the surface of the Marxist ideology, but it's a thin coat of capitalism that does not survive long once the dependent class learns that it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. Viz: Greece.

[Seth]

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

Well, since none of you can effectively refute my arguments I see no reason to change my views.

[Seth]

Forget what?

The idea that Seth is susceptible to education.

Not by you most certainly. You're far too ignorant to be of any educational value to me. You may serve as an excellent example of evasive unreason and illogic to the callow lurker who doesn't understand the Marxist dialectic, the first principle of which is, "Never talk about Marxism."

[Seth]

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.

I don't see the "error of my ways" because I am not in error, you are.

[Seth]

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.

If it's a sheep, I call it a sheep. If it's a goat, I call it a goat. The fact that you don't understand what you are is not my problem.

[pErvinalia]

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.

And Socialism is the economic model proposed and used by Marxists worldwide in their struggle to attain utopian communism.

Marxism is WAY more than just socialism. This is why you are so clueless about these issues. Marxism purports to be a social science and proponents believe they can predict the future because somethign something science. It's as stupid as praxeology from the nutbag libertarians. Marxism is horribly elitist, and is probably the reason why most socialism experiments wind up as authoritarian dictatorships. It's the natural extension of thinking that the people will forever be too stupid to look after themselves. If you had any real practical experience with Marxism and socialism, you'd know that most socialists and anarchists don't want Marxists anywhere near their protest movements. True socialism, the ideology that pre-dated Marxism, is a bottom up democratic process. Basically, if able to be fully implemented, would be indistinguishable from true communism (and anarchism). Marxism is an entirely different beast all together, although it does profess to get to the same end point (but with no suprises, fails every time).

I have two points to make from these definitions.

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

Indeed. Socialism is the child of Marxism.

Wow, that's some genius there. Socialism pre-dated Marxism. Not sure how the father is supposed to be the child. Only in Seth-world I guess...

It's the practical implementation of the Marxist dialectic. Or didn't you know that? They are different because one is a political and economic theory, or more accurately a political theology, whereas Socialism is part of the actual economic and political blueprint for achieving the Marxist ideal society: Communism.

You are literally clueless. Please close rationalia.com down now, and do some fucking reading in this subject. Socialism is the political and economic ideology, and Marxism is the "scientific" theory of society. Marxism asserts that the path to communism will be achieved in only one way, because something something science. It's basically the equivalent to Libertarianism from the other side. i.e. Insane.

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

Please demonstrate how. The core fundamental precept of socialism is, as YOU quoted, " 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."

I see no room for capitalism in that definition of Socialism. Capitalism = profit. Ergo socialism is entirely antithetical to capitalism.

You can clearly have a mix of both. And as history shows, capitalism chips away at socialism in every state, including the scandinavian social democracies and even more extreme, China.

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.

That's not socialism.

I agree with you here. I actually get a bit sick of people calling taxation socialism. Socialism is when the state (or groups of citizens/workers) own the means of production.

A socialist can, and most do, reject Marxism.

That's because they are Marxist useful idiots.

That's because santa claus exists. <------ That has the same amount of critical reasoning as your idiotic refrains about "useful idiots" do.

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

Not possible I'm afraid because capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive economic models.

Doesn't mean they can't exist mutually exclusively. Parts of society are state owned and operate for no profit, and other parts are owned by capital and operated for profit. Why is it you think this can't happen, given it clearly happens in most countries in the world?

There are no good parts of Marxism,

Hey, look, we agree! Well, Marx's critique of capitalism has value. But the "science" of Marxism is basically evil, as far as I am concerned.

Wishy-washy Socialists can try to obscure the roots and influence of Marxism in all Socialist societies by plastering a veneer of capitalism over the surface of the Marxist ideology, but it's a thin coat of capitalism that does not survive long once the dependent class learns that it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. Viz: Greece.

You are simply factually wrong, Seth. There is no country in the world becoming more socialist as opposed to more capitalist (neoliberal, to be precise) that I am aware of. Greece, is most certainly not socialist, given they are now suffering under one of the most harshest neoliberal economic regimes in the world.

[Seth]

Marxism is WAY more than just socialism.

Marxism is the philosophy and the goal, Socialism is but one stage of society enroute to that ultimate goal.

This is why you are so clueless about these issues.

Is it really necessary for you to be so consistently insulting?

Marxism purports to be a social science and proponents believe they can predict the future because somethign something science.

Yup.

It's as stupid as praxeology from the nutbag libertarians.

I wouldn't know about that.

Marxism is horribly elitist, and is probably the reason why most socialism experiments wind up as authoritarian dictatorships.

Indeed. It substitutes the elitism of the proletarian intelligentsia for the elitism of hereditary monarchy. You have to remember the context within which Marx formulated his theories.

It's the natural extension of thinking that the people will forever be too stupid to look after themselves.

Not exactly. Marxist philosophy holds that the proletariat must be in control rather than a hereditary elite, but practically speaking Marxist philosophy always comes to a screeching halt at State Socialism for precisely the reason you state.

If you had any real practical experience with Marxism and socialism, you'd know that most socialists and anarchists don't want Marxists anywhere near their protest movements.

Unfortunately, they cannot avoid it, which is why I call them "useful idiots of Marxism."

True socialism, the ideology that pre-dated Marxism, is a bottom up democratic process. Basically, if able to be fully implemented, would be indistinguishable from true communism (and anarchism). Marxism is an entirely different beast all together, although it does profess to get to the same end point (but with no suprises, fails every time).

Yes, "true" socialism is as you describe it, but no true socialist society has ever existed for long. Marx infected the democratic notions of socialism with the class struggle and operative principles of Marxist socialism and socialism has never been able to recover from that infection. But socialism itself, even in this pure form you refer to, is still inherently evil precisely because it is a "bottom up democratic process." All forms of socialism place the collective above the individual by definition. Doing so is inherently immoral and evil.

I have two points to make from these definitions.

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

Indeed. Socialism is the child of Marxism.

Wow, that's some genius there. Socialism pre-dated Marxism. Not sure how the father is supposed to be the child. Only in Seth-world I guess...

Perhaps I should have said that all post-Marx forms of socialism are the children of Marxism.

It's the practical implementation of the Marxist dialectic. Or didn't you know that? They are different because one is a political and economic theory, or more accurately a political theology, whereas Socialism is part of the actual economic and political blueprint for achieving the Marxist ideal society: Communism.

You are literally clueless. Please close rationalia.com down now, and do some fucking reading in this subject. Socialism is the political and economic ideology, and Marxism is the "scientific" theory of society. Marxism asserts that the path to communism will be achieved in only one way, because something something science. It's basically the equivalent to Libertarianism from the other side. i.e. Insane.

Marxism is much more than that. And modern socialism is the progeny of the Marxist dialectic.

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

Please demonstrate how. The core fundamental precept of socialism is, as YOU quoted, " 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."

I see no room for capitalism in that definition of Socialism. Capitalism = profit. Ergo socialism is entirely antithetical to capitalism.

You can clearly have a mix of both. And as history shows, capitalism chips away at socialism in every state, including the scandinavian social democracies and even more extreme, China.

Soooo...what you're saying is that capitalism is diametrically opposed to socialism "in every state" and that therefore it "chips away" at socialism. This corrosive effect of capitalism on socialism demonstrates that what occurs is not a harmonious blending of the two ideologies and economic theories. As capitalism chips away at socialism, eventually (hopefully) capitalistic principles destroy the raison d'être of socialism and is victorious over socialism.

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.

That's not socialism.

I agree with you here. I actually get a bit sick of people calling taxation socialism. Socialism is when the state (or groups of citizens/workers) own the means of production.

Well, that's one part of socialism, but not the entirety.

A socialist can, and most do, reject Marxism.

That's because they are Marxist useful idiots.

That's because santa claus exists. <------ That has the same amount of critical reasoning as your idiotic refrains about "useful idiots" do.

Marxist useful idiots are by definition incapable of understanding what "Marxist useful idiots" actually means.

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

Not possible I'm afraid because capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive economic models.

Doesn't mean they can't exist mutually exclusively. Parts of society are state owned and operate for no profit, and other parts are owned by capital and operated for profit. Why is it you think this can't happen, given it clearly happens in most countries in the world?

It's not "happening" it's "being imposed" by external political forces. Remove those external political forces supporting socialism and it disappears quite quickly and is replaced with a free-market capitalist society.

There are no good parts of Marxism,

Hey, look, we agree! Well, Marx's critique of capitalism has value. But the "science" of Marxism is basically evil, as far as I am concerned.

Wishy-washy Socialists can try to obscure the roots and influence of Marxism in all Socialist societies by plastering a veneer of capitalism over the surface of the Marxist ideology, but it's a thin coat of capitalism that does not survive long once the dependent class learns that it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. Viz: Greece.

You are simply factually wrong, Seth.

Prove it.

There is no country in the world becoming more socialist as opposed to more capitalist (neoliberal, to be precise) that I am aware of.

How about Venezuela?

Greece, is most certainly not socialist, given they are now suffering under one of the most harshest neoliberal economic regimes in the world.

Greece is intensely socialist and has been for a long, long time, which is why it's on the brink of economic ruin and why the CURRENT political powers are "neoliberal" in nature. Why do you think Greeks are rioting in the streets at the prospect of losing their state-proffered benefits?

Then again, Greece also has a sub-rosa economy that operates in parallel with the actual government. This black-market economy doesn't like taxation at all and is quite Libertarian in its operations. The fact that the two political philosophies exist in the same country does not mean that they operate well together. The no-tax segment of the Greek economy exists in direct conflict with the big-spending socialist government that bankrupted the country with social welfare, political sinecures and, worst of all, the massive waste of money that was the Olympic village, which Greece still hasn't paid for.

One cannot say that Greece is anything other than a teetering failed state, which is certainly not an endorsement of the past socialist political climate.

Of course the same is pretty much true of every other socialist state, as you imply. Except for places like Venezuela, which ARE failed Marxist states.

[Blind groper]

Socialism most certainly pre-dated Marxism. Although that depends a bit on your definitions. But, for example, certain sectors of the early Christian communities practised a kind of socialism, in which the wealthier members contributed more and that money was used to assist those who had poorer means. Of course, that form of socialism does not survive since there is no way to force people to contribute.

But socialism in a watered down form is a part of pretty much every western government, including the USA. Those socialist economies are often very successful. eg. Sweden, Norway, Switzerland.

As I said before, 'pure' socialism is a recipe for disaster, as is 'pure' capitalism. Balance and control is needed.

[pErvinalia]

Marxism is WAY more than just socialism.

Marxism is the philosophy and the goal, Socialism is but one stage of society enroute to that ultimate goal.

This is why you are so clueless about these issues.

Is it really necessary for you to be so consistently insulting?

While ever you are consistently making daft assertions, yes it is. You don't have the right to troll most of the year, and then for a short period try and be a critical thinker and expect everyone to respect you, particularly when your critical thinking skills are shithouse.

It's as stupid as praxeology from the nutbag libertarians.

I wouldn't know about that.

Well you should look into it, because it's the same kind of faux-science in an attempt to lend legitimacy to a frankly evil ideology. On the right it's based on the "rational actor" furphy, and on the Marxist left it is based on a belief that assessing the past of a chaotic system means we can predict the future of a chaotic system.

Marxism is horribly elitist, and is probably the reason why most socialism experiments wind up as authoritarian dictatorships.

Indeed. It substitutes the elitism of the proletarian intelligentsia for the elitism of hereditary monarchy. You have to remember the context within which Marx formulated his theories.

You are agreeing with me with stuff, but you are not seeing how this makes the distinction between Marxism and socialism. Socialism is democratic (for better or worse), it has nothing at all to do with elitism.

It's the natural extension of thinking that the people will forever be too stupid to look after themselves.

Not exactly. Marxist philosophy holds that the proletariat must be in control rather than a hereditary elite, but practically speaking Marxist philosophy always comes to a screeching halt at State Socialism for precisely the reason you state.

It may or may not have started out that way, but today they truly do believe Lenin's words literally concerning the "proletariat". They really do believe that the proletariat can't ever be educated enough to run their own revolution (and subsequent system).

If you had any real practical experience with Marxism and socialism, you'd know that most socialists and anarchists don't want Marxists anywhere near their protest movements.

Unfortunately, they cannot avoid it, which is why I call them "useful idiots of Marxism."

And why I call you a straight out "idiot". "Marxist useful idiots" isn't a reasoned argument. It's a throwaway piece of empty rhetoric. You may as well say "santa claus" to us.

And your statement that "they cannot avoid it", reeks of the same sort of bogus scientific determinism that Marxists try and hoist on the rest of us. It isn't at all surprising that a libertarian identifies with a Marxist. They are basically the same category of thing, fighting for a different outcome that would ultimately lead to the same type of system. I.e. a plutocracy.

True socialism, the ideology that pre-dated Marxism, is a bottom up democratic process. Basically, if able to be fully implemented, would be indistinguishable from true communism (and anarchism). Marxism is an entirely different beast all together, although it does profess to get to the same end point (but with no suprises, fails every time).

Yes, "true" socialism is as you describe it, but no true socialist society has ever existed for long. Marx infected the democratic notions of socialism with the class struggle and operative principles of Marxist socialism and socialism has never been able to recover from that infection.

That was true in the past when social conditions were totally different from today. This is the problem with Marxists (and libertarians too) - they don't account for modern humanity and society.

But socialism itself, even in this pure form you refer to, is still inherently evil precisely because it is a "bottom up democratic process." All forms of socialism place the collective above the individual by definition. Doing so is inherently immoral and evil.

It's not "inherently" anything. It's YOUR opinion that it is evil.

It's the practical implementation of the Marxist dialectic. Or didn't you know that? They are different because one is a political and economic theory, or more accurately a political theology, whereas Socialism is part of the actual economic and political blueprint for achieving the Marxist ideal society: Communism.

You are literally clueless. Please close rationalia.com down now, and do some fucking reading in this subject. Socialism is the political and economic ideology, and Marxism is the "scientific" theory of society. Marxism asserts that the path to communism will be achieved in only one way, because something something science. It's basically the equivalent to Libertarianism from the other side. i.e. Insane.

Marxism is much more than that. And modern socialism is the progeny of the Marxist dialectic.

That's simply false. There is no monolithic "modern socialism" theory. There are many ideas and movements based around socialism. Most of them can get along together, because they don't push faux-scientific theories into the arena. That's why Marxists are so pillaried by the left (something which you are totally clueless about, being an isolated extreme right winger).

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

Please demonstrate how. The core fundamental precept of socialism is, as YOU quoted, " 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."

I see no room for capitalism in that definition of Socialism. Capitalism = profit. Ergo socialism is entirely antithetical to capitalism.

You can clearly have a mix of both. And as history shows, capitalism chips away at socialism in every state, including the scandinavian social democracies and even more extreme, China.

Soooo...what you're saying is that capitalism is diametrically opposed to socialism "in every state" and that therefore it "chips away" at socialism. This corrosive effect of capitalism on socialism demonstrates that what occurs is not a harmonious blending of the two ideologies and economic theories. As capitalism chips away at socialism, eventually (hopefully) capitalistic principles destroy the raison d'être of socialism and is victorious over socialism.

Who cares if it is "harmonious" or not? Stop moving the goalposts. You claimed that they can't coexist. That's clearly wrong.

A socialist can, and most do, reject Marxism.

That's because they are Marxist useful idiots.

That's because santa claus exists. <------ That has the same amount of critical reasoning as your idiotic refrains about "useful idiots" do.

Marxist useful idiots are by definition incapable of understanding what "Marxist useful idiots" actually means.

von Mises useful idiots are by definition incapable of understanding what "von Mises usefule idiots" actually means.

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

Not possible I'm afraid because capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive economic models.

Doesn't mean they can't exist mutually exclusively. Parts of society are state owned and operate for no profit, and other parts are owned by capital and operated for profit. Why is it you think this can't happen, given it clearly happens in most countries in the world?

It's not "happening" it's "being imposed" by external political forces.

Bullshit! It's being imposed from the bottom up. I.e the citizenry. Despite me having virtually zero respect for most politicians, there is no doubt that they do represent the will of the people in this regard in maintaining a welfare state. The people themselves see how much more healthy a society is when we look after the less wealthy and disadvantaged. People can see that the Scandinavian democracies are the happiest, healthiest, most stable societies in the world, and realise that this is because of the welfare state.

There are no good parts of Marxism,

Hey, look, we agree! Well, Marx's critique of capitalism has value. But the "science" of Marxism is basically evil, as far as I am concerned.

Wishy-washy Socialists can try to obscure the roots and influence of Marxism in all Socialist societies by plastering a veneer of capitalism over the surface of the Marxist ideology, but it's a thin coat of capitalism that does not survive long once the dependent class learns that it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. Viz: Greece.

You are simply factually wrong, Seth.

Prove it.

I did. China. And every other nation in the world (except maybe Venezuela, which I'm not knowledgeable enough about to comment on).

Greece, is most certainly not socialist, given they are now suffering under one of the most harshest neoliberal economic regimes in the world.

Greece is intensely socialist and has been for a long, long time, which is why it's on the brink of economic ruin and why the CURRENT political powers are "neoliberal" in nature. Why do you think Greeks are rioting in the streets at the prospect of losing their state-proffered benefits?

Then again, Greece also has a sub-rosa economy that operates in parallel with the actual government. This black-market economy doesn't like taxation at all and is quite Libertarian in its operations. The fact that the two political philosophies exist in the same country does not mean that they operate well together. The no-tax segment of the Greek economy exists in direct conflict with the big-spending socialist government that bankrupted the country with social welfare, political sinecures and, worst of all, the massive waste of money that was the Olympic village, which Greece still hasn't paid for.

Greece is not socialist. It can't be when it is operating under austerity economics. It's a great example of how neoliberalism wins out against "socialism". Exactly opposite to what you claim happens.

[JimC]

In practical terms, it comes down to what aspects of society should be owned and controlled by the state, and which by private enterprise. Here is my take:

1. Definitely owned & operated by private enterprise (but regulated by the state, for example for health & safety plus environmental issues)
* most industries producing material goods
* mining
* farms, commercial fishing etc.
* most service & entertainment industries (with room for a state owned broadcaster such as the BBC or ABC in the mix)
* power generation (with a role for the state in the distribution network)

2. Partnerships between state & private companies
* planning and owning road & rail networks should be a state affair, but with private companies tendering to build new roads etc. as required, or to manage a rail service
* ports and airports, in a similar way to above
* defence industries (major ones at least)

3. Some owned by state, some by private enterprise
* education (room for private schools & universities to fill niche roles)
* health; there must be a network of public hospitals available to all, but with room for private clinics, hospitals and other medical services as well

4. State owned & run in entirety
* all aspects of state finances such as taxation
* environmental monitoring
* defence & security
* foreign affairs
* social services (with room for sub-contracting to a non-government organisation if is more efficient in some areas)

Increasingly, though, it is the difficulty in taxing global corporations that is becoming the issue of the day for national governments.

[Seth]

Socialism most certainly pre-dated Marxism. Although that depends a bit on your definitions. But, for example, certain sectors of the early Christian communities practised a kind of socialism, in which the wealthier members contributed more and that money was used to assist those who had poorer means. Of course, that form of socialism does not survive since there is no way to force people to contribute.

That's precisely why it's not socialism of any stripe. One might say that Christianity is an excellent example of Libertarianism in action. Nobody forces anybody to do anything they don't want to do, which is the antithesis of socialism. Remember, collective action is not the same thing as collectivism and social actions are not the same thing as socialism, which by definition uses force to coerce desired behavior.

But socialism in a watered down form is a part of pretty much every western government, including the USA. Those socialist economies are often very successful. eg. Sweden, Norway, Switzerland.

They aren't quite as successful as you might like to think, and as I've said many times, socialism works just fine so long as there's plenty of OPM to cover the costs. When the OPM runs out, as it has in places like Greece and Venezuela, among others, socialism stops working and chaos ensues.

As I said before, 'pure' socialism is a recipe for disaster, as is 'pure' capitalism. Balance and control is needed.

I would not disagree with this statement at all, only at the implication that socialism is the proper way to leaven capitalism. It's not.

[Seth]

In practical terms, it comes down to what aspects of society should be owned and controlled by the state, and which by private enterprise. Here is my take:

1. Definitely owned & operated by private enterprise (but regulated by the state, for example for health & safety plus environmental issues)
* most industries producing material goods
* mining
* farms, commercial fishing etc.
* most service & entertainment industries (with room for a state owned broadcaster such as the BBC or ABC in the mix)
* power generation (with a role for the state in the distribution network)

2. Partnerships between state & private companies
* planning and owning road & rail networks should be a state affair, but with private companies tendering to build new roads etc. as required, or to manage a rail service
* ports and airports, in a similar way to above
* defence industries (major ones at least)

3. Some owned by state, some by private enterprise
* education (room for private schools & universities to fill niche roles)
* health; there must be a network of public hospitals available to all, but with room for private clinics, hospitals and other medical services as well

4. State owned & run in entirety
* all aspects of state finances such as taxation
* environmental monitoring
* defence & security
* foreign affairs
* social services (with room for sub-contracting to a non-government organisation if is more efficient in some areas)

Increasingly, though, it is the difficulty in taxing global corporations that is becoming the issue of the day for national governments.

Don't mistake ownership and control by the state as being the equivalent of socialism. It's not. The state is perfectly able to own and control things in a Libertarian world. The difference is primarily in how the costs associated with those things are met. In socialism funding government is mandatory and coercive. In Libertarianism, funding government is voluntary and optional.

[pErvinalia]

Socialism most certainly pre-dated Marxism. Although that depends a bit on your definitions. But, for example, certain sectors of the early Christian communities practised a kind of socialism, in which the wealthier members contributed more and that money was used to assist those who had poorer means. Of course, that form of socialism does not survive since there is no way to force people to contribute.

That's precisely why it's not socialism of any stripe. One might say that Christianity is an excellent example of Libertarianism in action. Nobody forces anybody to do anything they don't want to do, which is the antithesis of socialism.

No it isn't. If you had of said "state socialism" or "Marxism" then sure.

But socialism in a watered down form is a part of pretty much every western government, including the USA. Those socialist economies are often very successful. eg. Sweden, Norway, Switzerland.

They aren't quite as successful as you might like to think, and as I've said many times, socialism works just fine so long as there's plenty of OPM to cover the costs. When the OPM runs out, as it has in places like Greece and Venezuela, among others, socialism stops working and chaos ensues.

What OPM?? Norway has zero debt and a growing economy. I'm surprised you fall for the old fallacy of wealth being a zero sum game.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Don't mistake ownership and control by the state as being the equivalent of socialism. It's not. The state is perfectly able to own and control things in a Libertarian world. The difference is primarily in how the costs associated with those things are met. In socialism funding government is mandatory and coercive. In Libertarianism, funding government is voluntary and optional.

Well then, you have an utterly different definition of socialism to the rest of the world. The essence of socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the people/state. You have a bee in your bonnet about the nature of government taxation. In a pure socialist state (which certainly does not exist at the moment), the question of "taxation" is moot - the state owns everything anyway. All current societies have systems of taxation which are coercive, and to one degree or another, involve some form of re-distribution of wealth, which I know is your pet hate.

I can agree that a taxation system which leans too heavily in the form of re-distribution of wealth to eliminate poverty can become a disaster, for 2 clear reasons. Firstly, by excessively punishing private profit, it could cripple innovation, and secondly, it can set a mentality of welfare entitlement in concrete, neither of which is healthy. However, some degree of progressive taxation is adopted by all developed countries - the degree to which it is done is part of the whole process of a society finding an equilibrium that works, and an electorate rewarding or punishing political parties that stray too far from the accepted balance.

By constantly referring to socialism and/or marxism, you are attacking a straw man which rotted away many decades ago - the experiment with marxism was tried, found wanting, and abandoned. You have every right to argue for minimalist government, reduced interference with the private lives of citizens, and a taxation system to one end of the normal curve, but your ideas are not diktats from on high, they are legitimate arguments which you propel into the marketplace of public opinion, where they will compete with other ideas, and reach whatever their natural position of public acceptance will be...

Let the market decide, Seth...