Republicans to cut $4,000,000,000,000 over 10 years

[Seth]

mixed economies? Where? I see Statist, mixed Statist/Capitalist and Capitalist.


Show me some economies with worker owned means of production.

Russia, from 1918 to 1921, just prior to Lenin. Didn't last long. Lenin instituted "War Communism," which was totalitarian rule that essentially lasted till the collapse of the Soviet empire.

Nothing in either European or American law prevents workers from owning the means of production. All they have to do is buy it from whomever owns it, or build it from scratch, using their own investment capital.

Interestingly, in the 110 years or so since the notion was brought forward, the instances of successful worker-owned businesses, in the Marxist sense of the term, is rather small and economically insignificant, whereas the instances of capitalistic success of businesses is ubiquitous.

This is clear evidence of the economic weakness of the ideology.

On the other hand, the instances of business created by entrepreneurs spending their own money, and soliciting investment capital while they work for years building a business into one large enough to need to hire employees are innumerable. Which shows the economic strength of capitalism.

[Coito ergo sum]

I Iz Ur Demokrat - Werkin on Ur Budjet

[Warren Dew]

Interestingly, in the 110 years or so since the notion was brought forward, the instances of successful worker-owned businesses, in the Marxist sense of the term, is rather small and economically insignificant, whereas the instances of capitalistic success of businesses is ubiquitous.

United Air Lines was worker owned for a while. Of course the workers have since mostly sold off their shares.

I guess Lenin was right, an iron fisted dictatorship is needed to force the workers to maintain ownership of the means of production and keep them from becoming evil bourgeois capitalists.

[.Morticia.]

mixed economies? Where? I see Statist, mixed Statist/Capitalist and Capitalist.


Show me some economies with worker owned means of production.

Russia, from 1918 to 1921, just prior to Lenin. Didn't last long. Lenin instituted "War Communism," which was totalitarian rule that essentially lasted till the collapse of the Soviet empire.

Nothing in either European or American law prevents workers from owning the means of production. All they have to do is buy it from whomever owns it, or build it from scratch, using their own investment capital.

Interestingly, in the 110 years or so since the notion was brought forward, the instances of successful worker-owned businesses, in the Marxist sense of the term, is rather small and economically insignificant, whereas the instances of capitalistic success of businesses is ubiquitous.

This is clear evidence of the economic weakness of the ideology.

On the other hand, the instances of business created by entrepreneurs spending their own money, and soliciting investment capital while they work for years building a business into one large enough to need to hire employees are innumerable. Which shows the economic strength of capitalism.

the workers did not own the factories

[Seth]

mixed economies? Where? I see Statist, mixed Statist/Capitalist and Capitalist.


Show me some economies with worker owned means of production.

Russia, from 1918 to 1921, just prior to Lenin. Didn't last long. Lenin instituted "War Communism," which was totalitarian rule that essentially lasted till the collapse of the Soviet empire.

Nothing in either European or American law prevents workers from owning the means of production. All they have to do is buy it from whomever owns it, or build it from scratch, using their own investment capital.

Interestingly, in the 110 years or so since the notion was brought forward, the instances of successful worker-owned businesses, in the Marxist sense of the term, is rather small and economically insignificant, whereas the instances of capitalistic success of businesses is ubiquitous.

This is clear evidence of the economic weakness of the ideology.

On the other hand, the instances of business created by entrepreneurs spending their own money, and soliciting investment capital while they work for years building a business into one large enough to need to hire employees are innumerable. Which shows the economic strength of capitalism.

the workers did not own the factories

Imagine that. Wonder why that might be? Perhaps because the people who paid to build the factories might have objected to them being stolen by the workers? Or perhaps the Marxist elite just wanted to maintain power and control. What a novel concept.

So, why didn't the workers build their own factory, if the economic model is so flawless? Perhaps because they don't have the money to do so, and nobody's willing to loan them any money because they don't know what the fuck they are doing, how to build a factory or how to operate it profitably?

That's what capital investment is for, you see. People who have capital to invest to build factories don't lend it to proletarian drones who have little chance of being successful at the business, because they don't want to toss their money down the toilet. They would actually like a return on their investment as a condition of loaning it to a factory owner. What a concept, eh?

[Seth]

Interestingly, in the 110 years or so since the notion was brought forward, the instances of successful worker-owned businesses, in the Marxist sense of the term, is rather small and economically insignificant, whereas the instances of capitalistic success of businesses is ubiquitous.

United Air Lines was worker owned for a while. Of course the workers have since mostly sold off their shares.

I guess Lenin was right, an iron fisted dictatorship is needed to force the workers to maintain ownership of the means of production and keep them from becoming evil bourgeois capitalists.

Abso-fucking-lutely!

See, the reason that workers don't get together to and pool their own money to build a factory or start a company is that the vast majority of workers are seriously risk averse and simply don't want to risk their savings, much less their income, on what is always a speculative adventure.

Most people are satisfied to trade the lesser economic reward of a steady, guaranteed paycheck for the high-risk practice of investing their time and money in the possibility that they will not make a profit.

When the workers own the "means of production" it also means that if they don't produce, or what they produce doesn't sell, they don't profit, and when that happens they starve. Workers don't want to take that risk because they have families to feed and need a regular paycheck.

It's a nice-sounding idea, but the realities are far different, which is why Marxism is a revolutionary ideology and not a self-fulfilling economic truth. If Marxism worked, if the workers owning the means of production were economically useful, it would have long ago become the dominant economic model all on its own, because the laws of economics automatically favor efficiency and cost effectiveness.

[Atheist-Lite]

What is the USA except a socialist state by proxy with all these bail-outs and the socialisation of the debts of the mega-corps do nothing except turn them into soviet industrials? I would say the dollar is so corrupt now that no honest transaction can be made with and it is only a matter of time before hyper-inflation clears the shelves and brings soviet style austerity to Merica itself.

[Warren Dew]

It's a nice-sounding idea, but the realities are far different, which is why Marxism is a revolutionary ideology and not a self-fulfilling economic truth. If Marxism worked, if the workers owning the means of production were economically useful, it would have long ago become the dominant economic model all on its own, because the laws of economics automatically favor efficiency and cost effectiveness.

In fairness to Marx, at the time he was writing the industrial revolution was relatively recent, and it wasn't as clear as it is now that his theories were factually incorrect.

[Atheist-Lite]

It's a nice-sounding idea, but the realities are far different, which is why Marxism is a revolutionary ideology and not a self-fulfilling economic truth. If Marxism worked, if the workers owning the means of production were economically useful, it would have long ago become the dominant economic model all on its own, because the laws of economics automatically favor efficiency and cost effectiveness.

In fairness to Marx, at the time he was writing the industrial revolution was relatively recent, and it wasn't as clear as it is now that his theories were factually incorrect.

The change from feudalism to capitalism took a few centuries and there are are still vestiges of feudalism along with a corrupt and corrosive kind of capitalism everywhere so why should a change from capatalism to socialism be any less messy? It seems what people always want is the best of all worlds and their chosen system to supply the answer which is best. It is much less likely with the cheap oil gone and climate change on the way that modern civilization will survive and the fault of the biggest collapse in human numbers in history will be blind capatalism since that is the dominant ideology when it occurs. The survivors won't forgive capatalism Seth, they never forgave socialism for a far lesser evil.

[Coito ergo sum]

mixed economies? Where? I see Statist, mixed Statist/Capitalist and Capitalist.


Show me some economies with worker owned means of production.

Russia, from 1918 to 1921, just prior to Lenin. Didn't last long. Lenin instituted "War Communism," which was totalitarian rule that essentially lasted till the collapse of the Soviet empire.

Nothing in either European or American law prevents workers from owning the means of production. All they have to do is buy it from whomever owns it, or build it from scratch, using their own investment capital.

Interestingly, in the 110 years or so since the notion was brought forward, the instances of successful worker-owned businesses, in the Marxist sense of the term, is rather small and economically insignificant, whereas the instances of capitalistic success of businesses is ubiquitous.

This is clear evidence of the economic weakness of the ideology.

On the other hand, the instances of business created by entrepreneurs spending their own money, and soliciting investment capital while they work for years building a business into one large enough to need to hire employees are innumerable. Which shows the economic strength of capitalism.

the workers did not own the factories

Communism doesn't suggest that the workers will own the factories. Communism is where all private property and the means of production are owned communally, not just by the workers, but by everyone. You're mixing communism up with syndicalism.

[Coito ergo sum]

What is the USA except a socialist state by proxy with all these bail-outs and the socialisation of the debts of the mega-corps do nothing except turn them into soviet industrials? I would say the dollar is so corrupt now that no honest transaction can be made with and it is only a matter of time before hyper-inflation clears the shelves and brings soviet style austerity to Merica itself.

Quite possible. We are getting it in the can with inflation already. The government rigs the numbers by not taking into consideration fuel inflation and food inflation, and because the bust in the housing bubble reduced the value (and price) of homes, but the cost of goods and services that individuals need to survive is going through the roof, and it's expected to get worse. Quantitative easing is going to stick it to us.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a nice-sounding idea, but the realities are far different, which is why Marxism is a revolutionary ideology and not a self-fulfilling economic truth. If Marxism worked, if the workers owning the means of production were economically useful, it would have long ago become the dominant economic model all on its own, because the laws of economics automatically favor efficiency and cost effectiveness.

In fairness to Marx, at the time he was writing the industrial revolution was relatively recent, and it wasn't as clear as it is now that his theories were factually incorrect.

He was also writing in the context of a Europe where the people lived in absolute, utter squalor. Nobody would come up with Communist theory like Marx's in the context of European sociopolitical realities today.

[Coito ergo sum]

The dominant ideology in the world, however, is not capitalism. Not by a long shot.

[Atheist-Lite]

The dominant ideology in the world, however, is not capitalism. Not by a long shot.

Pure capaitalism, which I do find appealing, will never become dominant because like other really good ideas it is doomed to never take off since it neglects the square bat irrational human factor.

[Seth]

What is the USA except a socialist state by proxy with all these bail-outs and the socialisation of the debts of the mega-corps do nothing except turn them into soviet industrials? I would say the dollar is so corrupt now that no honest transaction can be made with and it is only a matter of time before hyper-inflation clears the shelves and brings soviet style austerity to Merica itself.

There's a good deal of truth in what you say, but that's not a function of our fundamental and historical beliefs, it's a function of subversion of the Constitution by the Progressives and Communists over the last 100 years or so.