meatcleaver
Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:
I said the west's wealth was stolen, not the USA's and I said that on purpose, meaning that (all) western capital and success was built on the back of theft, exploitation and the control of markets. One of the reasons for the west's current state of uncertainty is that the west is losing its grip of the control of the markets.
MC,
Not letting you off the hook with that response. Who's the "west" in your definition. Since you differentiate the 'west' as a negative example, where is the example of a current 'State' of contrast not built or established on "wealth stolen"? Or is your position based purely on a Marx theory without ever having a real world working example? Will your rationalization be that power and third world resources were never given the same opportunity? Who is to be held responsible for that?
Without the abuses of power, the exploitation and theft of resources by capitalism and imperial powers, there would never have been any Marxist theory. Marxist theory was an analysis of capitalism, prompted by its abuse, exploitation and theft of resources. Marxism was a response to capitalism and as Marx pointed out, he was not a Marxist, he was a philosopher and political theorist who hadn't reached any definitive conclusions, though without Marx, the west would be very different today, even the US has been influenced by some Marxist ideas.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
I'd argue that the "west" is loosing its grip because the current generation has been protected from the experiences of the prior generation. A deliberate and well intentioned goal that my parents had for me was that I didn't experience what they did while living through a Depression or a World War. I'm not saying those experiences are necessary and should be required; but coming through a positive application of heat creates steal. Just throwing iron and coal together doesn't get the same result. A consequence we are experiencing is a generation expecting entitlement without effort, failure without consequence.
Through the depression and the war, the west still controled the world markets, that was the war was about, who controls them was who had the power. Japanese race to modernisation and militarism was a direct result of being forced to open its borders to the west (in this case by the US) and fear that it too would become just another western colony. Once it was powerful enough, it too wanted what the west had which is what led to WWII.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
quote:
I think this is a pretty good definition of socialism - Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Could you be any more vague? "Collective ownership", "administration"; point to a hierarchy. As a result you have a USSR model where everyone was alleged to be 'equal' except some, administrators, and collective bureaucrats were 'more equal'. So you're advocating where 'success' isn't measured by wealth or generated from effort; but rather it is a function of political affiliation and correctness to establish a higher point in the hierarchy.
I never said socialism was good, its as good as capitalism and both are bad without regulatory control. I merely pointed out to (popeye?) America doesn't have any socialist politicians. The best I have witnessed are social democracies which are a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, where the government tries to accommodate both people's ambitions and needs for the benefit of the whole. Volkswagen has proved to be a runaway post war success of social democracy has as many German industries. The irony being that the US and Britain had much to do with the design of the success of social democracy in Germany but seem unwilling to let their own citizens share the same fruits of success.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Production requires a worker, administration requires authority, changing the valued commodity from money to who you know doesn't change the bottom line result - there will always be worker and their will always be administrators. Your 'socialism' is in realty only advocating a manipulation of perspective with no different positive result possible for the individual except if it comes from how politically connected and correct they are perpetrating a concept that upon closer inspection is not to different from a capitalist construct. Except as a capitalist you know your score. As a socialist your 'score' depends on being in line on a moving target; the philosophy of the powers that be - the "administrators" you reference.
As I pointed out in another thread, I'm not a socialist but a social democrat which have, according to the OCED, created societies with the best education, best health care and the most social mobility of all devemoped nations.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
No? Put it in the context of this thread. Could a Barack Obama ever be campaigning and competitive for President of Cuba, N. Korea, China, or any country self proclaimed 'socialist'?
I doubt it in south Korea but there is demonstrated social mobility in China and Cuba but they weren't allowed to develope because of interference and threats by the west. Though more pertinent, according to the OCED, the US and UK, both the most capitalistic countries in the developed world, have the least social mobility of all the developed world.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
That makes more sense. You're not against a capitalist model your just against one that doesn't support what you personally deem important. You also want to determine what is "rich" and what is excess to be redistributed to those who you deem worthy. I can appreciate that sentiment. It isn't socialist - it's 'egotist'. Frankly I'm one of those too. I only suggest that ALL individuals have that same egotistically right for self determination, even if that determination is failure.
Capitalism has never had free markets, it developed through theft, exploitation and control of the markets, even to this day so why do you demand free markets of everyone else?
_____________________________
There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.
|
Ok who will win? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread