# Your "Socialism" section/forum caught my eye



## Senter (Sep 27, 2022)

Greetings!

I've been interested in socialism for over 50 years and found it difficult to find a sensible and mature forum in which to discuss the subject.  Maybe this is the one!  I look forward to serious discussion.


----------



## Paco Dennis (Sep 27, 2022)

I am very interested in Socialism. We have all kinds of "socialist" programs in the U.S. How about Social Security and Medicare? I think a society is most healthy when the poor and disabled are looked after as the societies first priority. I think that takes cooperation not competition...or private corps/businesses administering the institutions that guide our culture. It takes people who care about a healthy and fair society.


----------



## JaniceM (Sep 27, 2022)

But be careful, politics aren't to be discussed on this forum...


----------



## JaniceM (Sep 27, 2022)

Paco Dennis said:


> I am very interested in Socialism. We have all kinds of "socialist" programs in the U.S. How about Social Security and Medicare? I think a society is most healthy when the poor and disabled are looked after as the societies first priority. I think that takes cooperation not competition...or private corps/businesses administering the institutions that guide our culture. It takes people who care about a healthy and fair society.


100% agree!!


----------



## Tish (Sep 27, 2022)

*@Senter many years ago, I had the privilege of staying on a kibbutz for 6 months, now that is true socialism, it's such a shame that there are no longer many of those left.*


----------



## RadishRose (Sep 27, 2022)

"Your "Socialism" section/forum caught my eye"

We don't have one that I know of. Maybe I'm confused?


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 27, 2022)

RadishRose said:


> "Your "Socialism" section/forum caught my eye"
> 
> We don't have one that I know of. Maybe I'm confused?


Socialism sounds more than a bit political to me. Maybe an occasional mention, but a forum topic???


----------



## Senter (Sep 27, 2022)

RadishRose said:


> "Your "Socialism" section/forum caught my eye"
> 
> We don't have one that I know of. Maybe I'm confused?


No, I think it's just hard to find.  Try THIS.


----------



## Senter (Sep 27, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Socialism sounds more than a bit political to me. Maybe an occasional mention, but a forum topic???


Yeahwell, you're right.  Try the "What is socialism" thread in the General Discussions forum.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 27, 2022)

Tish said:


> *@Senter many years ago, I had the privilege of staying on a kibbutz for 6 months, now that is true socialism, it's such a shame that there are no longer many of those left.*
> View attachment 241695



Er...why do you think that is? (That there aren't many socialist kibbutzes left)

One possibility is that true socialism (I'm not talking about social programs such as SS and Medicare) doesn't work, and never really has.


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 27, 2022)

JaniceM said:


> 100% agree!!


200% disagree. How's it working in Venezuela or maybe Cuba? In fact, where in the world is true Marxist Socialism flourishing?


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 27, 2022)

Senter said:


> Yeahwell, you're right.  Try the "What is socialism" thread in the General Discussions forum.



Theoretically, socialism is supposed to be an economic concept, not political.  But real life intrudes.


----------



## Senter (Sep 27, 2022)

JimBob1952 said:


> Theoretically, socialism is supposed to be an economic concept, not political.  But real life intrudes.


Actually since socialism is necessarily a socio-economic system, it has to be both.


----------



## Paco Dennis (Sep 27, 2022)

Thread

https://www.seniorforums.com/threads/what-is-socialism.61207/


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 27, 2022)

Senter said:


> Actually since socialism is necessarily a socio-economic system, it has to be both.



You're right, of course.  Just trying to toe the line on the "no politics" rule.  The SF admin folks hate my posts and take every opportunity they can to delete them or to close threads on which I'm active.


----------



## Senter (Sep 27, 2022)

JimBob1952 said:


> You're right, of course.  Just trying to toe the line on the "no politics" rule.  The SF admin folks hate my posts and take every opportunity they can to delete them or to close threads on which I'm active.


Understood.  But where is the "no politics" rule found?  It isn't in "Terms and rules" but it is found as part of the "description" of the "Current News & Hot Topics" forum.   I must have missed it.


----------



## Pink Biz (Sep 27, 2022)

Senter said:


> Understood.  *But where is the "no politics" rule found?*  It isn't in "Terms and rules" but it is found as part of the "description" of the "Current News & Hot Topics" forum.   I must have missed it.


Thread 'Notice:  All Members Please Read' https://www.seniorforums.com/threads/notice-all-members-please-read.5265/


----------



## Verisure (Sep 27, 2022)

Senter said:


> Greetings!
> 
> I've been interested in socialism for over 50 years and found it difficult to find a sensible and mature forum in which to discuss the subject.  Maybe this is the one!  I look forward to serious discussion.


There is nothing wrong with Communism, Capitalism or Socialism. They all had to have been good ideas otherwise no one would have agreed with them. So, any criticism is based upon either preferring one over the other or finding discrepancies with regard to corruption in any one of them.


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 27, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> 200% disagree. How's it working in Venezuela or maybe Cuba? In fact, where in the world is true Marxist Socialism flourishing?


Where in the world is true unfettered capitalism "flourishing?"


----------



## Bella (Sep 27, 2022)

Pink Biz said:


> *Thread 'Notice:  All Members Please Read'* https://www.seniorforums.com/threads/notice-all-members-please-read.5265/


Good try, Miz Biz!  Of course, you know that you might as well be p*ssing in the wind. _Nobody gonna pay no mind._ They just keep at it ad nauseam, as long as they can get away with it!


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 27, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Where in the world is true unfettered capitalism "flourishing?"



No one (at least no one I know) wants true unfettered capitalism.  We prefer free market capitalism with sensible regulations and, preferably, a strong social safety net to protect those who can't fend for themselves.  

That formula has worked pretty well for Western Europe and the British Commonwealth, as well as Japan, Korea, Singapore and some other countries.

The US is a special case.  We create vast quantities of wealth and innovations that help the world, but we also have serious problems.  Some of these are no doubt related to "unfettered capitalism" and others are the legacy of slavery, mistreatment of Native Americans, segregation and many other ills of the past and present.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 27, 2022)

I've noticed that when people talk about the merits of socialism they are really praising what might be called Social Democracy, which combines a market economy (capitalism) with strong social programs and a higher level of worker involvement in labor policies.  Which is great, it's just a question of how far to take it.


----------



## Pink Biz (Sep 27, 2022)

Bella said:


> Good try, Miz Biz!  Of course, you know that you might as well be p*ssing in the wind. _Nobody gonna pay no mind._ They just keep at it ad nauseam, as long as they can get away with it!


You're right, but I was just trying to help out a new member.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 27, 2022)

There seem to be a lot of gray areas in the no politics rule.  I think that so long as the discussions were more general or theoretical and did not involve current politicians or the like you might be ok.  Also can't lead to heated personal attacks, politics or not.  You could check with @Matrix the site manager.

@Senter I'd be interested.  I am a skeptic with respect to socialism, but always open to reasoned discussion where I might learn something.


----------



## senior chef (Sep 27, 2022)

JimBob1952 said:


> I've noticed that when people talk about the merits of socialism they are really praising what might be called Social Democracy, which combines a market economy (capitalism) with strong social programs and a higher level of worker involvement in labor policies.  Which is great, it's just a question of how far to take it.



*EXACTLY !*

I am, of course, in favor of social programs which care for the retired and the disabled. And, to a certain extent to the poorest of the poor. 
However, when socialism effects a healthy market economy , I am EXTREMELY leery.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 27, 2022)

JimBob1952 said:


> I've noticed that when people talk about the merits of socialism they are really praising what might be called Social Democracy, which combines a market economy (capitalism) with strong social programs and a higher level of worker involvement in labor policies.  Which is great, it's just a question of how far to take it.


Social democracy pretty much describes the Australian system. Capitalism thrives here but we have various safety nets to catch people who are not thriving in the economic system for various reasons.

One example is the pharmaceutical benefit scheme (PBS). For many prescription only drugs the government enters into a price agreement with the manufacturers and then subsidises the cost of the drug for the customer. All prescription drugs are then charged to the customer at the same price. The price is lower for pensioners and low income customers such as students. On top of that, for people who need a lot of scripts, the cumulative amount spent is tallied and when it reaches a certain amount all other scripts for the rest of the year are free of charge.  Hubby and I are treated as one unit and since our individual expenditures are tallied together, we have already reached the safety net limit, we now have nothing to pay for prescription medications for the rest of this year.  No-one has to go without important medications under this system.


----------



## Nathan (Sep 27, 2022)

JimBob1952 said:


> You're right, of course.  Just trying to toe the line on the "no politics" rule.  The SF admin folks hate my posts and take every opportunity they can to delete them or to close threads on which I'm active.


Really?  I wonder why...


----------



## Nathan (Sep 27, 2022)

Verisure said:


> There is nothing wrong with *Communism, Capitalism or Socialism*. They all had to have been good ideas otherwise no one would have agreed with them. So, any criticism is based upon either preferring one over the other or finding discrepancies with regard to corruption in any one of them.


These days most socio-economic systems have become a hybrid, combining features from the 3 sets of thought.  The People's Republic of  China is a socialist state governed by a communist party.  According to the Cato Institute China is a Capitalist country,a fusion of authoritarianism with capitalism to form the "new communism".


----------



## Senter (Sep 27, 2022)

Bella said:


> Good try, Miz Biz!  Of course, you know that you might as well be p*ssing in the wind. _Nobody gonna pay no mind._ They just keep at it ad nauseam, as long as they can get away with it!


Yep, well, in retrospect isn't it rather "interesting" that there's a thread with the title "What is socialism?" ?  Seems like a contradiction.  I mean a discussion of socialism will always be largely a political discussion.  Yet there's that rule.


----------



## mike4lorie (Sep 27, 2022)

G'day, and Welcome!


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 27, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Where in the world is true unfettered capitalism "flourishing?"


Capitalism is what -- a loosely defined economic system of varying degrees of purity - one of private ownership of the means of production and pricing in an open and competitive market place -- a market place with some, but minimal, government interference. The United states, while not entirely unfettered by those who promote governmental interference in the market place and seek to regulate ownership of private property, has been a guiding light in this regard for the rest of the world. Experiments in government ownership of private property and the means of production, commonly regarded as socialism, have been met with failure and have been forced to adopt many of the attributes of free enterprise --  such as Russia and the members of their Soviet Socialist Union, China, Venezuela, and the National Socialism of Hitler's Germany. 

I know what is coming next, so please don't hesitate to trot out the Nordic states.


----------



## Lavinia (Sep 27, 2022)

JimBob1952 said:


> Er...why do you think that is? (That there aren't many socialist kibbutzes left)
> 
> One possibility is that true socialism (I'm not talking about social programs such as SS and Medicare) doesn't work, and never really has.


I've always wondered how the system affected the children. Do children who are raised by several people rather than one find it difficult to bond with someone and form lasting relationships?


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 28, 2022)

Nathan said:


> These days most socio-economic systems have become a hybrid, combining features from the 3 sets of thought.  The People's Republic of  China is a socialist state governed by a communist party.  According to the Cato Institute China is a Capitalist country,a fusion of authoritarianism with capitalism to form the "new communism".


I've heard the Chinese economy described as "government run capitalism."


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 28, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Capitalism is what -- a loosely defined economic system of varying degrees of purity - one of private ownership of the means of production and pricing in an open and competitive market place -- a market place with some, but minimal, government interference. The United states, while not entirely unfettered by those who promote governmental interference in the market place and seek to regulate ownership of private property, has been a guiding light in this regard for the rest of the world. Experiments in government ownership of private property and the means of production, commonly regarded as socialism, have been met with failure and have been forced to adopt many of the attributes of free enterprise --  such as Russia and the members of their Soviet Socialist Union, China, Venezuela, and the National Socialism of Hitler's Germany.
> 
> I know what is coming next, so please don't hesitate to trot out the Nordic states.


Socialism is where the people control the means of production, which may be the government if the country has a true democracy. It's not socialism when a dictator has control over everything and the people don't have a say.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 28, 2022)

Nathan said:


> These days most socio-economic systems have become a hybrid, combining features from the 3 sets of thought.  The People's Republic of  China is a socialist state governed by a communist party.  According to the Cato Institute China is a Capitalist country,a fusion of authoritarianism with capitalism to form the "new communism".


All true, but few people (Americans in particular) have not as much as a clue and that's why they echo McCarthy-ish cliches and cannot pronounce words such as  *"China"* or *"Cuba"*. They seem to believe they are called *"Communist China"* and *"Communist Cuba"*.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Sep 28, 2022)

A lot of good discussion here.  I have a light background in economics, so I understand the theoretical fundamentals of both economic systems. 

In my job I was required to travel around the world and work with divisions of our company that were in other countries.  I got to see much of these counties and work with many levels of staff who lived in these countries.   I was born and raised in the USA.   I spent time in China, Russian, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Sweden, Germany, etc.   

When talking about economic systems, as many have already said, Socialist countries are not purely socialized economies and free market countries are not purely free market economies.   

But one observation I made.  The individuals living and working in Russia and China had much less wealth than in America.  All other countries I spent time in seemed that individuals had more than either China or Russia also.  But each of these countries have more 'socialization' than in America, and their individual lifestyles were still below what Americans have in general.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 28, 2022)

This is a purely personal observation.  The only country other than the US in which I have spent a lot of time is France. 

France is fairly "socialized" with government-run benefits including a good healthcare system, good free secondary schools and low-cost universities for those who can get in.  (Most are highly selective).  France has nationalized some industries and privatized others.  Their rail system (nationalized) is really impressive. 

However, the people I know there (who are shop teachers, electricians and other mid-wage individuals) find it hard to get by.  Taxes are high, wages are low and the cost of living relative to wages is very high. 

GDP per capita in France is about $42,000, versus about $72,000 for the US.  The unemployment rate is about 7.3 percent, versus about 3.6 percent for the US.   The economy is fairly inert.  There isn't much innovation -- when was the last time anybody got excited about something new from France? -- and there is a good deal of social unrest related to immigration, inequality and other issues. 

I don't think anyplace is a paradise.  However, based on what little I know, if I had to choose someplace else to live I would probably go to Australia, if they would let me in.  (Although I have to say from a US perspective it seems really expensive!)


----------



## John cycling (Sep 28, 2022)

The U.S. is generously socialist <-- for the already rich billionaires, and brutal capitalism for the rest of us, which ensures that the wealth inequity keeps growing larger and larger.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 28, 2022)

John cycling said:


> The U.S. is generously socialist <-- for the already rich billionaires, and brutal capitalism for the rest of us, which ensures that the wealth inequity keeps growing larger and larger.



Is there a "yawn" emoji I can use to respond to your comment?


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Sep 28, 2022)

John cycling said:


> The U.S. is generously socialist <-- for the already rich billionaires, and brutal capitalism for the rest of us, which ensures that the wealth inequity keeps growing larger and larger.


Let's state this the way most economists talk about it.  One of the disadvantages of free market capitalism is that you always have winners and losers.  People move up and down the economic system.  

Also, when talking about billionaires, all societies in the world have billionaires.  It is not unique to free market systems.... Many times, they inherited wealth, in socialized countries only top powers in government have access to wealth...


----------



## Verisure (Sep 28, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> ........
> But one observation I made.  The individuals living and working in Russia and China had much less wealth than in America. * All other countries I spent time in* seemed that individuals had more than either China or Russia also. * But each of these countries have more 'socialization' than in America, and their individual lifestyles were still below what Americans have in general.*


This is very silly. You should be ashamed of making such a ridiculous statement. Some of the countries you mention are vastly superior to the US in:
* Democracy
* Freedom
* Education
* Medical availability 
* Quality of life

Also, the American poverty level doesn't even exist in some of the countries you claim to be *"below Amerian lifestyles".* I suggest you drastically edit your post.


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 28, 2022)

Verisure said:


> This is very silly. You should be ashamed of making such a ridiculous statement. Some of the countries you mention are vastly superior to the US in:
> * Democracy
> * Freedom
> * Education
> ...


Interesting. Please list the countries that are  "vastly superior" to the US in:  Democracy, Freedom, Education, Medical availability, and Quality of life ...


----------



## Verisure (Sep 28, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Interesting. Please list the countries that are  "vastly superior" to the US in:  Democracy, Freedom, Education, Medical availability, and Quality of life ...


I'm not going to bother posting the whole list but let us begin with Democracy from the top. You'll notice that the US isn't even included with FULL DEMOCRACIES but is considered a *FLAWED DEMOCRACY:*:


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 28, 2022)

Verisure said:


> I'm not going to bother posting the whole list but let us begin with Democracy from the top. You'll notice that the US isn't even included with FULL DEMOCRACIES but is considered a *FLAWED DEMOCRACY:*:View attachment 241854


Interesting ... But it is customary to provide links to pieces you copy from the internet. *Please provide a link.*


----------



## Pepper (Sep 28, 2022)

World Democracy Index @ElCastor 
If you roll your mouse over it, it shows up in a little box.


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 28, 2022)

Senter said:


> Yeahwell, you're right.  Try the "What is socialism" thread in the General Discussions forum.


Did you find any sensible and mature conversation there?


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Sep 28, 2022)

Verisure said:


> This is very silly. You should be ashamed of making such a ridiculous statement. Some of the countries you mention are vastly superior to the US in:
> * Democracy
> * Freedom
> * Education
> ...


You only are displaying your own ignorance!  Move on...


----------



## senior chef (Sep 28, 2022)

Verisure said:


> There is nothing wrong with Communism, Capitalism or Socialism. They all had to have been good ideas otherwise no one would have agreed with them. So, any criticism is based upon either preferring one over the other or finding discrepancies with regard to corruption in any one of them.


Nothing wrong with Communism ????   You must live on a different planet than I do because the planet I live on Communism is a dictatorship where the great mass of people are prisoners in their own country. When Communism took over countries of Eastern Europe hundreds of thousands of people fled to democracies. The same thing happened in Cuba.  

Additionally, citizens of Communism are/can be arrested, without any hope of a fair trial. People in those countries often disappear into the "Night and Fog" never to be seen again.

Moreover, tens of millions of people of the Soviet Union were deported to gulags of Siberia where they died horrible deaths. It is not often discussed but Stalin was responsible for more deaths of his own people than Hitler killed in the Holocaust. 

It would be difficult to determine which country was the most monstrous in all of human history ... the USSR OR Nazi Germany.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Sep 28, 2022)

Verisure said:


> I'm not going to bother posting the whole list but let us begin with Democracy from the top. You'll notice that the US isn't even included with FULL DEMOCRACIES but is considered a *FLAWED DEMOCRACY:*View attachment 241853View attachment 241854:


God, as I laugh, falling out of my chair!  The USA is and never has been a "*Democracy*"!  We are a *Constitutional Republic*...!  Back to the books for you....


----------



## Tish (Sep 28, 2022)

JimBob1952 said:


> Er...why do you think that is? (That there aren't many socialist kibbutzes left)
> 
> One possibility is that true socialism (I'm not talking about social programs such as SS and Medicare) doesn't work, and never really has.


That is true, still, it was a wonderful experience.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 28, 2022)

Tish said:


> That is true, still, it was a wonderful experience.


I'm sure it was!  There were a lot of experiments in socialism in the US in the mid-1800s, including the Oneida Community and others.  They didn't succeed in the end but many made significant contributions (the Oneida Community was famous for its silverware and for its steel traps.)


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 28, 2022)

Brook Farm was another such experiment.  Very interesting, and some very enlightened ideas on education, not just for the 1840s but for our time. 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Brook-Farm


----------



## Nathan (Sep 28, 2022)

John cycling said:


> The U.S. is generously socialist <-- for the already rich billionaires, and brutal capitalism for the rest of us, which ensures that the wealth inequity keeps growing larger and larger.


Sadly true.  Defenders of the wealthy elites would disagree, but fact based evidence speaks for itself.


----------



## Senter (Sep 28, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Did you find any sensible and mature conversation there?


It was pretty typical so far.


----------



## Senter (Sep 28, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Let's state this the way most economists talk about it.  One of the disadvantages of free market capitalism is that you always have winners and losers.  People move up and down the economic system.
> 
> Also, when talking about billionaires, all societies in the world have billionaires.  It is not unique to free market systems.... Many times, they inherited wealth, in socialized countries only top powers in government have access to wealth...


Is that what you want?


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 28, 2022)

JimBob1952 said:


> I'm sure it was!  There were a lot of experiments in socialism in the US in the mid-1800s, including the Oneida Community and others.  They didn't succeed in the end but many made significant contributions (the Oneida Community was famous for its silverware and for its steel traps.)


 Successful true Socialism would (I believe) require a continuity of population, one in which an almost universal racial, philosophical, religious, and political thought prevailed. Far easier to achieve in an Oneida, Sweden or Norway than a country of immigrants from literally all over the world.


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 28, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Socialism is where the people control the means of production, which may be the government if the country has a true democracy. It's not socialism when a dictator has control over everything and the people don't have a say.


Socialism is based on a false assumption that a government, elected by “the people” will make wise and correct decisions. Manufacture this or that and charge X for it, or do we just give it to everyone “in need”? Yeah, sure, I‘m not holding my breath on that one. Why did it fail so spectacularly in Cuba, Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, and Hitler’s National Socialism? Oh, but socialism has succeeded spectacularly in Scandinavia, or is it that simple? Here is an interesting discussion of that Scandinavian success. For those who worship it I would remind them that Scandinavia cannot necessarily be found in California, Texas, or Illinois.
https://www.lifeinnorway.net/scandinavian-socialism/


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 28, 2022)

Verisure said:


> This is very silly. You should be ashamed of making such a ridiculous statement. Some of the countries you mention are vastly superior to the US in:
> * Democracy
> * Freedom
> * Education
> ...


Still waiting for that link.


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 28, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Let's state this the way most economists talk about it.  One of the disadvantages of *free market capitalism is that you always have winners and losers.*  People move up and down the economic system.
> 
> Also, when talking about billionaires, all societies in the world have billionaires.  It is not unique to free market systems.... Many times, they inherited wealth, in socialized countries only top powers in government have access to wealth...


Some win, some lose is supposed to inspire people to try harder or try smarter. Some just give up, but it can be a tough game.

In socialist societies there are always people directing the streams of goods from the manufacturers to the consumers and (most desirable) the flow of imports and exports. These people are in positions of power and invariably build chains of corruption to ensure the flow of money. They monetize their authority.

To me, that's not so different from how things work with some (probably most) members of the US Congress and Big Business. The biggest difference is that the US Congress can make their chains of corruption perfectly legal. It's **~*>magical<*~**


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 28, 2022)

senior chef said:


> Nothing wrong with Communism ????   You must live on a different planet than I do because the planet I live on Communism is a dictatorship where the great mass of people are prisoners in their own country. When Communism took over countries of Eastern Europe hundreds of thousands of people fled to democracies. The same thing happened in Cuba.
> 
> Additionally, citizens of Communism are/can be arrested, without any hope of a fair trial. People in those countries often disappear into the "Night and Fog" never to be seen again.
> 
> ...


You're describing the problems with dictatorships — not with communism. Any country ruled by a brutal dictator is not going to be a pleasant place to live.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 28, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> You only are displaying your own ignorance! Move on...


Sorry, but if “*ignorance”* is measured in *knowledge & experience* (mine compared with yours) then you are out of luck. I can say this because I’ve read what you’ve written about your “experience” and mine far exceeds yours.


Timewise 60+ said:


> God, as I laugh, falling out of my chair! The USA is and never has been a "*Democracy*"! We are a *Constitutional Republic*...! Back to the books for you....


And yet you challenge the point about America’s failure to compare with *world DEMOCRACIES*? It’s probably a good idea for you to make up your mind about what it is you want to achieve *before *you enter into a debate.


senior chef said:


> ...... the planet I live on Communism is a dictatorship where the great mass of people are prisoners in their own country ...


Now, this is a completely nonsensical statement. It's the sort of "pseudo-knowledge" one gleans from eavesdropping on Friday night drunks at the bowling alley Snack & Tap. 


ElCastor said:


> Still waiting for that link.


FYI:
https://gisgeography.com/world-time-zone-map/


ElCastor said:


> Interesting ... But it is customary to provide links to pieces you copy from the internet. *Please provide a link.*


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 28, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> God, as I laugh, falling out of my chair!  The USA is and never has been a "*Democracy*"!  We are a *Constitutional Republic*...!  Back to the books for you....


Remember that this coming November. We don't have a democracy here in the U.S., so whatever you do... don't vote!


----------



## Verisure (Sep 28, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> You're describing the problems with dictatorships — not with communism. Any country ruled by a brutal dictator is not going to be a pleasant place to live.


Yes, absolutely true and it doesn't matter what sort of self-proclaimed, politically grounded philosophy the nation/leader tries to profess. A dictator - is a dictator - is a dictator no matter if he's called the country Communist, Socialist,  Capitalist, Fascist, Democratic or (_ahem_) a Republic.


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 28, 2022)

A hybrid socialistic-capitalistic system, if structured efficiently, is the best system.

Capitalism is great when there is fair competition and it involves goods and labor that aren't essential to our existence. It fails miserably when it comes to things like healthcare, security, and a social safety net. Capitalism only works when it's well regulated since the only thing that matters with capitalism is profits.

Socialism is best for the necessities in life, such as healthcare, utilities, water, police, fire dept, military... Too many necessities have been privatized with disastrous results. You wind up with people at the top getting paid millions while the workers are paid the bare minimum. Corners are cut to save money and increase profits.

Granted, when an organization is run by government employees, that's often disastrous, also, but at least the workers are earning a decent living. It can also be reformed by state and local leaders to become more efficient whereas with private enterprise, we don't have a say. And the owners of those privatized entities pay politicians to not interfere with their operations.

When an industry is privatized, one of the selling points is that with competition, prices will decrease and quality of services will increase. And that may be true, initially, until mergers and buyouts limit competition until you're left with an oligopoly, so gone is the competition. And of course, the CEOs get paid millions of dollars which has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is people who use those services.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 28, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Remember that this coming November. We don't have a democracy here in the U.S., so whatever you do... don't vote!


I'm pretty sure that you've made a good point. Hopefully, it won't be wasted now that you've set it free.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 28, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> A hybrid socialistic-capitalistic system, if structured efficiently, is the best system.
> 
> Capitalism is great when there is fair competition and it involves goods and labor that aren't essential to our existence. It fails miserably when it comes to things like healthcare, security, and a social safety net. Capitalism only works when it's well regulated since the only thing that matters with capitalism is profits.
> 
> ...


Woe is me!  Why must life & politics be so darned complicated? Reading only the headlines or listening to MSM is never enough ... for anyone


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 28, 2022)

Verisure said:


> Yes, absolutely true and it doesn't matter what sort of self-proclaimed, politically grounded philosophy the nation/leader tries to profess. A dictator - is a dictator - is a dictator no matter if he's called the country Communist, Socialist, Capitalist, Fascist, Democratic or (_ahem_) a Republic.


I am reminded that Julius Gaius Caesar was given the title Dictator of Rome. It had been a republic since the last king, Tarquin the Terrible. Following Caesar's assassination it became an empire, ruled by emperors who were members of Caesar's family.

For a while it flourished but eventually corruption within led to its decline and fall.

History doesn't repeat but it does sometimes rhyme.


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 28, 2022)

Verisure said:


> Sorry, but if “*ignorance”* is measured in *knowledge & experience* (mine compared with yours) then you are out of luck. I can say this because I’ve read what you’ve written about your “experience” and mine far exceeds yours.
> 
> And yet you challenge the point about America’s failure to compare with *world DEMOCRACIES*? It’s probably a good idea for you to make up your mind about what it is you want to achieve *before *you enter into a debate.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. In the future I hope you will take care to supply links to your quoted sources.

I gather that your source for the judgment of the flawed nature of US democracy is the Economist, a Brit newspaper or magazine, which in turn derives its rather severe judgment from unnamed (insofar as I can determine) sources. The UK has been awarded a perfect score, despite a hereditary aristocracy and King or Queen who, as I understand it, routinely confer with, and advise Parliamentary leaders. I am overwhelmed by the superior Brit system. Would you recommend that we in the US get ourselves an hereditary monarch who can advise our President and Congressional leaders?


----------



## Verisure (Sep 28, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> ... In the future I hope you will take care to supply links to your quoted sources.


I have my methods of _"giving enough rope"_.


ElCastor said:


> I gather that your source for the judgment of the flawed nature of US democracy is the Economist, a Brit newspaper or magazine, which in turn derives its rather severe judgment from unnamed (insofar as I can determine) sources. The UK has been awarded a perfect score, despite a hereditary aristocracy and King or Queen who, as I understand it, routinely confer with, and advise Parliamentary leaders.


You can debate the credibility and long-term standing of The Economist all you want but it sounds more like they haven’t provided the statistics you were hoping for much like the doctor informing you that the tumour is indeed cancerous. But you have to ask yourself, if their ranking doesn’t please you where would you place the US if you were given the task? At the top? I think not. Not even the UK (despite your insinuating comments to the contrary) finds itself at the number one slot.


ElCastor said:


> I am overwhelmed by the superior Brit system. Would you recommend that we in the US get ourselves an hereditary monarch who can advise our President and Congressional leaders?


I’m afraid that you’ve been too influenced by Hollywood’s depiction of Royalty. Many/most royal figures in the world have little/nothing to do with politics. But, again, if you think it really matters (and it is that which taints the Economist’s ranking) then you can take it up with your conscience.


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 28, 2022)

Verisure said:


> I have my methods of _"giving enough rope"_.
> 
> You can debate the credibility and long-term standing of The Economist all you want but it sounds more like they haven’t provided the statistics you were hoping for much like the doctor informing you that the tumour is indeed cancerous. But you have to ask yourself, if their ranking doesn’t please you where would you place the US if you were given the task? At the top? I think not. Not even the UK (despite your insinuating comments to the contrary) finds itself at the number one slot.
> 
> I’m afraid that you’ve been too influenced by Hollywood’s depiction of Royalty. Many/most royal figures in the world have little/nothing to do with politics. But, again, if you think it really matters (and it is that which taints the Economist’s ranking) then you can take it up with your conscience.


In UseNet discussion groups we have a term we use when we dump an unpleasant member -- PLONK! Consider yourself PLONKED.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 29, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> In UseNet discussion groups we have a term we use when we dump an unpleasant member -- PLONK! Consider yourself PLONKED.


I could sense (by your increasing side-stepping in the face of my kind, intelligent and earnest logic) that you would soon be *'bailing out*'. I was right.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 29, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Still waiting for that link.


I told you how to find the link.  I told you the name of the link.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Sep 29, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> You're describing the problems with dictatorships — not with communism. Any country ruled by a brutal dictator is not going to be a pleasant place to live.



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.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 29, 2022)

Pepper said:


> I told you how to find the link.  I told you the name of the link.


He's pretending he didn't see it.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 29, 2022)

Verisure said:


> He's pretending he didn't see it.


He should trust me.  I'm a high IQ Ashkenazi.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 29, 2022)

Pepper said:


> He should trust me.  I'm a high IQ Ashkenazi.


Oh! I'm impressed even if he isn't. I can't be too critical, though, because I know how it feels. When the doctors give me an injection I always turn my head the other way.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 29, 2022)

Verisure said:


> Oh! I'm impressed even if he isn't. I can't be too critical, though, because I know how it feels. When the doctors give me an injection I always turn my head the other way.


El Castor is mucho impressed with Ashkenazi.  Seems we are his favorite people in the whole world.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 29, 2022)

Pepper said:


> El Castor is mucho impressed with Ashkenazi.


I didn't know that. 



Pepper said:


> Seems we are his favorite people in the whole world.


But he snubbed you (and your link) nonetheless? Yikes! I think you must have come very close to hitting a nerve.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Sep 29, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Remember that this coming November. We don't have a democracy here in the U.S., so whatever you do... don't vote!


Ben,
The difference between a democracy and republic is as follows:  The key difference between a republic and a democracy is not how power is projected, but the* limits to power*. Both use the representational system, meaning that the citizenry is represented in the government by elected leaders. In both cases, the majority rule, *but in a republic the constitution limits how the government can exercise power.*


----------



## Pepper (Sep 29, 2022)

Verisure said:


> But he snubbed you (and your link) nonetheless? Yikes! I think you must have come very close to hitting a nerve.


Maybe @ElCastor  thinks only the Ashkenazi boys are smart


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Socialism is based on a false assumption that a government, elected by “the people” will make wise and correct decisions. Manufacture this or that and charge X for it, or do we just give it to everyone “in need”? Yeah, sure, I‘m not holding my breath on that one.


The US government knows the idea of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a very popular and winning idea.  So they lie.  They stress the idea that that is what they are in order to win you over for themselves and their career.  But what do they DO?  They very, very successfully govern for capitalism with emphasis on leading corporations, and for the rich.  That is why in 2021, while the top half held 97.5% of the wealth (over $138 trillion), the top 1% held more than $60 trillion (43.5%) of that $138 trillion.  But they would much rather have you believe they are really trying to make life better for the average person but that they are just incompetent, and so, "darn it, the rich out-smart us every time".



ElCastor said:


> Why did it fail so spectacularly in Cuba, Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, and Hitler’s National Socialism?


Wow.  You even took the bait on "national socialism" being socialism.   



ElCastor said:


> Oh, but socialism has succeeded spectacularly in Scandinavia, or is it that simple? Here is an interesting discussion of that Scandinavian success. For those who worship it I would remind them that Scandinavia cannot necessarily be found in California, Texas, or Illinois.
> https://www.lifeinnorway.net/scandinavian-socialism/


Good article!  And yes, just like some who like to conflate "national socialism" with socialism, so too do we find some who like to conflate Scandinavia with socialism.  And why?  SIMPLE!  It's because those people fell for the capitalist propaganda and the effort to confuse and thereby disarm the people so they can be "governed" more easily!


----------



## Verisure (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> The US government knows the idea of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is a very popular and winning idea.  So they lie.  They stress the idea that that is what they are in order to win you over for themselves and their career.  But what do they DO?  They very, very successfully govern for capitalism with emphasis on leading corporations, and for the rich.  That is why in 2021, while the top half held 97.5% of the wealth (over $138 trillion), the top 1% held more than $60 trillion (43.5%) of that $138 trillion.  But they would much rather have you believe they are really trying to make life better for the average person but that they are just incompetent, and so, "darn it, the rich out-smart us every time".
> 
> 
> Wow.  You even took the bait on "national socialism" being socialism.
> ...


You are TOO good.


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Some win, some lose is supposed to inspire people to try harder or try smarter. Some just give up, but it can be a tough game.
> 
> *In socialist societies there are always people directing the streams of goods from the manufacturers to the consumers and (most desirable) the flow of imports and exports. These people are in positions of power and invariably build chains of corruption to ensure the flow of money. They monetize their authority.*
> 
> To me, that's not so different from how things work with some (probably most) members of the US Congress and Big Business. The biggest difference is that the US Congress can make their chains of corruption perfectly legal. It's **~*>magical<*~**


It would be good if you could provide some examples.  Actually, as I've continued to say, history shows that while a number of countries have tried to transition to socialism, it is a long and tedious process, and nearly all have fallen victim to sabotage from within by those who want some form of capitalism.  Even Cuba today, some 60 years after their revolution, comtinue to say they are "creating socialism" and aren't quite there yet.  The interference and embargoes by the US are a major problem for them but the point is they could not instantly transition to socialism like flicking a switch.

So the "take-away" from all the above is that there has not yet been a socialist country, anywhere, at any time.  There have been struggles to create it but the strategies for doing so need further refinement.


----------



## senior chef (Sep 29, 2022)

Verisure said:


> Now, this is a completely nonsensical statement. It's the sort of "pseudo-knowledge" one gleans from eavesdropping on Friday night drunks at the bowling alley Snack & Tap.


A nonsensical statement ? Oh ? Really ?  Good heavens, man.  Everyone with even a modicum of history knowledge knows full well what happened during Stalin's dictatorship. Did you never read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book Gulag Archipelago  ? In 1970, Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel peace Prize for his seminal work on Soviet atrocities.
If that is not enough to convince you of the evils of Communism , then a trip to any library will soon clear up the truth in what I say.

Since you make fun of my post, I suspect that you may never have heard of "The Berlin Wall" where the Soviets had to erect a concrete and barbed wire wall , complete with machine gun towers, to KEEP EAST GERMAN citizens from fleeing in mass to the freedom of West Germany.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 29, 2022)

senior chef said:


> Verisure said:
> 
> 
> > senior chef said:
> ...


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

senior chef said:


> A nonsensical statement ? Oh ? Really ?  Good heavens, man.  Everyone with even a modicum of history knowledge knows full well what happened during Stalin's dictatorship. Did you never read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book Gulag Archipelago  ? In 1970, Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel peace Prize for his seminal work on Soviet atrocities.
> If that is not enough to convince you of the evils of Communism , then a trip to any library will soon clear up the truth in what I say.
> 
> Since you make fun of my post, I suspect that you may never have heard of "The Berlin Wall" where the Soviets had to erect a concrete and barbed wire wall , complete with machine gun towers, to KEEP EAST GERMAN citizens from fleeing in mass to the freedom of West Germany.


It could be that some of the problem here is the standard conflation of "communism" (communist ideology and policy) with "communism" (theoretical communist society).  If we keep our wits about us when we read post in which people refer to "communism", we will often see that it is very common to not only confuse the two, but also to even refer to first one, then the other without the poster knowing they're doing it!   And sometimes you will see this flip-flop between the two in the same sentence!! For this reason I try to NEVER refer to "communism". I try to remember to either specify "communist ideology" or "communist society".

Communist ideology and strategies have historically been a problem, and communist society is a theoretical and distant event that I'm not convinced will ever happen.  And BTW, if you consider what Marx said communist society would be and how it would happen, you have to conclude that communist society cannot be imposed by force.   Anyway, my opinion is that there's no good reason to agonize over communist ideology because it is mostly dead, and there's no point in discussing communist society because it is a very distant theory that may never happen, and if it does it will be well received at the time by a huge majority because it will be understood properly and will happen by itself.


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> It would be good if you could provide some examples.
> 
> So the "take-away" from all the above is that there has not yet been a socialist country, anywhere, at any time.  There have been struggles to create it but the strategies for doing so need further refinement.


You can find examples in countries that are apparently refining their socialist form of government and/or economy.


----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> You can find examples in countries that are apparently refining their socialist form of government and/or economy.


First of all there is only one country I know of that I believe is still working toward socialism, and that is Cuba.  But they will tell you they aren't there yet.  But "examples" of what? .... "chains of corruption" to "monetize their authority"?   That has happened in just about every country that has strayed from the socialist path and has "liberalized" the rules to allow private business for private profit, which is something any socialist system would ban.


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 29, 2022)

Senter said:


> ...  But "examples" of what? .... "chains of corruption" to "monetize their authority"?   That has happened in just about every country that has strayed from the socialist path and has "liberalized" the rules to allow private business for private profit, which is something any socialist system would ban.


Ok, but the topic is socialism.

Every form of government is corruptible. So far, at least. I'd wager nothing's been done within the Russian government that hasn't been done in the US. And economies are corruptible, but some forms of gov't make economic corruption easier than others. Authoritarian forms of government are particularly good examples.


----------



## oldpop (Sep 29, 2022)




----------



## Senter (Sep 29, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Ok, but the topic is socialism.
> 
> Every form of government is corruptible. So far, at least. I'd wager nothing's been done within the Russian government that hasn't been done in the US. And economies are corruptible, but some forms of gov't make economic corruption easier than others. Authoritarian forms of government are particularly good examples.


"Authoritarian"??  You don't think the USA has become pretty damned corrupted with politicians accumulating millions of dollars, favored corporate sources of wealth and campaign buys being approved by SCOTUS, and sweetheart deals for favored corporations and corporatists??

The "authoritarian" governments you mention have to all be non-socialist and anti-socialist if not outright dictatorships like N.Korea.
Socialism and authoritarianism don't mix.

Marx said “Democracy is the road to socialism” because democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people, and socialism has to be that too or it isn't socialism.


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 29, 2022)

Timewise 60+ said:


> Ben,
> The difference between a democracy and republic is as follows:  The key difference between a republic and a democracy is not how power is projected, but the* limits to power*. Both use the representational system, meaning that the citizenry is represented in the government by elected leaders.


Not necessarily. In a direct democracy, people vote directly on issues. In a representational democracy, people elect representatives who make decisions for us.



Timewise 60+ said:


> In both cases, the majority rule,


Not necessarily. Five U.S. presidents lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College and the presidency. That happened in 2016 and 2000 and three other times. During those times, it was minority rule.



Timewise 60+ said:


> *but in a republic the constitution limits how the government can exercise power.*


Not necessarily. A republic isn't necessarily a constitutional republic.

As far as the U.S. not having a democracy, a representational democracy is basically the same thing as a republic. So yes, we do have a democracy — a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/democracy-vs-republic/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy/Democracy-or-republic

Basically, we have a representative democracy with a constitutional republic.

When most people talk about a democracy, they're usually referring to our elections, and whether they are fair and legitimate. When we think of our government, we think of our republic and our Constitution. That may not necessarily be accurate since they both refer to the same thing, but it's a way to make things a bit more clear.

If somebody makes the claim that our democracy is flawed, people generally interpret that as a statement about our elections — not our government or our Constitution.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 29, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> ..... Five U.S. presidents lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College and the presidency. That happened in 2016 and 2000 and three other times. During those times, it was minority rule.


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?


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 30, 2022)

Senter said:


> "Authoritarian"??  You don't think the USA has become pretty damned corrupted with politicians accumulating millions of dollars, favored corporate sources of wealth and campaign buys being approved by SCOTUS, and sweetheart deals for favored corporations and corporatists??
> 
> *The "authoritarian" governments you mention* have to all be non-socialist and anti-socialist if not outright dictatorships like N.Korea.
> Socialism and authoritarianism don't mix.
> ...


No where have I ever said the US isn't corrupt. I've said the opposite. ALL governments are corruptible. All economies are corruptible. And I didn't name any authoritarian governments, I said that in my opinion (imo), they are the most easily corrupted.

Socialism is an economic system and democracy is a political system (or ideology). They can co-exist, with the majority deciding (ideally) on collective ownership of resources and goods, possibly communities and businesses, maybe the military, and so on. But again, economic systems are also corruptible; you put someone in charge, he shows favoritism, practices nepotism, wheels get greased, blah-blah-blah. I was gonna say you can't compare the two, but it's the same ol', same ol'...they're comparable in a lot of ways.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 30, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> ...... ALL governments are corrupt*ible*. All economies are corrupt*ible*.


----------



## Verisure (Sep 30, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> ..... Every form of government is corruptible.


This is very important to understand and it shouldn't be a profound issue at all but Americans (I'm generalizing of course) 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. 


Murrmurr said:


> I'd wager nothing's been done within the Russian government that hasn't been done in the US. ....


I'll wager that your wager won't find any "takers" once the chips are down.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Sep 30, 2022)

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?


BINGO!  You get the prize...   the electoral college is a form of a democratic republic where representatives carry forth the wishes of the electorate.  I am sure many will 'word smith' this, but the basic concept is true.  This clarifies the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.  The reason this is not fascist, or a dictatorship is because all of this is controlled by our Constitution.  As you know our Congress (our elected representatives) can change our Constitution....


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Sep 30, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Not necessarily. In a direct democracy, people vote directly on issues. In a representational democracy, people elect representatives who make decisions for us.
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. Five U.S. presidents lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College and the presidency. That happened in 2016 and 2000 and three other times. During those times, it was minority rule.
> ...


Ben, forgive me for trying to keep this discussion simple.  So many seemed confused about the basic concept of democracy and America.  I agree with most of what you posted, but as I say, sometimes simple clarity is better than full definitions with all the variables included.  Sometimes less is more...


----------



## Senter (Sep 30, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> No where have I ever said the US isn't corrupt. I've said the opposite. ALL governments are corruptible. All economies are corruptible. And I didn't name any authoritarian governments, I said that in my opinion (imo), they are the most easily corrupted.
> 
> Socialism is an economic system and democracy is a political system (or ideology). They can co-exist, with the majority deciding (ideally) on collective ownership of resources and goods, possibly communities and businesses, maybe the military, and so on. But again, economic systems are also corruptible; you put someone in charge, he shows favoritism, practices nepotism, wheels get greased, blah-blah-blah. I was gonna say you can't compare the two, but it's the same ol', same ol'...they're comparable in a lot of ways.


I didn't mean to imply that you said the US isn't corrupt.  I haven't seen any post where you said it wasn't.

Socialism would not be only an economic system, but since the economic system of any country is its foundation and all else, from government to education and culture, arise from the economic system and its needs to then serve to support it, socialism becomes a socio-economic system complete with a suitable government to facilitate it and protect it just like all economies do. The government of a capitalist country is a capitalists' government for capitalism's benefit. The government of a socialist country would be a socialist government for the benefit of socialism.

And you seem to know this although you start out denying it, because you said "_economic systems are also corruptible; you put someone in charge, he shows favoritism, practices nepotism, wheels get greased_".


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 30, 2022)

Senter said:


> And you seem to know this although you start out denying it, because you said "_economic systems are also corruptible; you put someone in charge, he shows favoritism, practices nepotism, wheels get greased_".


Do you not believe a gov't can corrupt it's economic system?


----------



## Senter (Sep 30, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Do you not believe a gov't can corrupt it's economic system?


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".


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 30, 2022)

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.


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


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 30, 2022)

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.
> 
> I'll wager that your wager won't find any "takers" once the chips are down.


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?


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 30, 2022)

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".


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.


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 30, 2022)

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".


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.


----------



## Senter (Sep 30, 2022)

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.


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.


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 30, 2022)

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.


Apparently I _did_ misunderstand.


----------



## Senter (Sep 30, 2022)

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.


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.


----------



## ElCastor (Sep 30, 2022)

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.


Ask? Clearly I can learn Nothing from you.


----------



## Senter (Sep 30, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Ask? Clearly I can learn Nothing from you.


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".


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 30, 2022)

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?


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?


----------



## SeniorBen (Sep 30, 2022)

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.


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.


----------



## Verisure (Oct 1, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Yeah, I guess you have to fault a corruptible education system for that.


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*.


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?


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"*?


----------



## Verisure (Oct 1, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Ask? Clearly I can learn Nothing from you.


Yes, I can see how that might be a problem.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 1, 2022)

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.


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,


----------



## Murrmurr (Oct 1, 2022)

Verisure said:


> 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"*?


Interesting to think that maybe the root of all geopolitical evil is amusement parks.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 1, 2022)

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,


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


----------



## Murrmurr (Oct 1, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Name one successful state with a 100% free market economy.


Liechtenstein?

I looked it up. Liechtenstein.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 1, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Liechtenstein?
> 
> I looked it up. Liechtenstein.


Kindly provide a link.


----------



## Murrmurr (Oct 1, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Kindly provide a link.


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.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 1, 2022)

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.
> ...


Here is a source that ranks Economic freedom. Here are the top seven - all ranked "Free":  

1Singapore84.4-5.35Luxembourg80.6+4.62Switzerland84.2+2.36Taiwan80.1+1.53Ireland82.0+0.67Estonia80.0+1.84New 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/


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 1, 2022)

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.


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.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 1, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Here is a source that ranks Economic freedom. Here are the top seven - all ranked "Free":
> 
> 1Singapore84.4-5.35Luxembourg80.6+4.62Switzerland84.2+2.36Taiwan80.1+1.53Ireland82.0+0.67Estonia80.0+1.84New Zealand
> The United States is in the next group of 27, considered to be "mostly free".
> ...


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.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 1, 2022)

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.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 1, 2022)

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.


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.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 2, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> 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.


Economic policies such as socialism and capitalism can be discussed objectively without it getting political. In this day and age, everything, even a pandemic, is politicized.


----------



## StarSong (Oct 2, 2022)

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.


I feel the same.


----------



## Timewise 60+ (Oct 2, 2022)

StarSong said:


> I feel the same.


Both the USA and Russia already have regulated forms of capitalism or socialism!  No country, not even China has a pure system...that's why people are so confused, they think to be a 'free market capitalistic system' you cannot of some things that are under central control of the government.  That is not true for USA and for so called socialized countries.... nothing is even close to 100%


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 2, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Economic policies such as socialism and capitalism can be discussed objectively without it getting political. In this day and age, everything, even a pandemic, is politicized.


Uh, be serious. We both know that endorsing socialism is like waving a political flag. Socialism and Capitalism aren't "getting" political -- they are the essence of politics.


----------



## SeniorBen (Oct 2, 2022)

ElCastor said:


> Uh, be serious. We both know that endorsing socialism is like waving a political flag. Socialism and Capitalism aren't "getting" political -- they are the essence of politics.


Hey, I thought your were "done with this topic."    

I don't agree that economics are the "essence of politics." I support capitalism, but I'm a realist and know that people are greedy and often dishonest, so we need regulations to maintain order. And most conservatives support certain types of socialism. Most people favor a hybrid system. They just don't want to admit it because "socialism" has become a dirty word in this day and age when everything is politicized.


----------



## ElCastor (Oct 2, 2022)

SeniorBen said:


> Hey, I thought your were "done with this topic."
> 
> I don't agree that economics are the "essence of politics." I support capitalism, but I'm a realist and know that people are greedy and often dishonest, so we need regulations to maintain order. And most conservatives support certain types of socialism. Most people favor a hybrid system. They just don't want to admit it because "socialism" has become a dirty word in this day and age when everything is politicized.


I thought I was too, but I couldn’t stand it. As for Capitalism, or Free Enterprise, as I would refer to it, benefitting from “reasonable” regulation, you won’t get an argument from me. The most important that comes to mind is anti-trust.


----------



## Verisure (Oct 2, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Interesting to think that maybe the root of all geopolitical evil is amusement parks.


I'm immune, so to speak. I'm not allowed to get near the Ferris wheel or other "rides" that operate with huge magnets because my pacemaker gets out of wack from electro-interferences. Maybe that's why I'm so angelical, relatively speaking.


----------

