That's one take. Here's another- "The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development. . .[the] economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evil. . .I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy."—Albert Einstein
Can anyone explain in detail exactly why a democratic republic socialist state is:
1) Like East Germany under the USSR umbrella, and...
2) Why it would neccessarily be evil.
It just might be a fiscally conservative capitalistic socialist society could work quite well. It certainly couldn't be worse than the corporatist crony capitalist business subsidy sucking system we have in full bloom in the USA today.
Rational long term self interest really isn't what many think it is. But perhaps that's a subject for another day.
Concise and to the point. Expanding on that would be that Socialism is the perceived right to the fruits of another's labor......and the manufactured outrage when it isn't gifted without a fight.
BB: He is greedy only if he likes to take others's stuff. I've never heard that this was part of his business model. I could be wrong.... I've never read his books or followed him to closely.
Will: Do you think Trump benefits from corporate welfare....or, as you imply, does he pay a massive amount of tax money and shoulder the load for so many of us?
BB: That quote is rather curious, considering, that it was (apparently) stated in 1949, the same decade in which two socialists empires, one of which was still in power in 1949, caused unprecented bloodshed misery..... indeed, were more "predatory" than any capitalism could ever hope to be.
The quote was Einstein's; we may suppose he had his reasons. As for socialist empires, we should recognize totalitarianism as a system separate from economics. If the second bloodletting empire, refers to the 3rd Reich, libertarians and conservatives tend to consider it socialist. Given that the first thing the Nazis and Gestapo went after were socialists, Marxists and union leaders, before the Jews even, there had to be a great (lethal even) distaste for socialists and socialism. Seimens, IG Farben, Daimler, Junkers (the entire list is well known) not only operated in a capitalist system, they benefited from Nazi corporate welfare in the form of free labor, millions of peoples of eastern Europe dragooned into slave labor with a very high fatality rate. So, IMO, it is an egregious mistake to term Nazi Germany in any way 'socialist'. Perhaps Einstein referred to the more modern Eurpean version, the mixed economy of strong unions, universal healthcare, liberal vacation policy, secure retirement, etc.?
As for Mr. Big Mouth Comb Over, rest assured he has cost you far more in taxes than that family living under the bridge that shows up for a free meal once a week at the church.
It's too bad the article on Trump was not more clear. It confused tax breaks (in which Trump received $0 of a gift from the government) with actual federal funding (in which he did, indeed, receive a gift.
As for one of the socialist empires, Nazi itself was a term for "national socialism". One of the major branches of socialism, actually.
" Given that the first thing the Nazis and Gestapo went after were socialists"
They went after other socialists. But not themselves. This type of bloodshed over perceived differences in socialist ideology is very common in the different branches of socialism. It is found in most, but not all branches.
It is not any sort of mistake at all to properly identify Nazism as a type of socialism.
Curious that you would mention "millions of peoples of eastern Europe dragooned into slave labor with a very high fatality" as part of an argument that Nazism was not socialism. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did this to even more people in Eastern Europe up until 1989.
And yes, as to your conclusion, Einstein was probably referring to one of the less fascistic, less brutal branches of socialism. But what was "modern" socialism in 1949? At that moment, the USSR was killing hundreds of thousands in its socialist empire which covered most of Europe.
Also concerning Nazism and socialism, this article by George Reisman at Von Mises is informative.
He brings to attention one of the central tenets of socialism, that being the rulers/state controlling the means of production.
"What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive".
The conflict between the socialist empires in the mid 20th century, between Berlin and Moscow was much less a conflict between different ideologies, than it as a lovers' quarrel, over relatively subtle differences.
And no, BB, I don't think that the European states that have more of a "social welfare state" count as being very socialist. Even though they are more down the road toward totalitarianism than the US is: total government control of healthcare, the balance of power tipped away from workers and toward union bosses, etc.
And I would remind BB that another person who had their assets seized during the war (for having done business with the Nazis) was a fellow by the name of Averill Harriman (one of FDR's top advisers) and that Joe Kennedy was one of Hitler's biggest admirers right up until the war (to the point that FDR had to can his sorry ass as ambassador to England).
El Rusto: You are correct. The Trump organization has well over 20,000 employees.
Though I have no doubt there are some who want to even further overtax him, thus forcing him to lay off a large percentage of these employees and move offshore.
Just like how the ridiculous US tax policy is forcing Burger King to go.
22 comments:
That's one take. Here's another-
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development. . .[the] economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evil. . .I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy."—Albert Einstein
When the Berlin Wall came down, I had really thought that the debate was over. I guess that it isn't.
Can anyone explain in detail exactly why a democratic republic socialist state is:
1) Like East Germany under the USSR umbrella, and...
2) Why it would neccessarily be evil.
It just might be a fiscally conservative capitalistic socialist society could work quite well. It certainly couldn't be worse than the corporatist crony capitalist business subsidy sucking system we have in full bloom in the USA today.
Rational long term self interest really isn't what many think it is. But perhaps that's a subject for another day.
Looks rather infantile and greedy, doesn't it Will?
Not to mention, coercive.
Life defined as the right to steal from others, Will. The sanctification of parisitism.
Concise and to the point. Expanding on that would be that Socialism is the perceived right to the fruits of another's labor......and the manufactured outrage when it isn't gifted without a fight.
Infantile & greedy: Donald Trump.
Is he a socialist?
BB: He is greedy only if he likes to take others's stuff. I've never heard that this was part of his business model. I could be wrong.... I've never read his books or followed him to closely.
Will: Do you think Trump benefits from corporate welfare....or, as you imply, does he pay a massive amount of tax money and shoulder the load for so many of us?
I don't think that he's ever taken a bailout (a la Jeffrey Immelt).
I'm sure The Donald is having little difficult accessing each and every tax loophole legally available to him.
Will said: "I don't think that he's ever taken a bailout (a la Jeffrey Immelt)."
so, in other words, "he built that"?
RN: I want the loopholes closed as well, but I realize that no loophole is a handout or gift. It merely means that less is taken.
Aside from that, there are probably some examples of Trump actually getting corporate welfare. Perhaps waiting in pending comments from BB right now.
BB: That quote is rather curious, considering, that it was (apparently) stated in 1949, the same decade in which two socialists empires, one of which was still in power in 1949, caused unprecented bloodshed misery..... indeed, were more "predatory" than any capitalism could ever hope to be.
The quote was Einstein's; we may suppose he had his reasons. As for socialist empires, we should
recognize totalitarianism as a system separate from economics.
If the second bloodletting empire, refers to the 3rd Reich, libertarians and conservatives tend to consider it
socialist. Given that the first thing the Nazis and Gestapo went after were socialists, Marxists
and union leaders, before the Jews even, there had to be a great
(lethal even) distaste for socialists and socialism. Seimens,
IG Farben, Daimler, Junkers (the entire list is well known) not only operated in a capitalist system, they benefited from Nazi
corporate welfare in the form of
free labor, millions of peoples of eastern Europe dragooned into
slave labor with a very high fatality rate. So, IMO, it is an
egregious mistake to term Nazi
Germany in any way 'socialist'.
Perhaps Einstein referred to the
more modern Eurpean version, the
mixed economy of strong unions,
universal healthcare, liberal
vacation policy, secure retirement, etc.?
As for Mr. Big Mouth Comb Over,
rest assured he has cost you far more
in taxes than that family
living under the bridge that shows up for a free meal once a week at the church.
It's too bad the article on Trump was not more clear. It confused tax breaks (in which Trump received $0 of a gift from the government) with actual federal funding (in which he did, indeed, receive a gift.
As for one of the socialist empires, Nazi itself was a term for "national socialism". One of the major branches of socialism, actually.
" Given that the first thing the Nazis and Gestapo went after were socialists"
They went after other socialists. But not themselves. This type of bloodshed over perceived differences in socialist ideology is very common in the different branches of socialism. It is found in most, but not all branches.
It is not any sort of mistake at all to properly identify Nazism as a type of socialism.
Curious that you would mention "millions of peoples of eastern Europe dragooned into
slave labor with a very high fatality" as part of an argument that Nazism was not socialism. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did this to even more people in Eastern Europe up until 1989.
And yes, as to your conclusion, Einstein was probably referring to one of the less fascistic, less brutal branches of socialism. But what was "modern" socialism in 1949? At that moment, the USSR was killing hundreds of thousands in its socialist empire which covered most of Europe.
Also concerning Nazism and socialism, this article by George Reisman at Von Mises is informative.
He brings to attention one of the central tenets of socialism, that being the rulers/state controlling the means of production.
"What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive".
The conflict between the socialist empires in the mid 20th century, between Berlin and Moscow was much less a conflict between different ideologies, than it as a lovers' quarrel, over relatively subtle differences.
And no, BB, I don't think that the European states that have more of a "social welfare state" count as being very socialist. Even though they are more down the road toward totalitarianism than the US is: total government control of healthcare, the balance of power tipped away from workers and toward union bosses, etc.
And I would remind BB that another person who had their assets seized during the war (for having done business with the Nazis) was a fellow by the name of Averill Harriman (one of FDR's top advisers) and that Joe Kennedy was one of Hitler's biggest admirers right up until the war (to the point that FDR had to can his sorry ass as ambassador to England).
.....and BB...I think Mr.Big Mouth Comb Over has created a few more American jobs then the family under the bridge...
BB's linked article, on closer look, is pretty much worthless due to its dishonest inclusion of tax breaks as federal subsidy.
El Rusto: You are correct. The Trump organization has well over 20,000 employees.
Though I have no doubt there are some who want to even further overtax him, thus forcing him to lay off a large percentage of these employees and move offshore.
Just like how the ridiculous US tax policy is forcing Burger King to go.
Post a Comment