Creeping Socialism

[petros]

Hegelian, Marxist, Maoist, Progressive, Leftist etc etc etc interlaced and bound with democracy seems to be the direction of global politics.

Will it work or are we being lead down the road to hell with nowhere safe left to run?

Skimming the morning headlines I came a cross the use of one the more afront terms used in communism.

Economic Rebalancing which is better known as Economic and Class Levelling using the Bolshevik glossary.

"Geithner’s Goal: Rebalanced World Economy " said the headline in regards to the American goals for the upcomming G20 swinefest this weekend.

REbalanced? When was it ever balanced?

Does he mean the Nor Am people need to sit tight and wait for the rest to catch up or does it mean axe and slash of your lifestyle until there are no longer any classes worldwide?

I've read the works of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and listened intently to the words of my elders who were witnesses to the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution and the one word that rings loudest to me is the repeated use of "levelling" over the past 20-15 years.

Fascism is no longer "creeping" in Europa, it's out for a jog and gaining strength. So why wouldn't Communism being tieing it's shoes and heading to the track?

Will it jog like fascism or will it sprint?

 

[mentalfloss]

Yes, the Leftist Progressive Conservatives are taking over.

Wait, what??


Look, the biggest problem with corporatism is that a maximum profit is accepted without question. It has been an unqualified determinant for businesses since their inception. As society evolves, businesses will learn to be content with making a 'fair profit'. A fair profit is one that allows the business to sustain itself perfectly fine, while still ensuring that the right, ethical considerations are made.

Many corporations are not averse to this. They are starting to learn that it's okay to make a little less money for the sake of humanity since they're still making a profit. Every business needs to make some sort of profit - that should be the main function of a business. But that profit needs to be balanced so that obvious evils like - selling your technology to a nation we're at war with - are not allowed.

None of that sort of corporate ethical behaviour requires fascism or communism or socialism or marxism to exist. It's a hybrid of all systems so that we can evolve to bring about pragmatic solutions.

 

[petros]

Yes, the Leftist Progressive Conservatives are taking over.

Yup the term Progressive in politics does indeed mean socialist. Ask YJ. He'll agree.

Look, the biggest problem with corporatism is that a maximum profit is accepted without question. It has been an unqualified determinant for businesses since their inception.

It was only recently that they were forced by legislation to always show a profit and pay stockholders and stockowners.

 

[mentalfloss]

It was only recently that they were forced by legislation to always show a profit and pay stockholders and stockowners.

Yes, that's fine. But some regulation needs to be in place that satisfies both the humanitarians and stockholders alike. This, again, ties into the fact that while wealth goes up, at some point there is a maximum level of satisfaction. And we need to find ways to balance various levels of satisfaction amongst the populace to create the greatest benefit for all involved.

 

[Avro]

Many corporations are not averse to this. They are starting to learn that it's okay to make a little less money for the sake of humanity since they're still making a profit. Every business needs to make some sort of profit - that should be the main function of a business. But that profit needs to be balanced so that obvious evils like - selling your technology to a nation we're at war with - are not allowed.

None of that sort of corporate ethical behaviour requires fascism or communism or socialism or marxism to exist. It's a hybrid of all systems so that we can evolve to bring about pragmatic solutions.

This is an excellent comment.

I have modeled my own business on this.

You'd be surprised at turn around and overall satisfaction of employees and customers.

I have taken a progressive approach and it has paid dividends in every venture I have undertaken.

Could I have made more for myself....sure...but I know when enough is enough and when it's time to spread that around.

 

[petros]

Yes, that's fine. But some regulation needs to be in place that satisfies both the humanitarians and stockholders alike. This, again, ties into the fact that while wealth goes up, at some point there is a maximum level of satisfaction. And we need to find ways to balance various levels of satisfaction amongst the populace to create the greatest benefit for all involved.

So it's Corporate Socialism?

 

[mentalfloss]

So it's Corporate Socialism?

You see, I don't know if I would even call it that. That might imply that there is an equal force of capitalism matched with an equal force of socialism. It also might bring out some deeply-harboured angst in some people like YukonJack. And who even knows what that combo ratio would be? 80/20, 20/80, 50/50? And exactly what facets of corporate structure do need to be socialised. We know that the military structure, for instance, is an entirely socialized organization. For it's own purpose, I guess it has to be.

Really, I have no idea what level of 'socialism' should be involved here. I think the starting point should be obviously how the actions of a corporation affect the physical well being of others - ranging from death to mild sickness, etc. Take it from there, and we'll see what corporations really should be free to do. Of course this also depends on the industry that the corporation exists in and other related factors.

Honestly, I have no idea how it would apply, but putting the label 'corporate socialism' on our move to evolve these systems might give the wrong impression, or it might just be counterproductive - fueling anti-sentiments to any thoughts for progression.

I like the term: 'fair profit'.

 

[petros]

Hey flossy, if you wanted to "balance" global currencies, what would be the easiest and most logical way of making everyone's unit of currency equal?

 

[mentalfloss]

Hey flossy, if you wanted to "balance" global currencies, what would be the easiest and most logical way of making everyone's unit of currency equal?

When you say 'balancing currency', I'm assuming you mean to say that the dollar is absolutely equal among all states. First, give me a justification for why we would need one global dollar?

 

[TenPenny]

I worked with a guy back in the 1980s who explained that the 'brown stubby' beer bottle was a symbol of the creeping socialism of the Trudeau era.

 

[petros]

Yes, that's fine. But some regulation needs to be in place that satisfies both the humanitarians and stockholders alike. This, again, ties into the fact that while wealth goes up, at some point there is a maximum level of satisfaction. And we need to find ways to balance various levels of satisfaction amongst the populace to create the greatest benefit for all involved.

When you say 'balancing currency', I'm assuming you mean to say that the dollar is absolutely equal among all states. First, give me a justification for why we would need one global dollar?

Why? Why do we need any of the international unelected policy makers? Why wouldn't international unelected policy makers want to eliminate several incumberances to global trade?

 

[DaSleeper]

We can see what global socialism has done to the European Union and nowe Germany is trying to get out of it.

I've seen what strong unionism did on my job where a slacker was getting the same pay I was for half the work, a long way from when unions were first started...because workers were not paid enough for a fair day's work...
A little bit of socialism works but absolute socialism will bring society down the same way it brought Russia..fair profit for a fair day's work is the way to go

If I take a hundred bucks to give to someone else....It called charity.....If the government does it...I call it unfair taxation because I would doubt if half of it gets to the needy.

 

[petros]

A little bit of socialism works but absolute socialism will bring society down the same way it brought Russia..fair profit for a fair day's work is the way to go

It wasn't the arms race against a nation that uses fiat currency that killed the USSR? That makes for another tick in the "one currency' column.

Would this new currency be fiat or actually backed by a finite resource?

 

[bobnoorduyn]

What a lot of people still don't get is that Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Fascism, Statism, are all varying degrees of the same ideology, and they are all left "isms". Economically speaking, under Fascism the state controls the means of production, under Communism the state owns the means of production, and neither is a friend of liberty. The left / right label was a lie put forth by Stalin and still believed to this day, tell it often enough and it becomes the truth. Fascism is just middle class socialism, (Communism doesn't exist in any practical sense except on small scales such as in Hutterite and Amish communities, even then there is still a hierarchy). Class distinctions still exist in supposedly egalitarian societies bent on the elimination of class distinctions, except the wealthy, scholars, professionals, become the slaves and the workers the masters.

When people become disillusioned with the present state of affairs they will try to re-engineer it. Obscene profits and remuneration cry out for socialism/ fascism where the government exerts control and "wealth" is redistributed. Oh sure, they call it by different names each time its tried, but a pig is still a pig. When desired results aren't achieved more control is exerted, whether in business or society, this is progressive. Progressive is good, and progressives are to be admired and emulated, but just like any euphemism it obfuscates the truth. A carcinoma is bad; so I guess a progressive carcinoma is good?

For many decades we have been sliding down the hill, politicians play favourites, there's corruption, bribery, and no amount of statism, socialism or leftism is going to fix it, it actually breeds more of the same, and we won't realise it until it's too late. Maybe it is. Government's role is to set rules and be the referee. Rule breakers should be punished equally without playing favourites. A new mouse trap isn't needed, we just need to go back to the old one, a more centrist one, if we can ever find it.

 

[geiseric]

Sorry, but I don't see regulation going a long way to preventing Capitalism's natural tides of boom and bust. Keynes may not of been perfect but he had point.

EI and CPP are two obvious examples of direct state intervention that keeps Capitalism from returning to its natural unacceptaby unstable self. In and of itself, government spending significanlty serves to keep the wheels of commerce greased in times of woe.

Government has a place in the markets beyond meer rules and regulations. What keeps everyone talking is just how large of a place that should be.

All things in good measure.

 

[gopher]

In the USA it is just the opposite = the wealthy are becoming wealthier while the middle class is decreasing. Even the Fox network has reported it. Thus, the USA is becoming more of a plutocratic oligarchy and this is why it is failing.

 

[Spade]

In Canada, the top 10% control 53.0% of the nation's wealth.
In the USA, it is 69.8%.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Such disparity in wealth is not democratic.

 

[damngrumpy]

Some people are so obsessed with socialism or some other economic ailment. The
truth is since Reagan, the world has been governed by successive conservative
governments or right leaning governments. The swing is coming back into balance
with some left of center administrations. To say for example the Obama is a real
socialist is laughable. Harper is not a socialist, nor was Bush yet both were into the
globalization of the world. Corporatism is not left of center by any means and that is
where we are heading more and more.
I believe we should stop labeling things left and right and concentrate on putting forth
good ideas no matter what side of the label left and right. Personally I believe government
should be socially progressive, and fiscally conservative. It is not the institution of a new
program that troubles me, its the fact that no one has a plan to pay for it say ten to
fifteen years out when the real costs become the all consuming reality.
If its a good program go with it but ensure there is a long term plan to sustain it without
consuming the entire budget of the future. Communism, fascism, corporatism and
socialism don't work in and of themselves, it takes all sectors of the political system
to ensure input and the fostering of good ideas.

 

[JLM]

In Canada, the top 10% control 53.0% of the nation's wealth.
In the USA, it is 69.8%.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Such disparity in wealth is not democratic.

It depends a lot on how the wealth is obtained, if through working hard and working smart it can be democratic, but too often it's through corruption and skulduggery.

 

[damngrumpy]

When we see the concentration of wealth in the USA we can begin to understand
the breakdown of that society. We have the wealthy trying to hang on to their keep
up with the Jone's mentality and those who do the work and fight the wars have
less and less incentive to do so. This compares to all the other great empires that
came and went and Americas fifteen minutes of fame is nearly over.
We need to have business make a profit, and we need to have the workers make
enough to contribute to the tax base to operate the business of the collective, which
is the government. Here is where we have the greatest problem we keep trading
trading labels, conservative, Liberal, New Democrat, Green it doesn't really matter.
All the forces we elect are ultimately forced to deal with the realities of the market
place. Therefore, its not the party in power that does a good or poor job it is the
market conditions of productivity and profitability. Therefore the biggest question
comes. Are we beyond parties and the left right struggle. Maybe we should have
a mixture of ideas. that would actually benefit the shareholders. The shareholders
are you and I the tax payer. I am interested in a stable government that ensures
peoples rights, makes sound business decisions, and ensures that all those who
benefit from the state, pay their fair share of the upkeep. That is not communism
or conservatism or socialism, its just plain economic and political sense and it
doesn't need a label.