Socialist Party

Simply judging by bodycount, virtually every major leader of the 20th century could be on the top 100. Furthermore, it depends on how you allocate deaths. Is Ronny Reagan responsible for over 100,000 deaths because he supported the Contras? Is Mao responsible for millions of death because he was leader of China during a massive famine that wasn't directly his fault?

It should also be understood that there are two distinct and different Leninist ideologies. The first is the pre-revolution anarcho-socialist principles that Lenin published in the "April Theses" and "State and the Revolution". In these, Lenin also developed one of the first articulate Marxist positions on imperialism. After coming into power, Lenin abandoned some of his libertarian beliefs and took power away from the Soviets. Lenin's leadership potential never fully manifested (and is often mischaracterized.), as after being shot in 1918, he became largely a figurehead.

If you sincerely believe this you have some reading up to do. I suggest you start with The Black Book of Communsim by Stephane Courtois et al.

In about five years of rule, Lenin among other things established the Gulag, killed hundreds of thousands of workers and starved 5 million peasants to death. The exact figure of people shot by the Cheka during an on-going campaign of terror is unknown but the numbers are non-trivial.

In terms of oppression and violence, there is no qualitative difference between Lenin and Stalin. Stalin simply continued where Lenin had left off.

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that a society should exist in which 'popular' "collectives" control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of 'socialism' has changed with time. Although it is a politically-"loaded" term, it remains strongly-related to the establishment of an organized working class; created through either revolution or by social evolution, with the purpose of building a "classless society". 'Socialism' had its origins in the "Utopian" ideals of the "Enlightenment", during the "Industrial Age/Age of Industrialization", amid the yearnings for a "perfect society". It has also increasingly become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist may refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed.

In Marxist theory, it also refers to the society that would 'succeed' or supplant capitalism, and in "ideal" cases, would develop further into "communism", as the 'necessity' for the socialist structure would "wither away". 'Marxism' and 'communism' are both branches of socialism.

The word dates back at least to the early nineteenth century. It was first used, self-referentially, in the English language in 1827 to refer to followers of Robert Owen. In France, again self-referentially, it was used in 1832 to refer to followers of the doctrines of Saint-Simon and thereafter by Pierre Leroux and J. Regnaud in l'Encyclopédie nouvelle. Use of the word spread widely and has been used differently in different times and places, both by various individuals and groups that consider themselves socialist and by their opponents. While there is wide variation between socialist groups, nearly all would agree that they are bound together by a common history rooted originally in nineteenth and twentieth-century struggles by industrial and agricultural workers, operating according to principles of solidarity and advocating an egalitarian society, with an economics that would, in their view, serve the broad populace rather than a favored few.

Just for those of you who did not know what the definition was. Now you know. And I am not seeing anything wrong with this definition that would imply any major issues. Simply becuase not one person I know doesn't want a "Perfect" world. And if you claim to not want a perfect world you are either a liar or completely a moron. So those of you who Judged Lenin... Honestly.. go fuck yourself. Now had he said a National Socialist party that would have been different. But he simply stated the Broadest form of Socialism.

Izzy the Great

Was this directed at me or something? If so I find it rather incomprensible. Are you saying that if you're not either A) a bolshevik or B) some other form of socialist, then you're a moron? (?)




And you think that a person/regime who killed people to the extent of matching the Jewish holocaust should not be judged? Are you crazy?

P.S: Regarding the definition of socialism I find nothing to disagree on.

Of course not most goverments fail far far worse. Feudalism just in europe is responsable for as many deaths as all of the communist countries in the world combined and they did it without any of our modren technologies like machine guns, poison gas, and orginized beuracracy and with a much smaller world population. Egypt made such a habit of razing cities in Syria-Palistine so much that great hill tens of meters tall were created from the burnt rubble of the city-states. I don't think I even need to mention the number of dead that the ancient chinese have to their name do I. Precentage wise the Romans could equal the Russians in a similar time frame, if you pick one of the right streachs of time. Of course everyone favorites, the Aztecs, beat communism and nazism hands down for the effect they had on their area. Finaly, for the 99% or our history that we lived in bands, it was common for bands to destroy and/or convert another band to its own people would make up nearly all of the none natural deaths of human kind at that time. Communism and Nazism are not all that special when you compair them to the bloody history of mankind. They are simply one of thousands upon thousands of times when man killed man. As the arrow of time continues its course they will simply blend in with the other horrible acts in history that come before it, such as the 30 years war, minoans cuting up children and burning the strips to the gods, Egypt resorting to eating the dead in the 1st intermediate period, the enslavement of and entire race by the spartians and such footnotes in history books.

Nonsense, as anyone with a whiff of historical knowledge would be aware.

And even if comparable massmurder would be remotely possible with the technological means of pre-modern Europe, feudalism is a social system, not a political entity (i.e a government), bent on creating a new world order through massacre and purges.

But since you put it the way you do, albeit perversively, I can only conclude that you agree with me that if Soviet symbolism and Leninists should be allowed in SL, so should swastikas little Führers. After all, they only killed six million Jews and a few others according to the official record. What's that in comparison with the "arrow of time" blending in with the big soufflé of human cruelty?

EDIT: For greater clarity.

Over 30 million people were killed in the 30 years war (or the 100 years war I can't remeber which right now). War and death were the flavors of the day. European fuedalism is as much a political system as russian communism. They both invovle a politcal system, a economic system, and a system of belif that were interlinked into a single self perpetuating system of goverment. Of course creating a new world order through massacres is a practice as old as the city states. Wide scale purges are realatively new though and have only been around as long a nation states discounting various religious fads.



Lets name some rather well known sports teams shall we. Spartans whose entire socioty was based on the keeping there slaves from rebeling by killing all those who revolt or look at them funny. The Aztecs who we all know and love for riping the hearts out of captured prisoners. The Pirates who were both better and worse then what we like to think today. The Celts who sacraficed people in the second most brutal way you can, I think burned alive is worse. This is just of the top of my head. Quite clearly we have nothing against using the symbols of cultures that were burtal. Look around your local costume shop and see how many of the costumes are based on the sociotes that lived off of slavery and oppression. Hitler and Russia are already well on their way to banality. In another 40 years you will see 5 year olds dressed up as Hitler or Stalin next to kids dressed as kids dressed as Spartans, Samurai, Feudal Kings, and Darth Vader.

Also Hitler killed far mor then a few others. More of these 'others' were killed the jews by far. Gypsies, gays, and the disabled where just as much targets of the clensing as the jews. The jews just get the limelight.

Something of a difference isn't it? I believe the highest estimates say that Germany lost about 7 million of its population during the 30 years war. But then again, this was war, people swept away by raging disease and undisciplined mercenary rabble, not civilians willfully starved or exterminated by a government to prove one utopian point or another (although, of course theology played its apparent part in this conflict).



Yeah, whatever... When you go on about Spartans and Aztecs it's actually surprising that you don't also mention the Hebrew invasion of Canaan. At least, here we have something that actually resembles something of a modern day genocide.

But I do not intend to get entangled in disputes over this or that massacre in ancient history. What I do like to know if you are prepared to accept swastikas as well as hammers and sickles, given what we supposedly know about 20th century history?

Are you prepared to accept the Stars and Stripes, given the deliberate, ideologically-and-racially-driven, systematic attempt to commit genocide against Native Americans on this continent over the last three centuries? Are you prepared to take responsibility for the evil record of liberal capitalism and democratic culture? Current estimates are that the Europeans and Americans were directly and indirecty responsible for the deaths of between 16 and 23 million people in North America. To say nothing of the record of bloody imperialism by democratic countries in places like India, China, the Philippines, etc.

Or are those merely disputes about "ancient history"?

If you're going to be so careless and cavalier in your definitions, arguments, and uses of the evidence, you'd better be prepared to stand trial for crimes yourself. Because carelessness and a cavalier attitude can trap you - as it has so many billions of people in human history.

Yes.



Well, I'm not American and I wasn't there so I'm not ready to take responsibility for anything.



What's your problem? I do not wish to ban any flags, political parties or ideologies from SL. I'm merely pointing out that if the Commies and crypto-Commies should have their fun, so should the Nazis, because the former (sometimes contrary to their delusional beliefs) simply do not occupy the moral high ground. It's nothing more than fair and just - and even in accordance with free speech and opinion.

Stalin wasn't about a utopia he was about power, mainly his own. He paid lip serves to the communist ideals but realy he never did anything that feudal lords had not done on a smaller scale. Starving civilians, killing off those who you distrust, and sending people to the wilderness to die are all tried and true for hundreds of years. He was simply the first person who maneged to get in charge of an important modern country and do it as opposed to all the 'third world' countries that had done it before and after.



Because when is the last time you have heard of a team called the Fighting Jews. Also I try never to bring religously charged things up in debates or else bad things will happen to the target.



Since you didn't get the point of my talking about sports teams let me put is simply. Why not. Commies are already used in anything that wants to be campy 50's movie and Hitler has become so over used that he has become a cliche.

I see....



And I'm merely pointing out that if you are going to try to take away the high ground from anybody, you need to put your argument into a proper context - because even if you aren't of any of the various European flavors I referenced, chances are you'll stand convicted of your own criticism if you don't.

My problem? I don't like sloppy arguments.

There is some truth to this. What is collectivization and the stachanovit system really but a primitive feudalism based entirely on the exploitation of the landless masses on a massive scale?

But as you may have noted, I wasn't talking especially about Stalin, rather more about Lenin, Trotsky and all the rest of the still frequently idolized vermin. And whatever is your idea of medieval society and feudalism, in reality in most places of Europe at most times, your notion is exaggerated to say the least, but that's not really relevant...



No, you don't understand anything. I'm not American. I have nothing to do with American politics either at present or in the past. Therefore I cannot take responsibilty for its actions. I may have opinions about it...
I'll repeat. I don't serve America and America is not my master. Perhaps it is yours? Then you deal with it. If you want to petition a ban on the Stars & Stripes, go right ahead.

As for the rest, spare me the bullshit and tell me your honest opinion. Do you want to allow Communist symbology, parties and ideologies in SL, considered the massive destruction and torture it has wrought on the world, while in the name of censorship, inconsequence and generally politically correct double-think not allow corresponding Nazi and Fascist organizations, parties and symbology?

The difference is the source, design, and dynamic of authority - which leads to necessary differences in strategies for dismantling the system, and strategies for acculturating the oppressed to some new system. Which - from a tactical point of view - is "relevant".



Well, if I truly didn't understand anything, I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to save you from your own ignorance.

You cannot make the statements you made without considering the implications - to yourself and to others. The fact that you are not an American is irrelevant. Whatever you may be, you are bounded by your own arguments in these matters, and your membership in human society, and if you refuse to acknowledge that fact, you destroy your own credibility. That was the point I was trying to make when I mentioned the European imperial experiences of democracies in Asia and other regions - but I could have easily mentioned Mauryan India, Suzerain China, Japan in the early 20th century, etc. - a point you conveniently ignore.



*sigh.... Well, here I can believe one of two things:

(1) Either you are supremely ignorant, and you really don't understand that the question you asked depends on initial assumptions, subjective value definitions, and a lack of substantial knowledge about the historical issues you pose,

or

(2) You actually do realize that you've posed a loaded question in a meaningless way, and you're simply playing a rhetorical game - which renders your "stop the bullshit and be honest" statement pretty hypocritical.

Either way, the answer to your question is this: "Behaving so transparently makes you look foolish."

For the record, communism and socialism never existed in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc., just as liberal capitalism has never really existed in countries like the United States, the UK, Canada, Australia, France, etc. It is not satisfactorily demonstrated that ideology contributed to the aberrations in both sets of countries - whether you're talking about the elimination of the kulaks and the political opposition in the USSR, or genocide and slavery practised in the United States, or the wholesale destruction of culture and peasants in French Indochina or Algeria, for example.

To make your arguments credible, you would have to demonstrate that ideology did determine the outcomes in all of those societies, which is supremely difficult. And if you did, you would be forced to nihilistically reject all present ideologies, if you wanted to avoid being dishonest. So you've painted yourself into a bit of a corner - which is what I've been suggesting to you all along.

Here's an answer that can help you: You can't conflate ideology with the human record - unless, as with Fascism in Italy and National Socialism in Germany, the ideology itself specifically calls for suppression, eradication, death, and destruction. The ideologies of liberal capitalism, socialism, anarchism, and communism do not.

Implementing those ideologies in the real world withou large scale violence and oppression would most likely prove very difficult.

It may be possible, but I don't believe anyone's come up with such a plan.

Say what? Which ideologies are you referring to? The only ones that have been fully implemented on a large scale are fascism, national socialism, and liberal capitalism - and you're right, large scale violence and widespread oppression occurred in connection with each, but not necessarily for the same reasons.

Liberal capitalism may be oppressive, but not in the blatant sense that fascism and national socialism called for systematic oppression beyond the economic realm, as well as state-directed violence against specific groups, foreign and domestic. The violence associated with liberal capitalism has largely been associated with the suppressive nature of uncontrolled corporatism or the corruption of liberal government.

I'm sorry, Seth.. While I was writing that, I went back and changed it, and forgot to put back in a major point of clarification.

I was speaking specifically of Anarchism and Communism... I have not seen any plan for implementation of either in the real world, that would not require large scale violence and oppression.

Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Peter Kropotkin, Salvador Allende, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Daniel Guerin, Proudhon, and several others have extensive writings on peaceful means of transition to anarchism/libertarian socialism.

Hmm.. I've read some of Goldman's writings, and Chomsky's. I've never seen anything that approaches an actual concrete plan though.

Most of the writings seem to deal with particular trouble spots that others bring up, but often these solutions result in different trouble spots of their own.

Libertarian socialism seems to be fundamentally flawed at its core though, as it seems to assume that people will just be nice to each other.

I'm unsure by what mechanism you would prevent people from naturally forming their own authority structures, since you would not have a state to stop it. This seems like a fairly natural human tendency, as it's evolved on its own through humanity's societal development.

I'd certainly be interested in knowing how this could be prevented.

I don't think you will ever have a concrete plan for shifting any type of goverment to any other type of goverment. Ask President Bush for his concrete plan for shifting Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy. Or ask the founding fathers of the U.S. for their concrete plans of shifting their colonial states to a confederacy. Opps, we need a redo. There are always going to be too many factors involved.



Well think about it. We spend the majority of our time being nice to each other. While we have a higher prison population in the U.S., it's skewed due to the war on drugs. And wars? Those are the products of nation-states. How many of us walk out the door and just deck some old lady because we were late for work because overslept that morning?



That is of course the problem with anarchy. There is no real way to prevent new social, patiarchal, matriarchal, economic, etc. based political structures from forming and snowballing over their neighbors.

But our founding fathers did have a plan for creating a single union of the colonies.. and it worked.

That's the problem, all the plans that have actually been implemented for systems such as communism have tended to fail. So, I'm wondering if anyone's actually proposed a plan for libertarian socialism that COULD work. Most tend to have pretty significant holes in them.

I'm assuming that if folks here support such systems, they must know of some way that the systems will work in the real world. Although, I suppose they don't really need to, since you could implement them in SL, and they would essentially be supported by the external capitalist system that exists in the real world. That certainly presents an interesting twist.. the idea of having capitalism support communism, where the two systems would essentially be dependant, rather than competing.

However, interesting as it is, I was under the impression that people here actualy thought it could work alone in the real world.



This seems somewhat naive.
I would tend to agree, that most humans are generally fairly sociable. However, there is a significant population who will exploit others given the chance. What's more, they will enlist the help of others who would not NORMALLY exploit others, but can be guided into it by misdirection. Now, I'm using the word exploitation fairly loosely here. In our current system, this 'exploitation' takes the form as things which are fairly bland, like simple competition. But you can plainly see the effects: You may work harder, because you're working for "your team", while never considering that your success may put another guy out of work. So, in the complex system actions tend to be insulated by abstract aspects of our existence to such a degree that you THINK that you're being "nice" to others, while in reality you are in fierce competition without even knowing it.







I tend to agree.. I think that without some sort of authority, this is the inevitable result.. People will form groups just like they have throughout history.. First families, then tribes, then nations (or maybe corporations.. they're very similar entities. Corporations are essentially nation-states that are not linked to a particular geographic area.).

I'm curious if anyone knows of a solution to this seemingly inevitable problem. I gotta assume there is one, since some folks obviously think this sort of system can work, and I can't assume that all of them are simply too stupid to have thought of this.

Only because you are looking at history with 20/20 hindsight. You might need to reread your history then. The original Articles of Confederation produced by the founding fathers after the American Revolution resulted in a government that was NOT working and was falling apart. Most Americans do not know there were actually two American revolutions. The second was bloodless which produced the Constitution of the United States. A task that the writers were not supposed to do. People at the time did not know if we were going to end up with a revised confederation, republic or new monarchy. There were powerful factions working at cross purposes that threatened to ruin the whole thing.

For example, the whole idea of an unanimous vote for anything from the Articles is daft. You give way to much power to a single disenting voice. One only has to look at Poland's early failed experiment with democracy to see the results of that.

Also, problems of the original two goverments (results of those powerful factions) - states rights vs federal rights, slavery, etc. - would later result in another disasterous conflict called the American Civil War. Something I would hardly call a perfect example.

Look, people have this mistaken belief that democracies and republics are eternal. They're not. All governments fail at some point. Ben Franklin himself said "A republic, if you can keep it." They had no illusion that this government that they created would last forever.



Or for European players playing SL, it's the other way around. Their socialist systems are providing them with an income to play SL and prop up its capitalistic system. Really, I don't know why people insist on calling SL a capitalistic system. It's not. It's pseudo-socialism/capitalism/p0rnism. LL has way too much influence over the SL economy. However, communism/socialism in SL is more or less window dressing. Just the same as same as capitalism. If you don't want to buy anthing in SL. You don't. If you see something you like, you don't have to buy it. You can make it yourself. What are the odds of you being able to make a copy of my Volvo in RL? Vanishingly slim.

In capitalism, the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Ok, the first part "...the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned..." isn't really true. When we way something is owned, we infer that some people have it and others do not. In SL, we all have the same access to create and distribute goods which cannot be given away or sold - just not used. The second part, "...development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." This might be true, but only as a reflection of the RL. For example a graphic artist in China may create an account tomorrow and start making clothes that look ten times better than anything currently in SL. This would all be with an account just a few days old.

In socialism, the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

The the first part of this, "...the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government..." isn't true. LL may create the tools by they take little hand in what is created. The second part, "...centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." is definately true. LL is always tweaking with stripends, tier costs, etc.

Of course we pull up other sources for definitions of these two terms and go ad infinitum. It's just I can do things in SL supposedly "capitalistic" system that I could never do in RL's capitalism. For example, I could sale all my buildings (if I ever finish them) for zero L$ and never suffer any repercussions. In RL I would go out of business pretty damn quick.



We may see, we may see. In the U.S., I wonder if the average worker is really ready for his income to be adjusted for the global capitalistic market. This is where a current average U.S. income of $40K/year needs to be adjusted down to about $10k/year (been a while since I have seen an estimate for this figure) to be competitive with the rest of the world. There's going to be some screaming until property and costs of goods adjust. But as the saying goes, "You have a to break a few eggs..."



Very loosely, no joke. So, if I work real hard and put my friend out of work, the human side of me will help him either get hired on where I work or let him crash at my place while he finds another job. Look, if you want to create a system that encourages and/or connives people to treat others as beasts; don't think it allows you to say that it's human nature. It's the nature of your system.



Actually I was thinking about this last night. The same can be true of all goverments. They only last as long as the population has a vested interest in them. For example, the legal and physical institutions of the U.S. will outlast people's allegiance to them. People will throw their weight behind a new government, while the old protests ineffectively. It's just in an anarchist system it would probably happen faster.

I would think that most folks who discuss this stuff do know about the articles of confederation... And while they didn't last, the country didn't collapse. They were more of a temporary government until the constitution could be drafted.

The end result was that it all worked.



Certainly the bloodiest conflict in American history was not a nice event. But, in the end, the union survived.

Democracies and republics may not be eternal, but ours has been successful for over two hundred years now. The Romans made one last for much longer. It's certainly a pretty good system.

But your point is well taken that no government is perfect.




I laughed real hard at the "p0rnism" statement.



Ya, this is what makes me think that SL would actually provide an environment where non capitalist systems COULD possibly work, simply because there is very little real cost for production.



An interesting point.

In the real world, trying to pretend that the government knows better than the market how the economy should work tends to have pretty disasterous results.. The more the government replaces the free market, the less efficient the system is (in general, based on historical evidence).

With SL, this effect may be somewhat muted, as really KEY aspects of the real economy have no place in SL.. For instance, if LL screws up the economy, people don't starve. So they have a bit more wiggle room.




It will certainly be interesting. Of course, we need to keep in mind that the actual numerical value of a wage is not as important as the purchasing power.

The nice thing about the market system though, is that things are pretty much guaranteed to even out. It won't happen over night, but it'll happen eventually. And frankly, I see nothing wrong with this. If a guy in India can do my job for 1/10 my wage, then there's no real reason why he shouldn't. I don't buy into the whole "They're stealin' our JERBS!" notion.

As an employee, I consider myself in competition for my job. I need to make myself a more attractive employee for potential employers. If I'm going to require higher wages, then I need to actually offer something in return.




Yes, if you put your friend out of work, you might help him.. but what if you put joe shmoe out of work, without even realizing it? You most likely wouldn't even consider letting some stranger just crash at your place.




Well the key difference is that a more traditional government tends to offer more to its people than an anarchist system would. It offers security and order.

There's little that an anarchist system offers.. as it's largely just the absence of a system.

But you might be making it sound like they had a plan and it worked accordingly to their plan. Rather in reality they had to wing it times and leave some very tough problems (such as slavery) to latter generations to solve as they could not resolve them at the time and still produce a viable goverment.

A goverment that really sucked up to that point if you were a slave and would continue to suck until some time after the Civil Rights movement.

The U.S. changed a bit with the ACW. It's not the same states-first type of country that it once was - for better and for worse. As for Rome, is a tricky example as you have to only include the time it existed as a republic.

Most governments decay into plutocracies eventually. However, a cynic would say all goverments decay into plutocracies. Which looking at our government, we might be progressing quite nicely along that path.

Thanks. But I don't think I can take credit for it.

Sometimes the goverment does know better. Afterall, we did elect them to act on our interests. For example, if it is not cost effective to make a certain drug to save people lives, should the goverment intervene in the market and make it cost effective? Or should we just let the market dictate and we say, "Those people are just goin' to die." When it comes down to it - who serves who and where does the market fit it? Are governments and people subverient to the market? What gives some corporation more rights over me? We did try the laissez-faire system in the late 19th and early 20th century and it was equally disasterous. Trains run with no safety inspection, no food standards, etc. If we have learned anything is that a mixed capitalist system is the least we would settle for.

But the trip down, is the part that is going to hurt as people adjust from a higher standard of living to a lower one. It will take longer for goods to adjust than it will take wages. But there is the whole problem, that there might be a huge enough pool of global labor to drop salaries to just above subsidence levels of living. And theoretically, once salaries are dropped to those bedrock levels, there they will stay. As salaries start to climb in one country, you shift them to another country with lower wages and repeat.

Did we really elect a government and tell them, "Hey lets put an economic system in place that will work us to the bone while we live in a near poverty level, so some global company can prosper. We don't care that the generations before us did quite well. It's just that companies today - just well - have it too hard, they can't compete and pay wages like they did 50 years ago. Who needs a middle class?"

I guess at that point we have switched loyalty from our country and country(wo)man to the market and found ourselves poorer in the bargain.

I just wonder - if and when the American middle class is whittled away - to who they are going to sell their products?

But even that stanger has friends and family. Actually one of my older (he had been retired) history professors was telling us about his family as they growing up during the Great Depression. His parents did take in total stangers to help them out. It was a time very different than today. Perhaps we have grown too atomic and we will simply just turn on each other. We are Americans of a lesser caliber today.

Anarchism was formed at a time when people were getting tired of being exploited in the proto-capitalistic markets, being sent of to die in pointless wars, having no civil rights, etc. So, you might say that people were tired of some of the things that goverment were "offering" them.

I think a large degree of flexibility is required for any kind of stable government.



Certainly. Although I believe it speaks to the value of such a system, that the civil rights movment could have the success that it did.




Oh, don't get me wrong. I think that in many things, the government DOES know better. They are paid to pour over information and make decisions, so that we don't have to.

However, when it comes to manipulation of the free market, this becomes far more complex. The system is simply too complex for ANYONE to understand to such an extent.

This is why whenever something like price fixing goes into effect, the system grinds to a halt. We end up having widespread shortages of the goods whose prices are fixed, because the price no longer reflects the balance of supply and demand, and essentially ends up being sold for less than its worth.

Some things can be decided based simply on having access to more data... But things such as pricing in a market cannot be.



Eh, maybe.. I'm not sure it'll be quite as hard as you're suggesting. The beauty of the market is that it will continue to adjust itself to the new environment.

As wages go down in the US, so will prices, because those consumers will not have as much money to spend.

In cases such as this, much of the lowering of salaraies can simply result in low inflation. The end result though, is that things are going to be balanced across all of the different countries to some extent. While the road getting there might be rocky, there's really no way to stop it. It's not worth fighting against such an inevitable force.

Also, we must consider that the job market itself evolves. For instance, in the 80's there was the fear that our economy was going to collapse, because so much manufacturing was going overseas. Did this happen? No. Our economy simply switched to a more services based economy. I suspect that such switching will help damper the effects of job movement.




I'm not so sure this is the case. It's a hard thing to measure, but I think that for the most part the average American is better off now than they were 50 years ago.



Well, we need to consider a few things here.

During the depression, there was no social welfare system. Thus, people took care of each other, because there was no other option.

Today, the existence of a welfare state gives us the impression that it's not our problem, and that someone else can deal with it.



Certainly. The problem though is that the cure can be worse than the disease. For instance, (and I realiez that it's not anarchism. ) the revolution in Russia totally devastated that country. It went from being one of the most productive agricultural centers of Europe, into a wasteland... To a large extent, because they confiscated all of the grain stores, put them in centralized locations where they then rotted. They destroyed the infrastructure that was in place to produce food and materials, because that infrastructure was tied to the capitalists.

This is what makes the whole issue difficult to deal with... While one system may have problems, getting rid of those problems often means getting rid of the good things along with it. Shallow consumerism and materialism have many negative aspects to them... but at the same time, it's nice to be able to talk on the computer to people around the world, or be able to recover from breaking your leg and not walk with a limp for the rest of your life.

I think that we must be careful not to take such things for granted, and ignore the fact that nice things are a result of the system we live in currently. If the system is to change, then you need to address how to get such nice things back under the new system, or consciously decide that you don't need them.

Oh, and this is an interesting discussion. It's nice to discuss such things without people freaking out from both extremes.