Doesn't the service industry preclude communist revolt?

[GePap]

You conservatives and Liberterians have a strange view of communism.

I don;t agree with marx's calculations in a lot of economic topics, but still, you can;t hold a real discussion on a topid with a jaded and inherently incorrect view of the other side.

[Japher]

Spiffor, could you explain how social-democrats plan on making Welfare and capitalism meld together? IMO, social-democrats want government control/regulation of all capitalistic outlets (buisnesses) so that they may "properly" fund welfare. In my model the government will be cut out insofarasmuch that they would control/regulate direct buisness responisbility towards welfare, cutting the government out as a middle man between welfare supplier and welfare recipient.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
Spiffor, could you explain how social-democrats plan on making Welfare and capitalism meld together?

They've ben doing it for over fifty years, in case you hadn't noticed. Try reading Keynes.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Japher
Spiffor, could you explain how social-democrats plan on making Welfare and capitalism meld together? IMO, social-democrats want government control/regulation of all capitalistic outlets (buisnesses) so that they may "properly" fund welfare. In my model the government will be cut out insofarasmuch that they would control/regulate direct buisness responisbility towards welfare, cutting the government out as a middle man between welfare supplier and welfare recipient.

what? without the government taxing and forcing business to fund welfare, how would welfare get funded? Oh yeah, I'm sure corporations would "voluntarily" fund social programs.



And I thought Communists had a dillusional view of things.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Japher
Spiffor, could you explain how social-democrats plan on making Welfare and capitalism meld together? IMO, social-democrats want government control/regulation of all capitalistic outlets (buisnesses) so that they may "properly" fund welfare.

Government control != government regulation. Regulations are the boundaries in which a private business is free to act. Just like laws are the boundaries in which you, individual, are free to act: would you consider yourself "controlled by the government" because it is forbidden to kill?

Social-democrats generally want to tax the capitalist economy. Very rarely is the public ownership of a company a scheme to make money: in general, the social-democrats only nationalize companies to provide a general-interest service.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Ozzy, I'm curious - in which European states does the government own more means of production now than they did, say 25 years ago?

When did I ever suggest countries did?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Statist socialism, although such did not happen in western Europe. The most 'socialist' country of western Europe (Statist actually), France, was called a "mixed economy" because the very large private sector was complemented with State-owned majors.

Welfare is not communism by any standards, because it doesn't act upon the "who owns the means of production" question. Welfare and capitalism can meld together very well, and all social-democrats on this planet support such a model. It is possible to have a welfare State with a very tiny public sector (Bismarck's Germany comes to mind, but postwar Germany comes to mind as well)

I didn't say welfare was communism, I said it was a step towards communism. France clearly has more state-ownership than the United States. It has clearly gone farther down the path towards communism than some other nations. This does not make it communist. What one day was the United States can end up like France, what what day was France can end up the Soviet Union.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


When did I ever suggest countries did?

Originally posted by OzzyKP

Look at Europe now (or 20 years ago), state owned industries, huge welfare states, etc. Communism creeps in slowly, as the government takes over more and more of society until there is nothing left and a communist state exists.

Sure thats not Marxism, but it looks like thats whats happening to me.

I don't know how you could state it any more blatently.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by GePap
You conservatives and Liberterians have a strange view of communism.

I don;t agree with marx's calculations in a lot of economic topics, but still, you can;t hold a real discussion on a topid with a jaded and inherently incorrect view of the other side.

Fine I'm a crazy idiot. But that must make you a troll for not addressing any real questions here, just criticizing me. A society where the government owns 100% of industry and there is no private sector, that isn't communism? Then what the hell is it?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Fine I'm a crazy idiot.

I tought that went without stating here.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I don't know how you could state it any more blatently.

I think that was a pretty clear reference to the fact that things were more state-owned 20 years ago than today. How the heck did you get so confused?

[Japher]

Try reading Keynes

I read som critiques about him and about the subsiquent dismantling of his "policies" in the US... I will read more, it sound rather interesting. Though, my knowlege in economics is very limited, especially in macro.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


I think that was a pretty clear reference to the fact that things were more state-owned 20 years ago than today. How the heck did you get so confused?

originally posted by OzzyKP
Communism creeps in slowly, as the government takes over more and more of society until there is nothing left and a communist state exists.

Sure thats not Marxism, but it looks like thats whats happening to me.

Perhaps you should read what you wrote one more time, and think about it. In case you don't want to, allow me to do it for you:

You say that communism creeps in slowly, with the govenrment increasingly owning more and more and then reference Europe. And then you say that's what it looks like is happening to you. Now you are doing an about face and saying that in fact that things are less state owned now than 20 years ago. What happened to the creeping communism and the trend you were so clearly seeing?

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Fine I'm a crazy idiot. But that must make you a troll for not addressing any real questions here, just criticizing me. A society where the government owns 100% of industry and there is no private sector, that isn't communism? Then what the hell is it?

IN Theoretical communism, which si what Speer brough up, there is no state.

As Spiffor said, that is Statist Socialism, which is really what you can say the USSR was-an attempt to build communism through a single party socialist state as oposed to waiting for the final stages of capitalism to bring forth the revolution.

And the welfare state is in no way even close to this since the state is not taking control of the means of production, ismply taking a bite out of the profits to fund the programs.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I didn't say welfare was communism, I said it was a step towards communism. France clearly has more state-ownership than the United States.

Again, the two are only indirectly related, and they're not connected by the communist route.

1. France has a very long tradition of State involvement in the economy. Louis XIV's prime minister (Colbert) had many manufactures built, and there was a state-driven pre-industrialization. We still speak of our Colbertist tradition, which was especially revigorated under De Gaulle, and which explains our trust for public companies.

2. The social-democrats (who are the ones pushing for welfare) around the world are capitalists at heart, in that they believe capitalism is a superior form of economy, but they don't trust private enterprise to provide everything the society needs. As such, social-democrats are more prone than liberals to have public companies provide public services. The aim of this method is not to give workers control over the means of production (the State has control), but to make sure the company's leadership will follow the needs of the State/the citizens, even if that means losing money.

As such, when the social-democrats are at the helm, you can expect several of their ideas to be applied: welfare on the one hand, public ownership of general-interest companies on the other hand.
The reason why welfare States generally have more public ownership than corporate bordelloes, is because the social-democrats have other ideas than liberals, when it comes to a functioning capitalist society.