[Ghostavo]

the democratic party is in such bad shape that their relying on pop culture to sell the vote to young voters who are voting based on race, whether it be blacks voting for their own or self racist whites (wiggers) that think they need to redeem themselves for years of enslaving them.  i find this strategy rather shallow. running for office is more than a popularity contest. if there was a black canidate who wanted the same things mccain and palin wanted, id vote for him or her.

Wait, let me understand this, you find the democrats strategy shallow, but you'd vote for a black person if they had the same policies as McCain instead of McCain?

Tell me when the irony catches up with you.

[BengalTiger]

I'll start with this:

Heheh, I like how people always cry that 'socialism' is going to give their hard-earned money to slackers and ne'er-do-wells. I wonder who started that particular meme? It's become a conservative fallback, despite the almost total lack of empirical evidence. The 'welfare mom' seems to be pretty much a myth.

I tend to be pretty moderate, but I have to say, this kind of self-justifying thought process is a little offputting.

Here are my answers (the stuff in italics is my comment), underlined fragments are highlighted by me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_Poland

Over the coming years, private industry was nationalised, the land seized from the pre-war landowners and redistributed to the peasants, and millions of Poles were transferred from the lost eastern territories to the lands acquired from Germany.

...

The next stage of Polish history began in December 1970. Gomułka's government had decided to prop up the failing economy by suddenly announcing massive increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs. (sell $80 of beer for $100; also raising prices because people didn't earn enough)

...

Gierek's plan for recovery was centered on massive borrowing, mainly from the United States and West Germany, to re-equip and modernise Polish industry, and to import consumer goods to give the workers some incentive to work. While it boosted the Polish economy, and is still remembered as the "Golden Age" of communist Poland, the obvious repercussion in the form of massive debt is still felt in Poland even today.

...

A new wave of strikes undermined Gierek's government, and in September Gierek, who was in poor health, was finally removed from office and replaced as Party leader by Stanisław Kania. (The Party had a meeting where they decided who will be the next Polish leader, people were later informed via newspapers and TV) However Kania was unable to find an answer for the fast-eroding support of communism in Poland. (people were informed that they get price rises without pay rises, who'd support that?) Labour turmoil led to the formation of the independent trade union Solidarity (Polish Solidarność) in September 1980, originally led by Lech Wałęsa. In fact Solidarity became a broad anti-communist social movement ranging from people associated with the Roman Catholic Church, to members of the anti-communist left. By the end of 1981, Solidarity had nine million members, a quarter of Poland's population and three times as many as the PUWP (Polish United Worker's Party, aka the Commies) had.

On December 13, 1981, the government leader, Wojciech Jaruzelski, who had become the party's national secretary and prime minister that year, became supposedly fearful of Soviet intervention and started a crack-down on Solidarity. He declared martial law in Poland, suspended the union, and temporarily imprisoned most of its leaders. The government then banned Solidarity on October 8, 1982. Martial law was formally lifted in July 1983, though many heightened controls on civil liberties and political life, as well as food rationing, remained in place through the mid- to late-1980s.

...

All estates over 0.5 km² in pre-war Polish terrotories and all over 1 km² in Regained territories were nationalised without compensation. In total, 31,000 km² of land were nationalised in Poland and 5 million in the Regained Territories, out of which 12,000 km² (that leaves 19k km²) were redistributed to peasants and the rest remained in the hands of the government. (which was the $19 for the barman, and $1 for the other poor drinker in my story; this as well as nationalisation of factories which is in other fragments)

...

Nationalization also began in 1944, with the government taking control of German industries in Regained Territories. As nationalization was unpopular, the communists delayed the nationalization reform until 1946, when after the 3xTAK referendums (if you read the article, you'll find out the referendums' result was the one the Party wanted, and not the one the people voted) they were fairly certain they had total control of the government and could deal with eventual public protests. However some semi-official nationalisation of various private non-German industries had begun back in 1944.

In 1946, all enterprises with over 50 employees were nationalised, with no compensation to Polish owners.(For General Battuta's "give their hard-earned money to slackers and ne'er-do-wells.")

...

During the Gierek era, Poland was already becoming increasingly capitalistic due to its Western money borrowing. The fact that the West would no longer give Poland credit meant that living standards began to sharply fall again as the supply of imported goods dried up, and as Poland was forced to export everything it could, particularly food and coal, to service its massive debt, which would reach US$23 billion by 1980. By 1978, it was therefore obvious that eventually the regime would again have to raise prices (that means the politicians, not the market, decided what cost how much) and risk another outbreak of labor unrest.

...

During the chaotic Solidarity years and the imposition of martial law, Poland entered a decade of economic crisis, officially acknowledged as such even by the regime. Rationing and queuing became a way of life, with ration cards (Kartki) necessary to buy even such basic consumer staples as milk and sugar.(this is the '80s, it is peace time, the US looked like that or better in WW II) Access to Western luxury goods became even more restricted (The gov had Volgas- OK, that's Eastern but whatever; the people had Fiats, and the poorer had bus tickets), as Western governments applied economic sanctions to express their dissatisfaction with the government repression of the opposition, while at the same time the government had to use most of the foreign currency it could obtain to pay the crushing rates on its foreign debt.[1]

In response to this situation, the government, which controlled all official foreign trade, continued to maintain a highly artificial exchange rate with Western currencies. The exchange rate worsened distortions in the economy at all levels, resulting in a growing black market and the development of a shortage economy.[2] The only way for an individual to buy most Western goods was to use Western currencies, notably the U.S. dollar, which in effect became a parallel currency. However, it could not simply be exchanged at the official banks for Polish złotys, since the government exchange rate undervalued the dollar and placed heavy restrictions on the amount that could be exchanged, and so the only practical way to obtain it was from remittances or work outside the country. An entire illegal industry of street-corner money changers emerged, similar to pimping. The (Cinkciarze) gave clients far better than official exchange rates and became wealthy from their opportunism, albeit at great risk of punishment--which, however, was greatly diminished by widescale bribery of police.

...

After several years of the situation continuing to worsen, during which time the communist government unsuccessfully tried various expedients to improve the performance of the economy—at one point resorting to placing military commissars to direct work in the factories — it grudgingly accepted pressures to liberalize the economy.

If anyone feels that I've manipulated the article to show socialism as something more evil than it really was, feel free to read the whole thing. Also read about Russia, Ukraine and all the other USSR and it's satellite countries.

And there are many people in the world that want communism or socialism, because capitalism generates fights when a few guys get drunk and want to be payed for drinking more.

Do you not agree that if the barman did spend the extra $20 on better beer everyone would be better off?

Well they'd be better off if the rich guy never payed the most for the beers, and everyone had a $10 price before the discount, and a $8 after.
They'd also be better off if they chose to get more expensive beer after a discount, so I agree with that.

What I don't agree with is when the barman (or government) chooses for the customer (or citizens), because people know what they themselves want, but not what others do.

[karajorma]

You've linked to a page about a communist state. If you don't know the difference between communism and socialism you really shouldn't be participating in this thread since you obviously don't know enough about the subject to have a sensible opinion on it.

[Bob-san]

My view is socialism in a capitalist nation should be to benefit those that are less fortunate. I don't support universal health care since I think that would be a major blow to our nation's current system. Sure everyone can go to the hospital whenever they want, but those that may be critically ill will be stuck on a waiting list instead of seeing an oncologist for weeks or months. That and the private doctors that do appear will not be backed by insurance--meaning they either are out-of-practice or you spend decades paying them for a one-time service.

[General Battuta]

I appreciate your careful effort, Bengal_tiger, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Obama's tax plan doesn't involve anything more than rolling back the Bush tax cuts and giving a tax break to the middle and lower-class portions of the economic spectrum anyway, so the debate is pretty much moot. Most of his health care policy revolves around cutting waste, not increasing spending.

[BengalTiger]

The term Communist state originated in the West during the Cold War. It was coined to describe the form of government adopted by several countries in Eastern Europe and East Asia who followed the political model of the Soviet Union. These countries were ruled by parties which typically used the name "Communist Party of [country]." Since the separation of Party and State became very blurred in those countries, it seemed logical to name them "Communist states," by analogy with the Communist parties that ruled them.

Communists however dispute the validity of the term Communist state. Within Marxist theory, world communism is the final phase of history at which time the state would have withered away[4] and therefore "communist state" is a contradiction in terms under premises of this theory. Current states are either in the capitalist or socialist phase of history - making the term "socialist state" preferable to Communists[citation needed] - and the role of the Communist Party (i.e. the vanguard party) is to pull a nation toward the communist phase of history.

And so, Karajorma, I know more/less what I'm talking about, however you use Western naming, and I use Eastern. Here's something closer to a real communist state in my books than Poland was during the Cold War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

And about what Westerns call socialism... it still has a long way to go to reach what was happening in the Eastern Block, but any step in it's general direction is a bad idea for me, unless it's only to make sure the unemployed won't starve to death, lying sick somewhere on the street. Everyone has the right to live, to visit a doctor, and to have firemen and policemen service him/her, but if you want more, work for it and buy it.



PS As for Obama's tax increase for the rich, what happens when a company owner has to pay higher taxes, but doesn't want to have his standards of living lowered, so he fires a worker to save cash on his salary, and makes the rest work harder a bit to compensate? Call him a selfish pr***, but business is business, not charity.

And so again the poorer people will get f***ed, and the rich may not even feel the difference. What are Obama's ideas to prevent such scenarios?

McCain's idea is to lower corporate tax, which is (at least based on his knowlage, never checked myself) second highest in the world.

Same thing with the idea to tax Big Oil to give Americans cash for gas... what if the oil companies raise the price at the pump to compensate for the bonus 180 bln USD they'd have to pay in taxes? (number based on 180M people in production age in the US x 1000 USD each as Obama tax bonus)

McCain's idea is to have gas tax free during the summer when prices are highest, making prices drop by the 15% or whatever the tax is, and Big Oil won't complain about being a cash resource, so it won't have to increase the $/gal even further.

Also both politicians seem to know that moving to other energy sources and taking measures to lower the consumption of those already used is important, and I agree with that fully.

[MP-Ryan]

And so, Karajorma, I know more/less what I'm talking about, however you use Western naming, and I use Eastern. Here's something closer to a real communist state in my books than Poland was during the Cold War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea

And about what Westerns call socialism... it still has a long way to go to reach what was happening in the Eastern Block, but any step in it's general direction is a bad idea for me, unless it's only to make sure the unemployed won't starve to death, lying sick somewhere on the street. Everyone has the right to live, to visit a doctor, and to have firemen and policemen service him/her, but if you want more, work for it and buy it.

The problem is that you're confusing theoretical terms with practical reality.

Examples of socialism at work include:  Sweden, Norway
Examples of communism at work include:  There are no countries which have adopted a theoretical model of communism (because communism presupposes the end of the nation-state model).
Examples of states which are Communist in name only but function as dictatorships:  China, North Korea

It's just like the USA is NOT a capitalist country.  The USA has a semi-capitalist market structure, but the amount of regulation and social re-distribution takes it well outside of an actual capitalist model.

You're using theoretical sociological/philosophical terms to describe the state of things as they are, and reality doesn't conform to the models.  rather, countries should be examined as they function as opposed to trying to peg them into a category into which they do not actually fit.

Socialism, as it operates in countries like Norway and Sweden which approximate a functioning socialist system, works extremely well.  Norwegians enjoy one of, if not the, highest standards of living of any country, and the socioeconomic gap is less than other comparable nations.

You can't even begin to reference the Eastern Bloc prior to 1989 as models of socialism OR communism, because they weren't.  They were models of how corruption of political ideology can create one of the most despotic systems of government this planet has seen.  Lenin, arguably the founder of the system practically known as Communism, wasn't a Marxist or a communist.  Mao wasn't either.  Both twisted an existing sociophilosophical theory set into a political ideology in order to structure a government.  If you read Marx (and I have, extensively) you'll find that he never believed the social change to what he called communism would occur in Russia or China - he believed the social restructuring would assert itself in Britain or Germany.

EDIT:  And using Wikipedia as reference material is not a good idea - the articles are only as good as the people who contributed to them.  While it's useful for background material for your own reading, structuring a debate based on material from Wikipedia will get you laughed out of any serious academic discussion.

[karajorma]

And that's before we get to the fact that I was saying that the example proved socialism worked in what he refers to as the Western meaning of the word. Therefore making everything Bengal Tiger said after my comment moot.

[BengalTiger]

Kuwait:

Exports $59.57 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.)

Imports $17.74 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.)

That is 42 billion bucks earned internationally

Sweden:

Exports $176.5 billion (2007 est.)

Imports $157.2 billion (2007 est.)

That's plus 19 billion

Norway:

Exports $122.6 billion (2006 est.)

Imports $59.9 billion (2006 est.)

62 billion $ more worth of exported goods than imported

USA:

Exports $1.149 trillion (2007 est.)

Imports $1.985 trillion (2007 est.)

836 billion bucks more for imported goods than they made on exported goods......

Socialism, (...) works extremely well.

And it costs, so if you have tens of billions every year out of international trade, you have more money than you need to spend, and you can afford socialism. But if you make over 800 billion debt in 1 year, I think it's wise for a nation to encourage producing more to export more and import less, therefore it should stay away from socialism.
But then again, I might be wrong...


And about wikipedia quotes- I chose Poland because I already know the facts, and I'm pretty sure there was no bull in the article.

[Rian]

Mercantilism went out of fashion in the 18th century.

[BengalTiger]

I'll do my 'homework' in economics, and I'll write something later.

A beer for Rian.

Edit: What is a fact is that the US debt is too big, and it's growing. Another fact is that socialism costs about 60% of people's salaries in Sweden (in taxes and stuff), so it is expensive.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

I'll do my 'homework' in economics, and I'll write something later.

A beer for Rian.

Edit: What is a fact is that the US debt is too big, and it's growing. Another fact is that socialism costs about 60% of people's salaries in Sweden (in taxes and stuff), so it is expensive.

The problem is that nobody seems to care. From what I've heard, the US has a big loan to the World Bank and they're in no hurry to repay it.

[Turambar]

The problem is that nobody seems to care. From what I've heard, the US has a big loan to the World Bank and they're in no hurry to repay it.

Our leaders think the second coming of christ and the end of the world will make paying back their loan pointless.  Why bother?

[MP-Ryan]

And it costs, so if you have tens of billions every year out of international trade, you have more money than you need to spend, and you can afford socialism. But if you make over 800 billion debt in 1 year, I think it's wise for a nation to encourage producing more to export more and import less, therefore it should stay away from socialism.
But then again, I might be wrong...

You're assuming a nation's wealth is dictated by its import/export ratio.  It's not.

If the US operated on a tax scale designed to collect the most from the people and businesses which can afford to pay the most and using that to fund a socialized system, they could balance the books.  The United States, as it currently stands, has one of the widest socioeconomic gaps in the world.  This is in part due to the fact that large businesses are taxed relatively little compared to what they could be taxed, while the fees for social services (in particular, health care) sit well above the level low-income families can afford.  Businesses get all kinds of tax breaks and deals which individuals - particularly the middle class which are the bracket who actually pay the most into the tax system - do not get.

EDIT:  Fixed now that I've seen it =)

[BengalTiger]

that large businesses are taxed relatively little compared to what they could be taxed

How much more should US corporations get taxed? A company in Iowa with over 18 1/3 million $ taxable income gets taxed at 51%. And that rate is second only to Saudi Arabia's corporate tax.

[MP-Ryan]

that large businesses are taxed relatively little compared to what they could be taxed

How much more should US corporations get taxed? A company in Iowa with over 18 1/3 million $ taxable income gets taxed at 51%. And that rate is second only to Saudi Arabia's corporate tax.

They may get taxed at that rate, but with the tax breaks they are afforded through various programs none of them actually pay out at that level.  It's the numbers game.

[General Battuta]

We're all at best educated amateurs here. None of us can make a strong argument -- not me, not BengalTiger, nor anyone else -- without a serious examination of the economic facts and the opinions of experts.

I am disturbed by the widening gap between rich and poor in this country.

[BengalTiger]

They may get taxed at that rate, but with the tax breaks they are afforded through various programs none of them actually pay out at that level.  It's the numbers game.

All I know is the %, if you know about those programs, feel free to post a link or something, where we could read about it.

P.S. Beer for Gen. Battuta.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Ryan, you've got a syntax error in your second-last post.

[highwayman]

I'm freaked out about Palin being next in line for president if/when McCain croaks.