Cuba’s Inspectors and Private Workers

[El Presidente]

Cuba’s Inspectors and Private Workers

Another Cracker article. 

I found myself tut tutting......and then I thought how our own Oz capitalist system has just professionalised the same behaviour by taking out the middle man.  

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=126877

For example, the supervisor showed me the record of a 1500 pesos fine given to a woman who used to sell plastic bags. Because Decree Law No. 315 states that you can’t without a license, and this is the corresponding sum for such a violation. Now, let’s think about just how many bags she is going to have to sell in order to earn those 1500 pesos. “It seems unfair, but the Decree bans it.”

 

[maxcjs0101]

Nice article.

[busdriver]

It is truly hard to imagine how people can maintain the drive it takes to be successful there.  There is a fraction of the graft and disfunction where I am and it is almost paralyzing.   My heart goes out to these folks!

[anacostiakat]

Another good article!

[99call]

17 hours ago, El Presidente said:

" then I thought how our own Oz capitalist system has just professionalised the same behaviour by taking out the middle man"

 

I have to confess I do find it strange that many on here endlessly have a go at the principles of communism and socialism, like it's the route of all evil.

The truth is there has never been a real vision of communism put into effect in History.  Havana, North Korea, China, Russia, etc etc they are all 'Hyper Capitalist' dictatorships.  All that define them from our world is, that their Elite are smaller, and much richer, and the poor, are greater in number, and much poorer. 

The principles of communism drawn up by Marx and Engles were to actually protect the poor from being victimised by the ruling classes.  Yes, every version of communism in the world today is f-up, but can we stop bagging socialism or communism, for the ill's of Capitalist Dictatorship's. 

If Habana were actually a communist state, the workers would all have shares in their own production. Another benefit would be Ken could finally have is number referenced roller.    "5x 50 cabs of SLRDC from No 6 please!" although he may fight back!

 

[PigFish]

18 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Cuba’s Inspectors and Private Workers

Another Cracker article. 

I found myself tut tutting......and then I thought how our own Oz capitalist system has just professionalised the same behaviour by taking out the middle man.  

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=126877

For example, the supervisor showed me the record of a 1500 pesos fine given to a woman who used to sell plastic bags. Because Decree Law No. 315 states that you can’t without a license, and this is the corresponding sum for such a violation. Now, let’s think about just how many bags she is going to have to sell in order to earn those 1500 pesos. “It seems unfair, but the Decree bans it.”

 

You don't have a capitalist system mate.

Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, often with an emphasis on democratic management of enterprises within a socialist economic system.

Democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership. Ultimately, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only cause more problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy, that capitalism can never be sufficiently "humanized", and that it must therefore ultimately be replaced with socialism.

 

How many times have I heard 'capitalism has failed.' This is what you get and certainly where you are going, if you are not there already!

The entire excerpt from Wiki is an oxymoron. There are no democratic 'values of liberty!' There are only transient, short sighted socialist model fixes, creating new problems and further fixes by a larger more tyrannical government. The system was designed that way, intentionally. When the mob can vote away a 'liberty' none exists for anyone. Democracy and liberty are antithetical to each other.

-R

[ayedfy]

18 hours ago, 99call said:

I have to confess I do find it strange that many on here endlessly have a go at the principles of communism and socialism, like it's the route of all evil.

The truth is there has never been a real vision of communism put into effect in History.  Havana, North Korea, China, Russia, etc etc they are all 'Hyper Capitalist' dictatorships.  All that define them from our world is, that their Elite are smaller, and much richer, and the poor, are greater in number, and much poorer. 

The principles of communism drawn up by Marx and Engles were to actually protect the poor from being victimised by the ruling classes.  Yes, every version of communism in the world today is f-up, but can we stop bagging socialism or communism, for the ill's of Capitalist Dictatorship's. 

If Habana were actually a communist state, the workers would all have shares in their own production. Another benefit would be Ken could finally have is number referenced roller.    "5x 50 cabs of SLRDC from No 6 please!" although he may fight back!

China, Russia, Cuba etc. all drastically decreased their wealth inequality following their respective revolutions. The Soviet Union reached similar levels as Australia and the UK, and was significantly better than the US. China improved significantly as well under Mao, but has become constantly less equal following the shift away from communism through the capitalist reforms of recent decades. Cuba's inequality is also rising following (albeit much stricter) reforms.

I'd argue these revolutionary governments reflected the theories of Marx and Engels more faithfully than you are suggesting. 

[99call]

3 minutes ago, ayedfy said:

China, Russia, Cuba etc. all drastically decreased their wealth inequality following their respective revolutions. The Soviet Union reached similar levels as Australia and the UK, and was significantly better than the US. China improved significantly as well under Mao, but has become constantly less equal following the shift away from communism through the capitalist reforms of recent decades. Cuba's inequality is also rising following (albeit much stricter) reforms.

I'd argue these revolutionary governments reflected the theories of Marx and Engels more faithfully than you are suggesting. 

My point being is that. Someone sat in a palace on a golden chair, smoking tailor made lanceros, whilst their people are eating rat meat in the streets, is a Capitalist Dictatorship.  All these countries have an elite, and fall in line with everything they are supposed to detest..........if they were in fact communists. 

 

[NSXCIGAR]

14 hours ago, 99call said:

 ...is a Capitalist Dictatorship....

I must admit, after decades of studying political economy and political philosophy I have never seen the term "capitalist dictatorship" accepted in the academic sphere. The actual definition as far as I can tell of "capitalist dictatorship" is essentially a fascist dictatorship, and one must place fascism in the ambit of capitalism, which it certainly is not. Fascism is socialism, totally and completely. Fascism and communism are simply different methods of implementing socialism. There is effectively no difference between state dictation of nominally private means of production (fascism) and outright state ownership of the means of production (communism). Lest one forget, "Nazi" stood for Nationalsozialismus, or National Socialism. 

On 8/28/2017 at 8:16 AM, 99call said:

The principles of communism drawn up by Marx and Engles were to actually protect the poor from being victimised by the ruling classes

That assumes the ruling classes were directly victimizing the poor. Marx's entire premise was based on the incorrect labor theory of value, and he also conflated mercantilism with capitalism. 

On 8/28/2017 at 8:16 AM, 99call said:

The truth is there has never been a real vision of communism put into effect in History

The closest thing to Marx's vision ever attempted was probably the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 which was probably the most immediately lethal of all implementations of socialism.

14 hours ago, ayedfy said:

...China improved significantly as well under Mao...

I guess 30-70 million deaths is a significant improvement?

14 hours ago, ayedfy said:

...but has become constantly less equal following the shift away from communism through the capitalist reforms of recent decades...

I don't think the average Chinese person is complaining about the lack of equality as they are no longer starving to death in the countryside. 

The socialists would have us equal in slavery rather than unequal in freedom.

[gweilgi]

2 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I must admit, after decades of studying political economy and political philosophy I have never seen the term "capitalist dictatorship" accepted in the academic sphere. The actual definition as far as I can tell of "capitalist dictatorship" is essentially a fascist dictatorship, and one must place fascism in the ambit of capitalism, which it certainly is not. Fascism is socialism, totally and completely. Fascism and communism are simply different methods of implementing socialism. There is effectively no difference between state dictation of nominally private means of production (fascism) and outright state ownership means of production (communism). Lest one forget, "Nazi" stood for Nationalsozialismus, or National Socialism. 

Hmm ... historically speaking, not quite correct, I'm afraid.  

Hitler himself moved away form the Socialism aspect quite early on, in the 20's.  What confuses the issue is that the Nazis did implement a number of policies that are recognisably Socialist: price and wage controls, forced labour schemes, monopolistic worker organisations run by the state, holiday camps built and run by the state (they even sent deserving workers on Mediterranean cruises on state-owned cruise ships), grand four-year plans for the entire economy, state direction of industry production, etc.  On the other hand, Hitler very much approved of private enterprise for its ability to increase productivity and bring benefits to the people, which is why he never nationalised firms or entire industries.  Private property, whether homes or farms or businesses, remained untouched.  Taxation of capital and high incomes was not punitive or even excessively redistributive.

Socialism has never actually existed on a large scale.  There are examples where it is practised, but only ever in small communities (monasteries, for example).  What we do tend to get is systems that try to combine the best of both worlds, tempering the benefits of private endeavour and the profit motive with policies and institutions that benefit all the people.  Such systems are by their very nature unstable and require endless adjustments and tinkering, of course....

 

 

2 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

That assumes the ruling classes were directly victimizing the poor. Marx's entire premise was based on the incorrect labor theory of value, and he also conflated mercantilism with capitalism. 

The closest thing to Marx's vision ever attempted was probably the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 which was probably the most immediately lethal of all implementations of socialism.

I guess 30-70 million deaths is a significant improvement?

I don't think the average Chinese person is complaining about the lack of equality as they are no longer starving to death in the countryside. 

The socialists would have us equal in slavery rather than unequal in freedom.

The problem, IMHO, is that most Socialist experiments began as a direct response not to inequality per se but to rampant and extreme forms of inequality, to de facto feudalism by a tiny elite of the entire rest of the population.  Cuba before Castro did not merely have levels of inequality, it was sheer unadulterated misery for the vast majority of the people ... and the initial consequence of the revolution was an uplifting and improvement of their lives.  

In short, Socialism is a response to the absence of a middle class.  It is the bulge in the demographic middle that proves stability and equality, that mediate between the extremes of poverty and wealth.  Any country/society that loses its middle classes is in genuine and serious trouble....

As for "freedom", that is a question which each society and country has to answer for itself.  There is no one-size-fits-all answer.  Is it better to be free from forced participation in social service programmes operated by the state, or is it better to share these burdens and to be free from the worries of having to organise and fund these safety nets on an individual basis?  A Leftpondian from the Lower 49 (plus Alaska) may consider it freedom to be able to make those choices on an individual or family basis.  A Rightpondian from Britain or Europe may firmly believe that it is freedom to have all such security provided by society through the state.  Personally, I do not think there is a "right way", only preferences.

[NSXCIGAR]

48 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

Hitler very much approved of private enterprise for its ability to increase productivity and bring benefits to the people, which is why he never nationalised firms or entire industries.

True, but again, to think that these nominally private firms were able to operate as freely as they do in today's western countries is absurd. The regime regulated almost every aspect of their operation--the very definition of fascism. These companies were operating directly for the benefit of the state. And entrepreneurship was virtually non-existent and the capital markets were tightly controlled. Far from laissez-faire capitalism.

 

48 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

As for "freedom", that is a question which each society and country has to answer for itself

One is either free from coercion or they are not. Freedom is the sphere in which an individual can act without having force initiated upon them. I don't want society determining how free I am. As humans, we are all entitled to freedom. The framers of the US constitution intended government to exist solely to insure freedoms and protect our natural rights. They may have failed to recognize the contradiction, but that was the idea. Everything else in terms of social responsibility is subjective, and once the door is open to coerce individuals for a "social good" the definition of "social good" will continue to expand into infinity.

I think adult humans are more than capable of deciding for themselves what social good is and how much they want to contribute to their cause. The record shows that the citizens of the US were the most generous in terms of private charity in the history of the world throughout the 19th and early 20th century--long before any "social programs" came about. Very few people went uneducated or hungry and medical care for the destitute was provided free by many doctors of the time, for example. If these things can be accomplished without coercion, I'd say that's probably how it should be done. And it appears that private charity is far more effective at keeping these social problems at bay than state-organized programs anyway which almost always seem to exacerbate the problem. Has the government ever won any "war" they've waged? Drugs, poverty, hunger, education--the problems always get worse after the government gets involved.

48 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

Socialism has never actually existed on a large scale.  There are examples where it is practised, but only ever in small communities (monasteries, for example).  What we do tend to get is systems that try to combine the best of both worlds, tempering the benefits of private endeavour and the profit motive with policies and institutions that benefit all the people.  Such systems are by their very nature unstable and require endless adjustments and tinkering, of course....

I would argue that while you're technically correct that there has never been a purely Marxist society--small or large--and that the only "sustainable" heavy socialist societies have been small, fairly thorough socialist policies have been implemented widely and have resulted in mass deaths. Once these policies were dialed back, the deaths were reduced and stability was increased. Socialism can't be widely implemented on a large scale or everyone would die. There seems to be a link to Dunbar's number of communities of about 400 people or less being able to organize themselves in whatever way they choose in a fairly sustainable way. More than that, attempts at collectivism always break down.

And as far as tempering the benefits of private endeavor, that would imply that profit, justly obtained through voluntary exchange, was not an objective social good. I would argue that that is misguided. Or that theft is a social good, as the taxes that are obtained at gunpoint and sent to what is subjectively defined by invariably corrupt politicians as a "social good". I'd argue that a society devoid of legalized theft is probably a greater social good.

[NSXCIGAR]

3 hours ago, gweilgi said:

Cuba before Castro did not merely have levels of inequality, it was sheer unadulterated misery for the vast majority of the people ... and the initial consequence of the revolution was an uplifting and improvement of their lives.

Regarding this, while it's true that Cuba was in no way a Sunday picnic in the Batista regime, nor was it really at any point in history, I would argue that it was imperialism and then mercantilism that has caused all of the problems in Cuba. The Cubans have never really had true independence as it became a de facto US colony after Spain was booted, and the US coordinated with the regime to basically pillage the Cuban people. That point I am in 100% agreement with Fidel Castro on. Propaganda is always based in some measure on truth, and this is indeed mostly truth.

That being said, the contention that the average Cuban citizen is "better off" post-Rev is a highly debatable one. I've addressed this topic in other threads, but at most perhaps the poorest Cubans benefited slightly in the first year or two after the Revolution. This would probably not be the "average" Cuban. The "average" Cuban could very possibly have had property taken from them or been imprisoned or killed in the years following the Revolution. And comparing standards of living, adjusted for inflation, the average Cuban's standard of living today is no different than it was in 1958 according to several analyses I've seen, and the only reason it would have ever been higher than it is now--possibly in the 1970s or 1980s--would be due to the USSR's largess, not Cuba's wonderful socialist economy. 

[gweilgi]

33 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

True, but again, to think that these nominally private firms were able to operate as freely as they do in today's western countries is absurd. The regime regulated almost every aspect of their operation--the very definition of fascism. These companies were operating directly for the benefit of the state. And entrepreneurship was virtually non-existent and the capital markets were tightly controlled. Far from laissez-faire capitalism.

I would not care to disagree with your assessment.

What I disagreed with was your characterisation of fascism as socialism, in particular as it applied in the Third Reich.  

 

33 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

One is either free from coercion or they are not. Freedom is the sphere in which an individual can act without having force initiated upon them. I don't want society determining how free I am. As humans, we are all entitled to freedom. The framers of the US constitution intended government to exist solely to insure freedoms and protect our natural rights. They may have failed to recognize the contradiction, but that was the idea. Everything else in terms of social responsibility is subjective, and once the door is open to coerce individuals for a "social good" the definition of "social good" will continue to expand into infinity.

How would you go about that?  Your freedom ends where another's freedom begins -- and vice versa.  This means that society *always* determines how free you are.  

Moreover, the concept and interpretation of natural and human rights both as general principles and specifically as civil liberties is not in and of itself absolute.  There are many ways to skin this particular cat, and the American way is but one of them.  Your way may suit you, but that does not invalidate different choices made by other societies.  This applies both to the rights as they are defined, and to the priority given to any one of them.  

And finally, we get back to my point: how to define freedom.  For one person, freedom is not to be part of a nationwide healthcare scheme, to be free to make such decisions for himself and his family uncoerced by government or law.  For another person, it is freedom not to face personal ruin because of random illness and not to be constrained in his job by the shackles of an employer's healthcare plan.  Some societies deem it a natural right and freedom that everybody should be free to enter into a marriage whatever their DNA ... others chose differently and deny that such a right exists.  Who is right, who is wrong?  

As a side note, I consider the US constitution to be an amazing document, wise and far-seeing and entirely admirable in its vision and ambitions ... but I do believe that one shortcoming is that in its enthusiasm for enshrining and protecting individual rights, it does neglect the "social responsibility" you mention.  IMO, rights always come with a duty to exercise them responsibly.  They always come with commensurate responsibilities.  Thus, the right to freedom of speech comes with the responsibility not to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.  

 

33 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I think adult humans are more than capable of deciding for themselves what social good is and how much they want to contribute to their cause. The record shows that the citizens of the US were the most generous in terms of private charity in the history of the world throughout the 19th and early 20th century--long before any "social programs" came about. Very few people went uneducated or hungry and medical care for the destitute was provided free by many doctors of the time, for example. If these things can be accomplished without coercion, I'd say that's probably how it should be done. And it appears that private charity is far more effective at keeping these social problems at bay than state-organized programs anyway which almost always seem to exacerbate the problem. Has the government ever won any "war" they've waged? Drugs, poverty, hunger, education--the problems always get worse after the government gets involved.

Adult humans as individuals, absolutely.

Adult humans in the aggregate, as larger social groups -- tribes, religious/cultural/ethnic affiliations, electorates ... mobs -- not so much.  Individuals may firmly believe in the rule of law, in "innocent until proven guilty", in giving everyone a fair hearing ... but a mob of them is entirely capable of stringing an untried unconnected alleged malefactor from the nearest tree, and go home afterwards feeling entirely good about it.  And let's not forget elections throughout history and the world over when otherwise quite capable adult human beings decided that it would be a very good idea to vote idiots, crooks or worse into power -- Hitler came to power entirely legally and with the support of very large portions of the mob that we call "electorate".  Dunbar's Number also feeds into this: if we are only capable of having genuine and meaningful social relationships with a couple of hundred others, how can we possibly make good decisions on the wider social good affecting millions of others?  Leaving all such groups to decide for themselves can't work, either, because we are bound by larger jurisdictions and laws of our nations.  

Governments winning "wars" ... fair point.  Although I would argue that universal education as introduced and enforced on a nationwide scale probably was an unmitigated good (however much we whinge about the current and obvious shortcomings).....

 

33 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I would argue that while you're technically correct that there has never been a purely Marxist society--small or large--and that the only "sustainable" heavy socialist societies have been small, fairly thorough socialist policies have been implemented widely and have resulted in mass deaths. Once these policies were dialed back, the deaths were reduced and stability was increased. Socialism can't be widely implemented on a large scale or everyone would die. There seems to be a link to Dunbar's number of communities of about 400 people or less being able to organize themselves in whatever way they choose in a fairly sustainable way. More than that, attempts at collectivism always break down.

Pure collectivism, certainly.  

So the problem facing societies and governments is to decide what degree of "socialism" is sustainable.  

 

 

[99call]

7 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

 

I don't think the average Chinese person is complaining about the lack of equality as they are no longer starving to death in the countryside. 

The socialists would have us equal in slavery rather than unequal in freedom.

Hmmm the Chinese peasant class have been merely called in from poverty in the fields, to suffer poverty in the city. 

I think enforced communism, can never be communism, and it's obviously faulted.  But what grinds my gears is when people paint Capitalism as being a victim free model of society. 

How can the constitutional right to the "pursuit of happiness" be granted when depending on which nursery/Kindergarden your child gets into, can now determine the potential success of their whole life?  How can it be "freedom" if one childs chances in life are thrown into the bin at birth, because their family cannot afford the fee's?

America is a great concept. i.e everyone having the right to strike out in business and create their own slice of the dream.  But what if my dream, is to create a social class elite, that means your kids, have zero chance of getting in to the local school? All I'm saying, is that to paint the ideals of communism (not how it's been imposed in real life) as some sort of sinister concept, but then to turn a blind eye, to the sinister "social cleansing" that goes on in a Capitalist model is pretty one eyed.  Both models are terribly flawed by the evils of man, not just communism

[ayedfy]

4 hours ago, 99call said:

I think enforced communism, can never be communism, and it's obviously faulted.  But what grinds my gears is when people paint Capitalism as being a victim free model of society. 

Agree with you on the second point - people love to talk about the huge death tolls in communist countries as being some fatal indictment of communism, but when any of exactly the same stuff happens in capitalist countries, it's just bad luck and no cause to re-evaluate the political structure. Famine happens in Ukraine under control of the communist Soviet Union? Communism killed those people. Famine happens in India under control of the capitalist British Empire? Ah... must be other reasons.

First point is cool if you're a libertarian socialist or some other communist who rejects Marxism, but given you seemed to support Marx further up, how do you reckon with Marx's Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

6 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

the average Cuban's standard of living today is no different than it was in 1958 according to several analyses I've seen, and the only reason it would have ever been higher than it is now--possibly in the 1970s or 1980s--would be due to the USSR's largess, not Cuba's wonderful socialist economy. 

Compared to the United States, a much wealthier capitalist country, Cuba has: better infant mortality rate, higher literacy rate, higher life expectancy, ranks higher on several development indexes etc etc.

11 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

There is effectively no difference between state dictation of nominally private means of production (fascism) and outright state ownership of the means of production (communism). Lest one forget, "Nazi" stood for Nationalsozialismus, or National Socialism. 

Apart from, y'know, all the nationalism and ethnic cleansing. You remember that Hitler murdered all the communists before he was able to consolidate his power, right?

11 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Marx's entire premise was based on the incorrect labor theory of value

*Correct labor theory of value 

11 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I guess 30-70 million deaths is a significant improvement?

Even though I was directly referring to changes in income inequality, I'll take this opportunity to point out that most number are greatly inflated. The initial "death count" for Mao's reign was reported by the Chinese government as around 16 million. Firstly, before you say "this is an underestimate because of propaganda", this number was released by the successive government as a way to justify policies they sought to introduce that departed from the Maoist policies, so if they had any incentive to "fudge the numbers", they surely would have overestimated rather than underestimated. Secondly, no number since from 30-70 million (or indeed the original 16 million figure) has provided any substantial evidence to show how they arrived at that figure. Thirdly, yes I agree that ~16 million is still unambiguously terrible and tragic, but a. see the start of my post, millions have died under capitalism and it's never capitalism's fault for some reason, and b. yes I would say that a country has significantly improved if it manages to double its life expectancy in 30 years despite tens of millions of deaths

11 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The socialists would have us equal in slavery rather than unequal in freedom.

Ask those at the bottom end of capitalist inequality just how "free" they feel.

[NSXCIGAR]

6 hours ago, ayedfy said:

Compared to the United States, a much wealthier capitalist country, Cuba has: better infant mortality rate, higher literacy rate, higher life expectancy, ranks higher on several development indexes etc etc.

Those statistics are all Cuban state generated and all of them have been contested by international groups, particularly infant mortality. Many countries differ in terms of how this is calculated. And even using Cuba's own numbers, they rank below almost all other western countries. And as far as literacy, the US had higher literacy rates in the late 19th century before any public education. I would also say literacy is probably the least directly correlated with standard of living.

6 hours ago, ayedfy said:

Apart from, y'know, all the nationalism and ethnic cleansing. You remember that Hitler murdered all the communists before he was able to consolidate his power, right?

Then we'll consider the Italian style of fascism which had no link to ethnic cleansing or cultural hatred. And just because two forms of socialism dislike each other doesn't mean they are opposites. Quite the contrary. Same as two rival street gangs fighting over turf. 

6 hours ago, ayedfy said:

*Correct labor theory of value 

You need to read a book on basic economics and the subjective or marginal theory of value. No serious economist subscribes to the labor theory of value--not even Paul Krugman. In fact, the Wiki page criticizing it is just as long as the page about it. 

6 hours ago, ayedfy said:

millions have died under capitalism and it's never capitalism's fault for some reason

What western "capitalist" societies have been directly responsible for deaths of that magnitude outside of wars fighting socialist regimes (regardless of whether those wars were justified or not)? 

8 hours ago, ayedfy said:

The initial "death count" for Mao's reign was reported by the Chinese government as around 16 million.

There's no way to read into the regime's motivation for stating those numbers. Hundreds of experts have for decades put the bare minimum number at 30 million, and Mao himself stated that he was fine with an elimination of 10% of the peasantry, which would be about 50 million people at that time. And for per capita deaths, I believe Pol Pot is the world champion. The guy killed 10-20% of the entire population. And as you note, if that is the true number, 16 million is high enough for me.

8 hours ago, ayedfy said:

yes I would say that a country has significantly improved if it manages to double its life expectancy in 30 years despite tens of millions of deaths

 

Well, I think the people who were murdered would probably disagree with you. And these deaths didn't directly lead to an increase in life expectancy. When there's a state-created food shortage, and then you murder half the people or they starve, sure, there's more food for the remaining people. But if you can't see the problem therein...hmm. 

6 hours ago, ayedfy said:

Ask those at the bottom end of capitalist inequality just how "free" they feel.

How one feels and what reality is are two different things. The poorest person in the US can still reach the highest peaks with hard work and a good idea, and have access to all the education, loans and opportunity that everyone else has to become a billionaire. There is no reason a competent person born in the poorest appalachian town or inner city can't access the tools to reach the top. 

And if one wants to make the "cycle of poverty" argument then I'd point to government schools, the war on drugs and the welfare state as the causes of that phenomenon. But again, as I pointed out, the poorest people in the US have a higher standard of living than most of the world's middle class, and though they may "feel" differently, that is the plain hard truth.

And finally, the current state of affairs in most western countries has little to do with capitalism. Markets are severely hampered in nearly every aspect and have been drifting steadily toward mercantilism/fascism since at least 1914 in the US. To complain about the state of affairs today is not to complain about capitalism, it's to complain about what is at best a mixed economy. Very few people were complaining about capitalism in the 19th century when more people were lifted out of extreme poverty more quickly than at any point in history. Contrast this to socialism which killed people at a rate only bested by the plague and is by far the most deadly system of organizing society ever devised. 

The closest thing to a true free market was the US in the 19th century and I would say the results were nothing short of miraculous. The closest thing to Marxist socialism ever tried was Bolshevism, and that didn't go very well. 

13 hours ago, 99call said:

Hmmm the Chinese peasant class have been merely called in from poverty in the fields, to suffer poverty in the city.

It wasn't mere poverty in the countryside, it was starvation and death as it was in pre-industrial Europe. Poverty in the city is a far better fate than poverty in the fields. 

 

13 hours ago, 99call said:

I think enforced communism, can never be communism, and it's obviously faulted.  But what grinds my gears is when people paint Capitalism as being a victim free model of society. 

The communists found out early that there is an incentive problem. If everyone earns and lives the same, no one will want to do dangerous and highly skilled work. In order to combat this, the communists theorized that they needed to create the "new socialist man" and basically purge those unwilling to mold themselves to the model or who showed any resistance to it. This is the recurring pattern in attempting to sustain a socialist society.

In a free market, where profit is obtained through voluntary exchange, there are no victims. That exchange (money for goods) creates wealth for both parties. And the perfect information argument is not a valid one in this case for reasons that I won't go into here.

The ills of "capitalism" I would suggest come from what is capitalism in name only, but corporatism or mercantilism in actuality.`

13 hours ago, 99call said:

How can the constitutional right to the "pursuit of happiness" be granted when depending on which nursery/Kindergarden your child gets into, can now determine the potential success of their whole life?  How can it be "freedom" if one childs chances in life are thrown into the bin at birth, because their family cannot afford the fee's?

The current state of education is run by and controlled by the state. All teachers are accredited by the state, learning education from others in state programs. These "top" schools are limited and good teachers not paid enough and bad teachers not fired or paid too little. There is no freedom in education--that's the problem. You should look into the Korean model of education which is currently blowing the doors off the rest of the world and is basically 100% private.

13 hours ago, 99call said:

America is a great concept. i.e everyone having the right to strike out in business and create their own slice of the dream.  But what if my dream, is to create a social class elite, that means your kids, have zero chance of getting in to the local school? All I'm saying, is that to paint the ideals of communism (not how it's been imposed in real life) as some sort of sinister concept, but then to turn a blind eye, to the sinister "social cleansing" that goes on in a Capitalist model is pretty one eyed.  Both models are terribly flawed by the evils of man, not just communism

No, the dream is that you are free to do what you want so long as you don't violate another's rights. If your dream is to rob me of money to fund a school, that's unacceptable. And if you wanted to coordinate with your community, get investors and open another school that's run your way in the area if there's a shortage of quality education, you should be able to do that. Unfortunately, the state, at gunpoint, says you can't. I agree,  somewhat of a caste system has developed in education. That is wrong, but it is a function of the state controlling education, not the free market or laissez-faire capitalism.

[NSXCIGAR]

14 hours ago, gweilgi said:

but a mob of them is entirely capable of stringing an untried unconnected alleged malefactor from the nearest tree, and go home afterwards feeling entirely good about it.  And let's not forget elections throughout history and the world over when otherwise quite capable adult human beings decided that it would be a very good idea to vote idiots, crooks or worse into power -- Hitler came to power entirely legally and with the support of very large portions of the mob that we call "electorate".

This is why understanding and embracing western enlightenment principles are so important, and also illustrates the perils of democracy, which is essentially mob rule. The US framers despised democracy, as did Plato, seeing how the mob murdered Socrates who simply spoke the truth and threatened the ruling class. The US is a representative republic, not a democracy, and that was by design. And the original intention of only property owners voting was also a good idea. Those who own property have a much greater appreciation for not taking others' property through the ballot box. When the have-nots can vote, they will always vote themselves the property of the haves. 

Humans are basically fine until you give them power over other humans, in this case, power through the ballot box. No human can be trusted with power. It corrupts totally and completely. The only reason the US is still reasonably free is that the framers at least had the sense to prohibit the government from doing certain things, as was the idea behind the Magna Carta. 

14 hours ago, gweilgi said:

And finally, we get back to my point: how to define freedom.

There is one definition of freedom, as I stated, the sphere in which one can act without having force (or fraud) initiated upon them. If I try and kill you, and you kill me, my right to freedom has not been violated. I initiated force upon you--I violated your right to freedom, and you are free to defend your freedom which may necessitate killing me. If I do kill you, I have caused damages for which I am liable. Different societies deal with this different ways, but I know of no society where murder is acceptable and the party is not held responsible in some way (unless it is a state doing the murdering).

14 hours ago, gweilgi said:

Dunbar's Number also feeds into this: if we are only capable of having genuine and meaningful social relationships with a couple of hundred others, how can we possibly make good decisions on the wider social good affecting millions of others?

Well, just because that number is sustainable doesn't mean it leads to productive societies. It simply means that groups of 400 or less can live without total disaster. Life in a commune with 400 people probably would not be a bastion of economic power or progress, although it could probably sustain relatively peacefully. Any more than that, peace would be difficult. 

The point is that no one can determine for me what is a social good, or anyone else. Because it's invariably going to be a subjective idea. And we all differ in our approaches to solving these complex social problems, and complex social problems are generally best dealt with at the local and family level. The government has yet to successfully solve a complex social problem. Far from it--the problems typically don't improve or get worse. 

14 hours ago, gweilgi said:

... Although I would argue that universal education as introduced and enforced on a nationwide scale probably was an unmitigated good (however much we whinge about the current and obvious shortcomings).....

The quality of education was far higher before the government got involved, in particular, the US Dept. of Education. I don't think anyone can make the argument that public education has improved in the US since the late 1970s when the US DOE really got involved. Just because you give everyone the opportunity for "school" does not mean they get a valuable education. Again, the modern Korean model is highly instructive and something anyone interested in the topic should examine. 

[PigFish]

Capitalism:

Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.^[1][2][3] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.^[4][5] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, and prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.^[6][7]

 

Selling something at the market in a communist country does not make your economy capitalist!

Nope, won't stop bagging on communism nor socialism based on the reality of world events, world history and the definition of words. You cannot simply re-write history to make it not so. You cannot simply re-define words to make them what you want them to mean.

Per the record, true communism has killed millions of people. The splinter groups of both those that preach communism and socialism have made it possible for those that believe in the core theories of Marx, Hegel, Engels and the rest, to never take responsibility for the damage and death that they, the underlying theories, cause. Those that say, "this was not true communism," are no more than propagandists that distort the facts. Theoretical communism and socialism lead to 'REAL' historical communism and socialism. History defines reality.... The theory is failed and the history exists to prove it! These groups call themselves communist and socialist, they follow the ideals and the strategic plan, they destroy countries and often tens of millions of people based on that plan, that is the reality. 

Those of you that wish to gamble on it in your counties, have at it... If there are those out there that like it... fine! Go ahead and tell me how great it is. I will reply not with theory but the facts of the matter. History has a way of sorting out the facts from the theories and misinformation, the reality from the propaganda. The best a procommunist, pro-socilaist can do is redefine words and tell others that those that called themselves socialist or communists were not really either. The argument is a pitiful one. Propagandists control the dialogue, they invent terms like capitalist dictatorships... That makes as much sense as dehydrated water!

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck... what's more if the group calls themselves ducks, they are ducks!

These theorists believed in the 'perfection of man.' That is what it takes to make an egalitarian society. Man must be perfect... Of course this is why communists are known for massive death camps, social purging, eugenics, and all forms of dislocation and genocide... You can kindly keep your perfection!

Look at where your shaping of society is getting you. Look at something as simple as smoking laws and the force of government applied to push their theoretical dogma on you and your society. Do you honestly think that is where it is going to stop??? Good luck with that plan...! Look at who has tried it before and where it got them. Put 2 and 2 together and you get the reality of it. It is not theoretical. It is not rocket science. It is in the record books for all to read and understand.

I used to call the squirrels that make a mess in my yard, rats with better marketing. What is socialism but tyranny dressed up in a new outfit, with some updated philosophical wording, meaninglessly detailed theoretical writings that always lead to a need where greater power of the centralized authority is always the answer?

If I were to re-write the definition of insanity it certainly would be the discrediting of the social, political and economic system that has made the greatest number of people the wealthiest and freest in the world, creating the most powerful economy on earth, while at the same time elevating an empirically failed theoretical model that at best has been responsible for as many as 100 million deaths, for what it could bring, but never has... nor ever will.

Enjoy your debate folks, and while it happens raise your hand if you want to be a cigar roller in Cuba or an iPhone assembler in China! Socialist countries have no shortage of leaders, thinkers and academics, they don't really need those. Say the wrong thing in those circles and you end up in a gulag. What they need is free labor... So who here is gonna' sign up?

-Piggy

[99call]

1 hour ago, NSXCIGAR said:

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

 

No, the dream is that you are free to do what you want so long as you don't violate another's rights. If your dream is to rob me of money to fund a school, that's unacceptable. 

 

Hmm......well......... that's just what kind of happens in life, and thats my point.  I'm not a communist, i'm not a capitalist. I believe in principles of fairness that cherry pick concepts from both of these social models.  Stuff thats "unacceptable" happens every second, in every society, and that all I'm trying to say. Capitalism is not exempt from this frailty.

It's as if you paint Capitalism, as a class free, boundary-less, construct? It's just nonsense!.  Capitalism contains human nature, and with that, it brings social injustices of people wanting to take advantage of each other, rip each other off. but the most important thing it has,. is barriers within social mobility, and a class structure.  

Some people in America have the 'Freedom' to collect their 100% share of nothing, due to being born into poverty, and social barriers preventing them from bettering themselves. Distasteful injustices exist in Capitalism, thats all i'm saying, to paint it as some sort of perfect science. i.e. you work hard, you get success. is as believable to me, as the fires being set in North Korean power station chimneys, to make them look like they're working. 

 

 

 

[gweilgi]

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Those statistics are all Cuban state generated and all of them have been contested by international groups, particularly infant mortality. Many countries differ in terms of how this is calculated. And even using Cuba's own numbers, they rank below almost all other western countries. And as far as literacy, the US had higher literacy rates in the late 19th century before any public education. I would also say literacy is probably the least directly correlated with standard of living.

On literacy, I would disagree strenuously.  Literacy is the very foundation.  Without it, there is nothing, and no opportunity to improve.  Literacy skills are absolutely fundamental to informed decision-making, personal empowerment, participation in the community and economy (both local and global), everything right down to navigating city streets and using a smartphone.  It is the essential first step to education which in turn is essential for standard of living -- both for the individual and for the nation.  

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Then we'll consider the Italian style of fascism which had no link to ethnic cleansing or cultural hatred. And just because two forms of socialism dislike each other doesn't mean they are opposites. Quite the contrary. Same as two rival street gangs fighting over turf. 

See also Tito in Yugoslavia who really did not like the Soviets, or the decades-long feud between the USSR and Red China -- Mao did not get along with the leaders in the Kreml at all.

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

You need to read a book on basic economics and the subjective or marginal theory of value. No serious economist subscribes to the labor theory of value--not even Paul Krugman. In fact, the Wiki page criticizing it is just as long as the page about it. 

What western "capitalist" societies have been directly responsible for deaths of that magnitude outside of wars fighting socialist regimes (regardless of whether those wars were justified or not)? 

When Western pharmaceutical companies insisted on their property rights (aka patent protection) for their HIV/AIDS drugs, the direct result was literally millions of deaths a year.  

If we go back in history, colonial empires existed for the exploitation and profit of the home nations, directly causing millions of deaths on all continents (bar Antarctica).  

A case could be made that the Western refusal to relinquish property rights over surplus agricultural produce even in the face of massive famines could also be counted in that column: when we choose to stockpile grain, butter, meat, wine and other produce because market prices are not to our living rather than feeding the starving millions, we are at the very least partly culpable.  

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

How one feels and what reality is are two different things. The poorest person in the US can still reach the highest peaks with hard work and a good idea, and have access to all the education, loans and opportunity that everyone else has to become a billionaire. There is no reason a competent person born in the poorest appalachian town or inner city can't access the tools to reach the top. 

No direct reason, no.

But when one looks at studies on social mobility, one starts to wonder ...  Of course, these figures are always open to interpretation and debate ("lies, damn lies, and statistics"), but there appears to be a moderately general consensus that today it is harder for an American to improve their lot in life than for various Europeans.  IOW, it appears that it is harder for a competent person in the US to move from one income quintile to the next one up the ladder than for their cousin in Denmark or France.

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And if one wants to make the "cycle of poverty" argument then I'd point to government schools, the war on drugs and the welfare state as the causes of that phenomenon. But again, as I pointed out, the poorest people in the US have a higher standard of living than most of the world's middle class, and though they may "feel" differently, that is the plain hard truth.

Only if you exclude Europe, Canada, Japan and certain other tier two nations such as South Korea....

One can always argue about "the welfare state" (hell, we are doing it right now  ) but do not forget that such services can and do amount to a significant in-kind benefit to the recipients.  The standard range of benefits in Europe would include unemployment, rent, schooling, pension, healthcare -- all paid for from payroll taxes and general taxation, and most people receive far more than they pay in.  This should all count towards standard of living, and possibly even household income.  

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And finally, the current state of affairs in most western countries has little to do with capitalism. Markets are severely hampered in nearly every aspect and have been drifting steadily toward mercantilism/fascism since at least 1914 in the US. To complain about the state of affairs today is not to complain about capitalism, it's to complain about what is at best a mixed economy. Very few people were complaining about capitalism in the 19th century when more people were lifted out of extreme poverty more quickly than at any point in history. Contrast this to socialism which killed people at a rate only bested by the plague and is by far the most deadly system of organizing society ever devised. 

Very few people?  Hmmm ... other than riots, social upset, the rampant rise of labour organisations and left-wing political parties, and in response to that the introduction of welfare systems in all industrialising nations bar the US?  Industrialisation in the first instance led to a *decrease* in living standards: people moved to the cities where the jobs were, and their lives became shorter.  Marx and Engels did not write their tomes and id not develop their ideology because things were improving.  

As for "the most deadly system of organising society ever devised", that, too, is debatable.  I offer up for your consideration one word: religion.

 

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The communists found out early that there is an incentive problem. If everyone earns and lives the same, no one will want to do dangerous and highly skilled work. In order to combat this, the communists theorized that they needed to create the "new socialist man" and basically purge those unwilling to mold themselves to the model or who showed any resistance to it. This is the recurring pattern in attempting to sustain a socialist society.

The incentive problem is indeed a fatal flaw.  Never mind dangerous and highly skilled work: if there is no reward, why bother doing any job at all competently and give it your best effort?  

At the same time, we should also acknowledge that the capitalist incentives are not without drawbacks, either.  If the profit motive is paramount, we are encouraged to do that which is profitable and neglect that which may be beneficial.  IOW, if I can get rich(er) developing a cure for male pattern baldness -- which, speaking personally, cannot come fast enough! -- than finding a cure for malaria, then the profit incentive dictates that his is where I allocate my resources and efforts, and never mind the 700,000+ deaths a year.  

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

In a free market, where profit is obtained through voluntary exchange, there are no victims. That exchange (money for goods) creates wealth for both parties. And the perfect information argument is not a valid one in this case for reasons that I won't go into here.

What about negative externalities?  

 

[gweilgi]

3 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

This is why understanding and embracing western enlightenment principles are so important, and also illustrates the perils of democracy, which is essentially mob rule. The US framers despised democracy, as did Plato, seeing how the mob murdered Socrates who simply spoke the truth and threatened the ruling class. The US is a representative republic, not a democracy, and that was by design. And the original intention of only property owners voting was also a good idea. Those who own property have a much greater appreciation for not taking others' property through the ballot box. When the have-nots can vote, they will always vote themselves the property of the haves. 

The above comment is a genuine cause of perplexity for me.  Why do many Americans insist that your form of democracy is not a democracy?  A republic is one form of this political system of government; there are others.  But they are all variations on the same theme...

As for the original approach of only permitting property owners to vote, I do consider that an extremely bad idea.  Anything that disenfranchises citizens is BAD.  It undermines the entire system, hollows out the consent of the governed and the legitimacy of any government an the very rule of law.  Much better, IMHO, to go the other way: give everyone the vote and then give certain people with certain qualifications -- such as property, levels of education, or a special interest in a particular ballot -- a second or third vote to cast.  Case in point: having recently relocated to Sydney (Australia, not Nova Scotia), I discovered that in municipal elections, every resident gets a vote but business owners get a second vote regardless of where they actually live.  This, I would suggest, avoids disenfranchisement while offering more opportunity to those who have more at stake.

 

3 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The point is that no one can determine for me what is a social good, or anyone else. Because it's invariably going to be a subjective idea. And we all differ in our approaches to solving these complex social problems, and complex social problems are generally best dealt with at the local and family level. The government has yet to successfully solve a complex social problem. Far from it--the problems typically don't improve or get worse. 

What about universal suffrage, or the emancipation of slaves?  

 

[NSXCIGAR]

3 hours ago, PigFish said:

Nope, won't stop bagging on communism nor socialism based on the reality of world events, world history and the definition of words. You cannot simply re-write history to make it not so. You cannot simply re-define words to make them what you want them to mean.

And that is what it ultimately comes down to: definitions. To call the current western systems capitalist is to straw man the concept. That's why I dislike the term "capitalism" and prefer free market or laissez-faire. And conversely, I suppose there's never been a true socialist system in the Marxist vision, but the problem is that everyone would die before it could be reached! 19th century America was the freest anyone had ever been, and the results were remarkable. Bolshevism was as close to socialism as anyone ever achieved, and the results were disastrous. 

The idea that as the growth of the state and its interventions have increased problems have increased, yet the free market gets blamed is just perplexing to me. Especially when governments control the money supply and interest rates. It's really something. As a wise economist once said, if you don't have a free market in money, you don't have a free market.

[NSXCIGAR]

14 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

The above comment is a genuine cause of perplexity for me.  Why do many Americans insist that your form of democracy is not a democracy?  A republic is one form of this political system of government; there are others.  But they are all variations on the same theme..

I suppose it is a de facto democracy, but the framers intentionally attempted to design a system as removed from direct democracy as possible, recognizing it's fatal flaws.

15 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

Much better, IMHO, to go the other way: give everyone the vote and then give certain people with certain qualifications -- such as property, levels of education, or a special interest in a particular ballot -- a second or third vote to cast.

If that makes people feel better, that's fine. But it is really the same thing as non-property owners having no votes. So I'm fine with your idea.

17 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

What about universal suffrage, or the emancipation of slaves?

The state was the reason slavery existed. Without fugitive slave laws, it couldn't be sustained.

 

1 hour ago, 99call said:

It's as if you paint Capitalism, as a class free, boundary-less, construct? It's just nonsense!.  Capitalism contains human nature, and with that, it brings social injustices of people wanting to take advantage of each other, rip each other off. but the most important thing it has,. is barriers within social mobility, and a class structure.

Capitalism is free of classes, as anyone is permitted to move into and out of any economic position. There is no caste system. The rich go broke every day and the poor become millionaires every day. The concept of class struggle is a concoction of Marx, especially as there are different people moving in and out of the economic classes constantly. 

And all these problems you outline exist in socialism too. I'd rather be ripped off in a free society where property rights are respected than a socialist one where they're not, and I'm probably getting ripped off by the state.

1 hour ago, 99call said:

Some people in America have the 'Freedom' to collect their 100% share of nothing, due to being born into poverty, and social barriers preventing them from bettering themselves. Distasteful injustices exist in Capitalism, thats all i'm saying, to paint it as some sort of perfect science. i.e. you work hard, you get success. is as believable to me, as the fires being set in North Korean power station chimneys, to make them look like they're working.

Again, I would rather be in poverty in the US than in any other country on earth. I agree, there are many social barriers to success here, but I would argue that government schools, the minimum wage, the war on drugs and the welfare state are directly responsible for all of that.

 

38 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

On literacy, I would disagree strenuously.  Literacy is the very foundation.  Without it, there is nothing, and no opportunity to improve.  Literacy skills are absolutely fundamental to informed decision-making, personal empowerment, participation in the community and economy (both local and global), everything right down to navigating city streets and using a smartphone.  It is the essential first step to education which in turn is essential for standard of living -- both for the individual and for the nation.

Not true at all. The most rapid growth in the western world occurred at a time when literacy was not high. You don't need to read to be able to be trained to work in a factory. It wasn't until the US was already one of the largest economies of the world in the late 19th century that literacy rates began approaching 90%. Literacy is certainly important in today's modern western economy, but for a developing country, I'd rather have industry and capital investment.

 

44 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

When Western pharmaceutical companies insisted on their property rights (aka patent protection) for their HIV/AIDS drugs, the direct result was literally millions of deaths a year.

Patent laws are a government creation, not a free market creation. For the record, I have serious problems with them.

 

46 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

Only if you exclude Europe, Canada, Japan and certain other tier two nations such as South Korea....

Those countries are not "most of the world", they are modern western countries. Most of the world would include sub-Saharan Africa, India and southeast Asia. 

 

50 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

Industrialisation in the first instance led to a *decrease* in living standards: people moved to the cities where the jobs were, and their lives became shorter.

Source? Why would people voluntarily leave the countryside for the city if their lives would be worse? It's not the city's fault if the countryside can't sustain them.

 

52 minutes ago, gweilgi said:

 If the profit motive is paramount, we are encouraged to do that which is profitable and neglect that which may be beneficial.

Since profit obtained through voluntary exchange creates wealth for both or all parties, why would the profit motive be an ignoble goal? The more profit that is made, the more wealth is created for the customers.

The only reason I am typing on this computer is the profit motive. If the argument is coercive monopoly, none have ever existed without government help. 

1 hour ago, gweilgi said:

What about negative externalities?  

A negligible issue, and cases of such almost always over-exaggerated or incorrectly reported. Most can be solved with simple enforcement of private property rights, i.e. pollution. And the idea that the government is the best way to solve a negative externality is something that is debatable.

[gweilgi]

27 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I suppose it is a de facto democracy, but the framers intentionally attempted to design a system as removed from direct democracy as possible, recognizing it's fatal flaws.

Checks and balances are of course essential -- a show of hands alone cannot work in larger polities.  Even in Switzerland where such direct democracy is still practised, it is only at the local level and is mitigated and edited by its federal structure and over-arching constitutional framework.  

And of course I write this as a loyal subject of Her Majesty, in the firm knowledge that a constitutional monarch is, when all is said and done, yet another check and balance on both government and the people...  

 

27 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The state was the reason slavery existed. Without fugitive slave laws, it couldn't be sustained.

As I understand it, the state was the reason why slavery existed because slaves were deemed to be property, and enforcement of property rights was (and remains) a prime function of the state.  So did the state really have a choice in the matter, given the constitutional mandate?

 

27 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

 

Capitalism is free of classes, as anyone is permitted to move into and out of any economic position. There is no caste system. The rich go broke every day and the poor become millionaires every day. The concept of class struggle is a concoction of Marx, especially as there are different people moving in and out of the economic classes constantly. 

Beg to differ.  Societies will have different definitions and classifications of class, whether we are talking aristocracy or caste or race or any other criteria.  But in a capitalist system, class would be defined by wealth and purchasing power.  When a rich person goes broke, he drops in the class structure -- and the poor chap who makes good rises in class.  

 

27 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And all these problems you outline exist in socialism too. I'd rather be ripped off in a free society where property rights are respected than a socialist one where they're not, and I'm probably getting ripped off by the state.

The response to which is the response to the incentive problem: stop getting ripped off by the state by not working hard enough to make it worthwhile getting ripped off....

 

27 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Again, I would rather be in poverty in the US than in any other country on earth. I agree, there are many social barriers to success here, but I would argue that government schools, the minimum wage, the war on drugs and the welfare state are directly responsible for all of that.

Would you really?  A poor person in the EU can rely on job protection that means they cannot be fired without several months' notice.  Healthcare is typically free, or almost free (at point of use, of course).  If unemployment does strike, this poor person can expect between 60-90% of their salary in dole payments for the first year, with a minimum payment to ensure their income stays above absolute poverty levels.  Maternity leave is generally guaranteed, in several EU countries at full pay.  The commute to work may be subsidised with tax credits.  At the very bottom end of the labour market, rent and essentials are typically subsidised even for social housing.  

Now, I do find some merit in the notion that such generosity does not offer the best incentive for job-seekers, but not he other hand, it does mean that all things being equal, being poor in the EU is rather less miserable than in the US.  

 

27 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Since profit obtained through voluntary exchange creates wealth for both or all parties, why would the profit motive be an ignoble goal? The more profit that is made, the more wealth is created for the customers.

What makes you think that voluntary exchange always creates value for all the parties to the transaction?  I may willingly enter into an exchange of money for entry into a concert -- but the value I place on the experience of seeing Led Zeppelin live does not create wealth for me.  If you obtain 1,000 shares in Acme Inc and the share price subsequently drops by half, this voluntary exchange will in fact result in a destruction of wealth.  

 

27 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The only reason I am typing on this computer is the profit motive. If the argument is coercive monopoly, none have ever existed without government help. 

So what would you propose to do about natural monopolies?

 

27 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

A negligible issue, and cases of such almost always over-exaggerated or incorrectly reported. Most can be solved with simple enforcement of private property rights, i.e. pollution. And the idea that the government is the best way to solve a negative externality is something that is debatable.

If I get an asthma attack caused by air pollution, who should I sue?  Who COULD I sue?  How could I even begin to enforce private property rights -- my lungs -- when pollution is a general issue affecting a common resource?  

[99call]

7 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Capitalism is free of classes, as anyone is permitted to move into and out of any economic position. There is no caste system. The rich go broke every day and the poor become millionaires every day. The concept of class struggle is a concoction of Marx, especially as there are different people moving in and out of the economic classes constantly. 

Capitalism is free of classes?     this is just simple nonsense. Floyd Mayweather maybe free to get rich in the States, is he free to be powerful?, or move into the higher echelons of the closeted classes?. no.   I guarantee you there will be sections of social mobility in America that will be closed off to him, based on his background, and his perceived class.  If you don't accept this, then yes your version of Capitalist America is without any faults...........simply because you just refuse to accept them, and turn a blind eye. 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. The up shot of this, is you're very happy living where you live, and think it's the greatest place on the planet,..which it great.