Jump to content

Workable Socialism


Martell Spy

Recommended Posts

So I happened to be working on The Road to Serfdom tonight and stumbled upon two interesting quotes that seem relevant to this topic. Thought I'd share before the entire thread stops being about socialism entirely...

It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.

How ironic that one of Hayek's best arguments against socialism is actually just as good against capitalism...

Democratic assemblies cannot function as planning agencies. They cannot produce agreement on everything -the whole direction of the resources of the nation- for the number of possible courses of action will be legion. Even if a congress could, by proceeding step by step and compromising at each point, agree on some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody.

This seemed to be one of the most interesting bits of the entire book and one that directly relates to this thread.
There's several things to unpack here methinks:
- It's pretty damn difficult to make socialism work on a large scale... Pretty much what I was saying earlier :rolleyes:.
- "The number of possible courses of action will be legion" : actually, not necessarily. That may have been true when Hayek wrote his book but today the finite resources of our planet greatly reduce the possible courses of action.
- "It would certainly in the end satisfy nobody" : "nobody" is quite the exaggeration here, but anyway the point is for measures to satisfy everyone just enough to agree to them, presumably everyone is adult enough to know that they won't always have everything going their way and have enough sense of the common good to put their individualism aside when working on public affairs...
- Funnily enough I'd argue that Hayek isn't so much opposing socialism here as he is opposing... democracy itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zorral said:

Like everybody with whom I associate through consensual pleasure in their company -- I am for immigration but not for open borders.  I am for providing aid and assistance and asylum for those who need asylum due to the sheer violence of corruption, gangsterism, warlordism, war, etc.  Though it needs a real program or set of programs, that are fully funded and staffed to do it properly and with less confusion than is inevitable when dealing with large groups of people at the same time.  We did a terrific job with this in Europe after defeating the Axis.  We should be able to do that here and now.  Of course we should be working hard on such planning and programs, because this isn't going to stop, no matter what walls and depravity TVholes try to put in their way (but of course that's all about him and his anyway, to keep his base fired as hell with hatred and opportunity to shoot).

That people seem to think there is no room for them here -- somebody's got to start rebuilding infrastructure and building housing that isn't for the billionaire bloat ownership.  Public programs -- we could do that in the 30's and 40's too.  I guess that's socialism.  Can't have that, because even back then, all the political 'compromise' for getting these programs through the southern blockades in the House and Senate had to do with making sure African Americans couldn't get any (despite Eleanor Roosevelt's heroic efforts).   So that's why we can never have socialism here -- the uniting principle is racism, and without that in full operation decade-after-decade, century-after-century, the racists would lose the power to harness hatred and thus lose power.

But then, we can't do anything at all these days except swipe.  Can't even build airplanes that don't fall out of the sky because the corporation prefers a cheap ass design and implementation, temp workers team for the navigation system.  Not at joke: Boeing paid $9 an hour to a bunch temp workers in India to do that entire failure of a system to keep the plane in the air.

 

I hope that was sarcastic because it's not true at all. For just the Jews, many lived for years after the war in "displaced persons" camps at the sites of former concentration camps. Almost no countries were allowing any significant amount of Holocaust refugee immigration. Many people who did try to go home (and let's be honest, who wants to live with the people who just tried to genocide you and had previously persecuted you for more than a millennia) found their homes occupied by others, all of their belongings having been stolen by the Nazis and their collaborators. There were several post WWII pograms in Poland when Jews tried to return home. The result was that many Holocaust survivors tried to immigrate illegally to what was then mandate Palestine, when they were caught they ended up in refugee camps on Cyprus, ending up in Israel after it declared independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I have spent more time in academia than many people have been alive.

Then was then -- and was it every class?  Now is now.  Things are really different.

And being an alcoholic is a disease, and a very unpleasant one.  And it destroys lives, and not only the life of the person who is doing the drinking.  I should be more generous to DMC perhaps, but it's a terrible waste, and I hate to see that.  Not to mention certain experiences I've suffered at the hands of a chronic drinker -- my father.

Maybe it's a time for people who care about him to do an intervention.

 

:lmao:

Pal, and I consider you a pal whether you like it or not. I think youre out of line here. You're reading the words if another high functioning alcoholic right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

The personal tax cuts will eventually expire by themselves unless renewed, but even if the Democrats have complete control of the legislative and executive branches, the odds of them repealing the corporate tax cut are very, very low. Remember, the Democrats are not a monolithic block and the odds of them having a majority so large that the more plutocratic members of their caucus do not matter are fairly small.

Do they look scared to you? Think about it: to billionaires, any immigration (legal or illegal) is almost entirely beneficial because it means an increased labor force and more consumers. Furthermore, they live in gated compounds and communities, send their children to private schools and are otherwise insulated from the secondary effects of immigrant presence. There are things they fear (natural cataclysms, widespread nuclear or biological weapon usage, etc.), but every one of them would devastate everyone else too. On the whole, the mid 21st century is a great time to be a billionaire.

Yet somehow the Democratic Congress passed the ACA and the involved tax increases on the wealthy. Those plutocratic members of their caucus must have been sleeping at the switch that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

:lmao:

Pal, and I consider you a pal whether you like it or not. I think youre out of line here. You're reading the words if another high functioning alcoholic right now. 

You know what -- I am outta line.  And I apologize.

It's just that -- that level of drinking, particularly starting young, and they believe they are handling it and it makes their performance better -- well it does lead to not good ends.  Like friends who don't let drunk friends drive, friends even if only in pixels, need to say something.  Or maybe I'm being too old, having seen so many bad ends to this particular story, from very talented musicians going out to perform drunk -- starting coz they were so terrified getting out there to start with, and then thinking they couldn't do it without it later -- and as I say, that's just for starters.   I don't want drunk students, I don't want a drunk doctor, I don't want a drunk accountant, I don't want any professional that I deal with, doing the job while drunk.

And that's that.  Except to apologize again for lecturing and sermonizing.  Because from another pov what I typed will sound like that, I suppose?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

You know what -- I am outta line.  And I apologize.

It's just that -- that level of drinking, particularly starting young, and they believe they are handling it and it makes their performance better -- well it does lead to not good ends.  Like friends who don't let drunk friends drive, friends even if only in pixels, need to say something.  Or maybe I'm being too old, having seen so many bad ends to this particular story, from very talented musicians going out to perform drunk -- starting coz they were so terrified getting out there to start with, and then thinking they couldn't do it without it later -- and as I say, that's just for starters.   I don't want drunk students, I don't want a drunk doctor, I don't want a drunk accountant, I don't want any professional that I deal with, doing the job while drunk.

And that's that.  Except to apologize again for lecturing and sermonizing.  Because from another pov what I typed will sound like that, I suppose?

 

I'm just giving you a hard time mostly. But I also do feel that someone's use of mental inhibitors or stimulants is nobody else's business unless they are directly causing harm. And being a friend or relation of someone does give you reason, responsibility even, to advise them if you think they're being self-destructive. But as far as I'm concerned unsolicited instructions regarding personal comportment become inappropriate very quickly regardless of affection or intent. Being a friend, family member, or indeed even lover, does not grant the right of external determination.

Or in other words, if someone wants to drink themselves to death you have very limited rights to intervene.

That's just my opinion though. Take it for what it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, felice said:

That's fine for a country which is still being built which has a big demand for labour, plenty of resources, and not much to offer except a subsistence wage. For an established civilised country that provides free healthcare to all (at least via emergency rooms) let alone a Universal Basic Income, and is already having problems with things like fresh water in places, there needs to be some regulation of the rate of inflow.

Then regulate access to welfare not the flow of people. Those who use freedom of movement can come and go and work/invest with no controls/borders (and pay taxes for the privelege), but only get welfare/office holding rights etc. once they apply and receive something more permanent.

This way, freedom of movement will attract those able to make something of themselves without red tape. Under current systems, trade and talent are hindered by red tape while loads of people still manage to burden the welfare system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I'm just giving you a hard time mostly. But I also do feel that someone's use of mental inhibitors or stimulants is nobody else's business unless they are directly causing harm. 

Or unless the person keeps mentioning it on a very public forum for some reason.

You're sick. Either accept it and the kind advice from strangers or stfu about it. Because either you're asking for help and getting it or showing everyone how dumb you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Or unless the person keeps mentioning it on a very public forum for some reason.

You're sick. Either accept it and the kind advice from strangers or stfu about it. Because either you're asking for help and getting it or showing everyone how dumb you are.

This isnt about whatever they were discussing, but I agree with your point that people who ask for advice in a public forum should not complain when they get it. I've noticed how some people will ask questions online and then get defensive when someone answers cos they think it's "unsolicited" advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Or unless the person keeps mentioning it on a very public forum for some reason.

You're sick. Either accept it and the kind advice from strangers or stfu about it. Because either you're asking for help and getting it or showing everyone how dumb you are.

Easy, Moses! You'll pull a muscle carrying all that righteousness around. 

Leave my friend alone, he's living his life and doesn't need simplistic judgment from thousands of miles away. If reading about someone's casual drug or alcohol use offends you then I suggest you get a hobby or a hatred to develop. We were having frank, and I thought amiable, discussions. Your boorish statement is unbecoming.

This is waay of the rails though, so I'll make that my last comment on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Raja said:

Since you're giving me anecdotal evidence without sources, or actual figures - lets look at some facts

"Merkel invited a huge influx of economic migrants as opposed to Syrian Asylum seekers (The vast majority were not from Syria)"

Because the migrant & refugee crisis is complicated, I'm going to focus on 2016, as that was the year with the highest level of asylum  applications. 2016 saw 1,255,640 applications for asylum within the European Union ( EU-28) - 29% were Syrian, 15% from Afghanistan, 10% from Iraq, 5% from Kosovo, 5% from Albania. One out of every 3 asylum seekers at the height of the crisis were Syrian (  Source: Eurostat)

Now lets look at Germany specifically in 2016 - Asylum applications 2016 - Germany (Source)

Total Applications - 745,155

Syria - 36%, Afghanistan 17%, Iraq 13%, Iran 4% & Eritrea 3%

Out of a total of 745,155 applications, decisions were made on 631,048 - 433,905 were positive decisions - clearly the German authorities were satisfied with the documents provided by, & the validity of, roughly 70% of asylum seekers in 2016.

So we've established that the majority of the people seeking asylum at the height of the crisis were from Syria, Afghanistan & Iraq in 2016. And of the people seeking asylum status, 70 percent were granted that status based on the evidence they provided.

Lastly, let's look at some recent figures. In 2018 - Syria was the main country of citizenship of asylum seekers in EU member states in 2018, a position it has held since 2013, followed by Afghanis 7%, Iraqis 6.8%. According to the Afghan government, 80 percent of the country is not safe - fair reason to seek asylum, don't you think?

Asylum seekers coming from the main countries highlighted above are fleeing persecution from countries with a history of destruction, war, & foreign intervention ( Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq). That's 73% seeking asylum for *exactly* what the asylum system is for.

Since 2016, the number of asylum requests has actually fallen in the EU ( Source)

I agree with you that some portion of the asylum seekers can be economic migrants & that there is a documented prevalence of fake documents, but it is ludicrous to think that these include the vast majority of asylum seekers, given the scale of asylum applications in Germany & Europe. There are *some* quotes at estimates, but it is a little facile to think that they make up the 'vast majority' as you stated - just look at the numbers! In addition, some of these tests used to ascertain if asylum seekers are actually Syrian have been discredited. In addition, there is a *huge* overlap between motivations to seek asylum, this is something the UNHR has recognized, it is possible, and likely, for asylum seekers to be both refugees & economic migrants. Making that distinction is not easy.

I know this is already long, but these conversations don't recognize that the majority of Syrians have been resettled in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan & Iraq as opposed to Europe.

Edit: I don't want to derail this thread with this stuff, but I think it is prudent to be a little more aware of what you're talking about before making claims that are easily disproved by data.

 

Have you actually read the links you've provided? Majority and plurality are two entirely different things. It is true that Syrians are the plurality of asylum seekers, but that is still a relatively small percentage of the whole. From your link for 2018 (emphasis mine):

Quote

Syria was the main country of citizenship of asylum seekers in the EU Member States in 2018, a position it has held each year since 2013. In 2018, the number of Syrian first-time asylum applicants in the EU-28 fell to 81 thousand from 102 thousand in 2017, while the share of Syrians in the EU-28 total dropped from 15.6 % to 13.9 %.

If 13.9% of total asylum seekers are Syrian, it means that 86.1% (or, "a vast majority", if you will) are non-Syrian. Which means that Iskaral's original statement is entirely correct, and possibly even understating the situation.

Also, my county (Bosnia) is on one of the migrant routes, and Syrians are not even the plurality of the migrants. Data for 2018: Pakistan 32.5%, Iran 15.32%, Syria 12.62%, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gorn said:

Have you actually read the links you've provided?

I have. My emphasis was on 2016 as opposed to the later 2018 dates, as I felt that it made sense to look at the years when the applications were at a peak, and this was also the period that Isk was talking about, as opposed to last year. As I mentioned in my post, asylum applications to the EU have actually dropped in the last two years, so 2018 imo is not the right time to look at, I provided those for a little bit of context. And yes, you're correct - 32% in 2016 being the plurality, but it is important to note that it is a number that is *way* higher than the 10 percent Isk stated.

Also, the important point in addition to the fact that Syrians were at 32% ( the plurality, as you state) -  is that the majority ( 73%) of asylum seekers in Germany in 2016 were from countries that were *actually* facing war & persecution ( Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanisthan & Eritrea  if you add percentages of those countries up it amounts to 73% in 2016) - that is how the asylum system is *meant* to be used, they were fleeing war zones & persecution, as opposed to being 'economic migrants'.

Also, Bosnia isn't in the EU 28, so the statistics I was looking at didn't include Bosnia, I know that it is in the migrant route, but I just wanted you to be aware of that.

Edit - We've gone pretty off topic here, I want to be conscious of not filling this thread with this back & forth that isn't particularly relevant to what was being talked about before.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

You'll pull a muscle carrying all that righteousness around.

If reading about -------------------- offends you then I suggest you get a hobby or a hatred to develop.

Talk about a pot and a kettle...

Anyway, I'm certainly not talking about DMC (I'll talk to him by mp if I feel the need), just pointing out that Zorral was certainly not out of line to point out that alcoholism is a serious disease after your completely idiotic remark about drinking with a teacher in college (who should be fired given the circumstances mentioned imho).

Edit: and just reading such a sentence shows just how off-topic this has gotten... I'll show myself out now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dornishpen said:

I hope that was sarcastic because it's not true at all. For just the Jews, many lived for years after the war in "displaced persons" camps at the sites of former concentration camps. Almost no countries were allowing any significant amount of Holocaust refugee immigration. Many people who did try to go home (and let's be honest, who wants to live with the people who just tried to genocide you and had previously persecuted you for more than a millennia) found their homes occupied by others, all of their belongings having been stolen by the Nazis and their collaborators. There were several post WWII pograms in Poland when Jews tried to return home. The result was that many Holocaust survivors tried to immigrate illegally to what was then mandate Palestine, when they were caught they ended up in refugee camps on Cyprus, ending up in Israel after it declared independence.

I had not heard about refusal to accept Jewish Refugees after the end of WWII.  It, sadly, would not surprise me, but, do you have any documentation to will provide support for that assertion.  I’d be curious to look it over.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I had not heard about refusal to accept Jewish Refugees after the end of WWII.  It, sadly, would not surprise me, but, do you have any documentation to will provide support for that assertion.  I’d be curious to look it over.

Thank you.

In addition the USHMM link @Lykos provided, here's what [url=https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/about/end-of-war-aftermath/liberation.html?WT.mc_id=wiki#narrative_info/]Yad Vashem[/url] has about this and for an overview here's a [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh'erit_ha-Pletah]Wikipedia[/url] page about survivors in DP camps after the war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism returns to the former East Germany:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/opinion/berlin-socialism-housing.html?

Quote

 

BERLIN — Is this city, the former capital of communist East Germany, returning to socialism, this time in both parts of the once divided city? From the tenor of the increasingly anxious debate around Berlin’s housing crisis, it certainly seems so: On June 14, activists handed the Berlin Senate a petition with 77,000 signatures calling for the local government to take over the large companies that control a major portion of the city’s housing stock, the first step toward a public referendum on the proposal. A few days later, the Senate advanced a separate proposal that would put a complete halt to rent increases for five years.

Housing is a big problem in cities worldwide, but few cities in Europe have it quite as bad as Berlin. Every year the city adds between 40,000 to 50,000 people, on top of a population of 3.6 million. Housing construction can’t keep up; as a result, rents on new apartments have gone up 50 percent in the last five years.

The rising cost of living is not unique to Berlin. Many people across Germany pay the largest chunk of their income for housing. Add to that the fact that Germany is a nation of tenants. Almost 60 percent of  households rent their homes. All of this makes the rising cost of living an existential problem for many, one that is driving many Germans to consider radical solutions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Socialism returns to the former East Germany:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/08/opinion/berlin-socialism-housing.html?

 

There has been a lot more talk about rent-control on the U.S. West Coast due to the housing situation here. It was shot down though in California, for now. And I believe the Washington state legislature quietly buried it for now. And yes, it is a growing sign of increasing interest about socialist policies. Rent-control talk was banished by both parties from even being discussed in the 70's in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...