Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
wonderpup

The Triumph Of Socialism.

Recommended Posts

Those who say that Central Bank interventions do not work or who claim that QE is a failure are wrong. The reality is that these policies have been a stunning success.

To paraphrase the great Winston Churchill; Never before has so much been transferred to so few by so many.

And here's the proof;

The following brief video created by TheRules.org, using data sourced from this website, is the latest vivid demonstration of the most adverse (and dangerous) side effect of nearly five years, and counting, of global monetary intervention by central banks: a world in which the poor get poorer, the rich get richer, and the middle class disappears.

The video's punchline "The richest 300 people on earth have as much wealth as the poorest 3 billion" is not exactly correct: in truth the situation is even worse: the richest 200 people have about $2.7 trillion, which is more than the poorest 3.5 billion people, who have only $2.2 trillion combined.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-21/new-abnormal-when-200-people-have-more-wealth-3500000000

Happy days are here again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The powers that be had a real chance to even things out a bit.

It wouldn't have been pretty, but we'd be through it now and mostly the right people would have felt the pain.

They chose the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the term socialism is misplaced here. If we had socialism the reverse would be true. The rich would be poorer and the poor would not be poor at all at least in terms of basic housing, education, health care, food, safety and working conditions etc. And if you look at this set of conditions, we have definitly created a new class of working poor in most countries with of course so called developing countires inflicting the worst working condtitions on people this side of our industrial revolution, our working class and now middle class are receding back to something else, ie the workign class are either unemployed or semi-criminal and the middle class are in fact the working class especialy when it comes to the issue of resiliance and security (ie they will go under withing weeks of not being paid). What we really have at work is crony capitalism of the worst order which is in fact a right wing think tank outcome as was dreamed up between the 1950's and 1970's and executed over the last 3 decades.

AS for the rich getting richer, the vast majority of them are not enterprneures but parasites and money skimmers who take off the backs of the real workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A triumph of Technocracy. But how long will it last?

To make it more transparent we should vote to select members of the BoE and let them appoint our politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put things right it isn't neo-feudalism or a technocracy, we still live live in a feudal monarchy.

The only difference between now and a few hundred years ago is TPTB have hidden this behind the façade of democracy. Those who owned the country 200 years ago still own it today.

Edited by Ulfar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put things right it isn't neo-feudalism or a technocracy, we still live live in a feudal monarchy.

The only difference between now and a few hundred years ago is TPTB have hidden this behind the façade of democracy. Those who owned the country 200 years ago still own it today.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put things right it isn't neo-feudalism or a technocracy, we still live live in a feudal monarchy.

The only difference between now and a few hundred years ago is TPTB have hidden this behind the façade of democracy. Those who owned the country 200 years ago still own it today.

Yes, the puppet masters have learnt well the importance of propaganda, keeping their subjects bellies full and convincing the prisoners they arent prisoners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the term socialism is misplaced here. If we had socialism the reverse would be true. The rich would be poorer and the poor would not be poor at all at least in terms of basic housing, education, health care, food, safety and working conditions etc.

If you had socialism, everyone would be poorer, and the rich would gain their position from political connections rather than doing things other people are willing to pay for.

Hmm, actually, that's not much different to what you have today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when all those hippies started complaining about globalisation and multinationals in the early 1990's?

The full force of the state was turned against them, and the corporate media set out to destroy their reputations.

They warned that there were global elites who wanted more for them and less for everyone else. They were using companies to starve countries of tax revenue and would keep populations docile by moving jobs away at the first hint of trouble with no safety net for those left behind.

They were pretty much spot on weren't they.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you had socialism, everyone would be poorer, and the rich would gain their position from political connections rather than doing things other people are willing to pay for.

Hmm, actually, that's not much different to what you have today.

If we define Socialism as the use of state power to forcibly redistribute wealth then I would argue that the Bank Bailouts, QE and ZIRP are without doubt the single most successful socialist policy in history- the end result speaks for itself- most of societies wealth is in the hands of those who directly benefited.

I keep being told that the 'tyranny of the majority' is alive and well and must be stamped on- but if that's true how come it's the minority who control most of the wealth and power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep being told that the 'tyranny of the majority' is alive and well and must be stamped on- but if that's true how come it's the minority who control most of the wealth and power?

A minority always control most of the wealth and power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't socialism ...it was the third way

ok for some

' Fascism supports what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism.'

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

While I agree with many of the objectives of socialism it simply does not work. Socialism is natural selection in reverse. Well managed businesses producing things people want have their money taxed away, so can not grow. Poorly run institutions that produce either things people do not want or produce nothing at all are rewarded. It's easy to see how this destroys a country's economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' Fascism supports what is sometimes called a Third Position between capitalism and Marxist socialism.'

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

While I agree with many of the objectives of socialism it simply does not work. Socialism is natural selection in reverse. Well managed businesses producing things people want have their money taxed away, so can not grow. Poorly run institutions that produce either things people do not want or produce nothing at all are rewarded. It's easy to see how this destroys a country's economy.

Walter Block deduced socialism generally means 'more taxes and redistribution', fascism means 'more regulations'.

Not sure which is worse. Socialism has a higher death toll, although thats probably more due to its wider acceptance than anything else. Why socialists aren't demonized today to the same extents of fascists is a bit of a mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we define Socialism as the use of state power to forcibly redistribute wealth then I would argue that the Bank Bailouts, QE and ZIRP are without doubt the single most successful socialist policy in history- the end result speaks for itself- most of societies wealth is in the hands of those who directly benefited.

I keep being told that the 'tyranny of the majority' is alive and well and must be stamped on- but if that's true how come it's the minority who control most of the wealth and power?

And if we define socialism as a kind of pasta dish I just had a really tasty socialism.

Socialism is about mass ownership of the means of production.

Whatever you take that to mean I really can't see how it applies to the bailout of a handful of oligarchs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walter Block deduced socialism generally means 'more taxes and redistribution', fascism means 'more regulations'.

Not sure which is worse. Socialism has a higher death toll, although thats probably more due to its wider acceptance than anything else. Why socialists aren't demonized today to the same extents of fascists is a bit of a mystery.

No-one agrees about the definition of fascism, but the best definition I ever heard was ultra-conservatism, in the same sense that communism is ultra-socialism.

That at least explains why it's so hard to define, because conservatism is culturally specific.

It's a stupid argument, but for some reason I feel compelled to suggest that the bloodiest political 'system' of all is likely to be monarchism.

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socialism is about mass ownership of the means of production.

I think you'll find it's the sharing of the profits of production that most upsets those who object to the idea of socialism.

What they object to is when other people's money is appropriated in order to benefit special interest groups favoured by those in power.

And the ongoing transfer of societies wealth to the top 1% is a perfect example of wealth appropriation that favours a special interest.

As Maggie said- the problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money- in this case that problem comes to roost at the door of the 1%- they are running out of other people's wealth to appropriate in order to prop up the ponzi scheme upon which their own 'wealth' is founded.

By attempting the wholesale socialisation of their losses the rich have lost any claim to the legitimacy of their wealth- they are now revealed to be the gangster class they truly are, stripped of the intellectual camouflage provided by those useful idiots in the economics profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 'tyranny of the majority' is just a bogey man invented by the right?

Uh, no.

In a free market, a minority control most of the wealth because they produce things others want to buy. In a Glorious Socialist Utopia, a minority control most of the wealth because they have the best political connections.

Most socialists are only socialists because they believe they're going to be part of the '1%' that tells everyone else what do so. Most of them are going to be disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, no.

In a free market, a minority control most of the wealth because they produce things others want to buy. In a Glorious Socialist Utopia, a minority control most of the wealth because they have the best political connections.

Most socialists are only socialists because they believe they're going to be part of the '1%' that tells everyone else what do so. Most of them are going to be disappointed.

According to the 'tyranny of the majority' theory the democratic process will lead to the election of crowd pleasing governments who will buy their re election by taking money from the wealthy and redistributing it to the masses in the form of benefits and other freebies.

So if this were the case we should see the opposite of what we see now- so how come that tiny democratic minority- the 1%- have ended up with most of the money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you take that to mean I really can't see how it applies to the bailout of a handful of oligarchs.

Indeed. The elite have always opposed and suppressed socialism, and it's really in most of their interests to encourage the "socialism is to blame not us" mindset I would have thought.

I've seen it work very well indeed first hand in Finland and other parts of Scandinavia where society is infinitely more equal financially than America or China.

Socialism has sort of become a lazy byword for whatever anybody wants it to mean when they're looking for something to blame (such flexibility of lexicon isn't really surprising given so many who we associate with it - Marx for example - couldn't agree what it meant either.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, no.

In a free market, a minority control most of the wealth because they produce things others want to buy. In a Glorious Socialist Utopia, a minority control most of the wealth because they have the best political connections.

Sorry, but that's just hilarious. That's neither an aim of capitalism, nor an observed consequence.

If personal wealth were proportional to wealth creation, or productivity, or any of those things, then we'd see an extremely flat society, because the reality is that wealth is created by interactions between humans, and there are very few special flowers.

Most socialists are only socialists because they believe they're going to be part of the '1%' that tells everyone else what do so. Most of them are going to be disappointed.

Psychological projection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Communism is international socialism whereas fascism is 'National Socialism'.

It all makes sense when you understand that and what that means for your policies.

The 'Nazis' were strongly socialist but only for their own race, strongly influenced by the ideas of Darwin and the survival of the fittest.

The Communists were set on a collision course with the entire world until all peoples would be free in their eyes. I think they also realised that was required to stop capitalists playing countries off against each other.

Fascists were to a large extent a reaction against socialism. They were collectivists, but collectivism isn't socialism.

Conservatism is a collectivist ideology that seeks to preserve existing, usually hierarchical, power structures for the collective good. It values conformity, and is typically connected to the idea that everyone has responsibilities towards the collective.

There's nothing inherently evil about that, I'm not trying to slander conservatism, but it's pretty easy to see how those ideas can lead to fascism if you take them to an extreme limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascists were to a large extent a reaction against socialism. They were collectivists, but collectivism isn't socialism.

Conservatism is a collectivist ideology that seeks to preserve existing, usually hierarchical, power structures for the collective good. It values conformity, and is typically connected to the idea that everyone has responsibilities towards the collective.

There's nothing inherently evil about that, I'm not trying to slander conservatism, but it's pretty easy to see how those ideas can lead to fascism if you take them to an extreme limit.

I think you're a lot closer with collectivism.

How on earth can 200 people having as much as 3.5 billion be socialism? (The traditional argument against socialism would of course have been that without those incredibly productive 200 the 3.5 billion would have had nothing).

I think the problem here is that people are trying to apply antiquated labels to something "new" and unsurprisingly these labels never quite fit properly.

It's a sort of hyper-collectivism or hyper-capitalism, and in the UK at least that definitely started to accelerate in the 80s as traditional socialism and unionism went into decline.

Again I don't want to blame one group (be it left or right) - I don't think either are in control of very much any way to tell the truth. The rich still rule the world with the cloaks and daggers of democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 245 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.