a bit insecure, hence his 'contemptuously dismissive' comments.... Nevertheless, he is incredibly well read — ritikew
but, not in the same manner as when Marx was describing the socio-economic's of Germany or England some 152 years ago. — Wallows
In 2007, the top 20% wealthiest possessed 80% of all financial assets. In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 35% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 51%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%.
And what is it about the class situation that Marx observed that is so different today? — Bitter Crank
People do not feel much gratification in being told that their lives are shitty compared to the people who rule over them, but their lives are really quite grand compared to people who lived 150 years ago. — Bitter Crank
we have an example here of a country, within which there are free and fair elections, i.e. democratic contra authoritative, and the government owns the majority of the wealth and controls several key companies which are vital to the economy. This certainly seems to me like a step in the direction of a workable socialism. — Maw
Basically a step to the right from traditional socialism, I'd say.The Nordic system, along with worker cooperatives, etc. etc. being a step in the right direction. — Maw
is a specific tax policy sufficient for doing a socialism now? — Maw
I didn't say that Norway was a socialist country. — Maw
The article doesn't hide the percentage of national wealth owned by the state when homeownership is factored in, which is nearly 60%. What's the problem? — Maw
As for the
so far from what I have seen here, pretty much correct on Marx's work. — ritikew
...part, feel free to make the case. I'm certainly not here claiming to be any kind of expert on Marxist theory myself.
I just don't find it persuasive when someone's entire argument is "Hey, I've read the book, so I know." Especially when it's a long and complex book, and it seems that there are plenty of other folks who've also read the book and "know" differently. — Theologian
He is an outspoken leftist (not Marxist though, as he leans more towards anarchism/left wing libertarianism), a bit insecure, hence his 'contemptuously dismissive' comments and a bit autistic when it comes to social interaction. — ritikew
Because that wealth that you are talking about, the Norwegian 1 trillion dollar wealth fund (Government Pension Fund Global), which was last year worth about $195,000 per every Norwegian citizen (which explains the stats you desperately cling on to as evidence of a step towards socialism), invests in the global stock market and hence just embraces the globalized capitalist system. The fund doesn't at all invest in Norwegian companies as the Norwegians understand the negative consequences such move could have (which truly would be genuinely a way to socialism...and also a path to inefficiency and possible corruption). — ssu
What you attempt to insinuate is that the Norwegian government owns/controls 60% (or the majority) of the means of production in the country. — ritikew
Well, every manager understands that shit-paid jobs and unhappy workers don't contribute to productivity. Furthermore, the demand for labor has gone up significantly since Marx's time. At the very least, these two factors contribute to better wages and economic growth. — Wallows
So, when will things start appearing as rosy and good for your tastes? Just wondering what kind of standards for social mobility you have in mind here? — Wallows
Many of the factors contributing to the designation of being a "proletarian" in Marx's days have all but disappeared. Worker alienation? Pretty much gone. etc. — Wallows
If the purchasing power of my money increases to the point of being able to afford the same goods as my bourgeoise counterpart, then that would seem to imply that instead of the rift between the two growing apart, they are actually converging. — Wallows
If the purchasing powers are close to equal, that sounds correct. But they have to be close to equal, at the same time. If I can suddenly buy a Ferrari and a mansion, but the bourgeoisie is now buying spaceships and planets, then I am still reaching for the pitchfork and torches. Will the majority of people ever be satisfied as the "under" class? — ZhouBoTong
If buying a Tesla Model 3 is within the means of the proletarian, then I can't imagine a better product a bourgeoisie could purchase that would increase satisfaction. — Wallows
The Norwegian Pension Fund system compromises of two wealth funds.No, the Sovereign Trust Fund is a component of the wealth that I am talking about. — Maw
:roll:Such a shame they couldn't have known of the "terrible consequences" and the "inefficiency" and "corruption" you are speaking about. — Maw
Sure, but that is something called reaching a consensus in politics. You have to remember that these kind of policies, especially the so-called socialist welfare programs, were here accepted and done together with right-wing parties. As I've always said, a right-wing conservative from a Nordic country would seem to an American as a left-leaning Democrat, if not a pinko liberal. Yet again the social democrats here are also different breed from genuine socialists. Again the power of consensus politics.My point is that these are workable solutions that step away from capitalism towards a "flavor", if you will, of socialism — Maw
But it should be also noted that collective ownership of wealth, just cooperatives, go perfectly at hand with capitalism: let's remember that Bismarck wasn't a socialist, but was trying to fight socialism with the government lead social security system, which is exactly that collective ownership of wealth.To my mind, any sort of meaningful socialism necessarily (but not sufficiently) requires collective ownership of wealth. — Maw
Bismarck was motivated to introduce social insurance in Germany both in order to promote the well-being of workers in order to keep the German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to stave-off calls for more radical socialist alternatives. Despite his impeccable right-wing credentials, Bismarck would be called a socialist for introducing these programs, as would President Roosevelt 70 years later. In his own speech to the Reichstag during the 1881 debates, Bismarck would reply: "Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me."
So just why then they decided NOT TO invest the larger funds money into the domestic market. — ssu
Sure, but that is something called reaching a consensus in politics. You have to remember that these kind of policies, especially the so-called socialist welfare programs, were here accepted and done together with right-wing parties. As I've always said, a right-wing conservative from a Nordic country would seem to an American as a left-leaning Democrat, if not a pinko liberal. Yet again the social democrats here are also different breed from genuine socialists. Again the power of consensus politics. — ssu
But notice the other side of what it means to have political consensus: it means that the social democrats go just fine with the implementation of right wing policies too. Especially when the market mechanism does work. It can be quite easily argued that the Nordic countries like Sweden or Finland were far more socialist and centrally governed in the 1960's and 1970's than now. Hence these countries aren't on the path to more socialism, but are what is called mixed economies.It's at least nice that the Nordic countries can agree on a strong welfare state, strong worker's rights, and other common sense policies and programs that should be a foundation to a developed country. — Maw
In the US winner takes it all. And when you have just two parties, no need for consensus.But the GOP has mostly turned away from consensus politics since the 90s and have only escalated their Machiavellianism — Maw
What's the difference between socialism and communism according to you and Marx?Marx outlined two phases of progress that must be completed before communism can prevail. Essentially, he outlined the reason why we should move from capitalism to socialism, and finally from socialism to communism.
However, I don't believe we will ever be able to make the leap from socialism to communism. — Wallows
What, according to you, are "the benefits of progress and prosperity" entailed by capitalist competition?Here's why... Socialism is the golden mean between the benefits of progress and prosperity that competition entails under capitalism, — Wallows
What are the "benefits" of the proto-communist state? Why proto- here, and not all the way?whilst preserving the benefits of the proto-communist state through high taxation and redistributive policies. — Wallows
I suppose that's one way things could go.However, given my understanding of the issue, when no more progress can be instilled through capitalism, such as machines replacing the labor force (which will happen soon), then there is a shift in the balance towards the appeal of communism. — Wallows
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.