11-26-2006, 12:31 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What exactly is 'socialism' that you define of<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Socialism is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Until communism-common ownership-is established, we must stick to state ownership of the means of production. Proletariats will form the state, which is why we call it 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An example of socialist system would be government planners could dictate as to how much one produced<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite. I will explain this in detail.
Basis of production:
The state will control production based on the needs of the people, unlike free market economies. For instance, a socialist government in India would rather focus on producing and distributing more rice and wheat, rather than put a man on the moon. Why so? Because production is based on need, and the needs of millions of hungry mouths determine this particular production target. This, in effect, will guide a socialist economy.
All-round development:
One doesn't have to worry that the economy will 'stagnate' on account of this, because the law (in this case, diminishing marginal utility) will ensure that development takes place at the right speed. Another example to understand this. India lives in the villages. A socialist state would do well to invest in fertilisers, irrigation and such, than in fancy cars. The former, along with other measures, aims at equiping the villages, to make them prosperous and self-sufficient. This is the NEED in a country where 70% people are farmers and therefore, investment decisions must be based on this.
Once this is accomplished, the law of diminishing marginal utility will take us to the next step. What would a self-sufficient village do? It can become a center of production itself. Thus more wealth is generated. As you can see, there is no 'stagnation' once needs are fulfilled. The very fulfilment will take us to the next stage of development, and development in this case comes about naturally and step-by-step. Compare this with free market economies, where fancy cars and beggars exist side by side. This is the result of development based on greed.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Only creation of wealth can provide for schemes to defend or provide for those who need to be provided for.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but wealth generation based on free market system will not provide for the needy. Here's why.
Dangers of free market system:
As a general rule, majority=mediocrity. Most people want freedom but not the responsibility that comes with it. Turn to India. Everybody wanted freedom, but was there any responsibility or accountability in this country once India became free? Even today, things haven't changed, so it's safe to conclude that most people prefer freedom minus responsibility.
If this attitude entends to economics, imagine the disasters. People will be free to produce anything, without care or concern. The rich man would rather invest and create more casinos, dance bars, fancy cars, electronic gadgets, because there's enormous profit. This is scenario A. He wouldn't invest in fertilisers, for a starving farmer isn't a good customer. Even if he does, the prices have to be too high for the poor (to account for his production costs), and this will put more pressure on the already starving farmer. This is B.
In short, either development and wealth generation will have to cater to the rich at the expense of the poor, as in scenario A; or, development comes at a heavy price, namely farming debts, suicide etc. All this in the name of freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Itâs called taxes â is this term foreign to socialists? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is evasion of taxes a foreign term to you? This problem can be avoided in a socialist system.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In such a scenario, what incentive do you have to work as hard as you do when you could just be a lazy bumb like me since I'll be making as much as you do.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wealth is proportionate to the work done. No work=no wealth. If no wealth is created, a 'lazy bumb' can make nothing, because there's no wealth to be shared. Therefore, wealth creation itself will be an incentive to work, because that's the thing to be shared. More labor=more you enjoy the fruits of labor.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Who exactly are these imperialist? And spell out their designs? America? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
America has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. America has thousands of nuclear warheads while advising the world, including India, on disarmament. America has constantly interfered in other regions, Africa and S America, for instance. Armed rebels in Africa and destroyed nations like Liberia. Supports dictatorial regimes whenever it's convenient. Supports terrorists and terrorist groups whenever convenient. Do I have to go on and on, or you get the picture?
Most of you are living in USA or some western country, so you feel guilty about speaking about its atrocities. Also, most Indians feel inferior to westerners vis-a-vis skin color, development and so forth, which is why you love (or pretend) to ignore the obvious truth that the west is dangerous.
Socialism is the intermediate stage between capitalism and communism. Until communism-common ownership-is established, we must stick to state ownership of the means of production. Proletariats will form the state, which is why we call it 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An example of socialist system would be government planners could dictate as to how much one produced<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite. I will explain this in detail.
Basis of production:
The state will control production based on the needs of the people, unlike free market economies. For instance, a socialist government in India would rather focus on producing and distributing more rice and wheat, rather than put a man on the moon. Why so? Because production is based on need, and the needs of millions of hungry mouths determine this particular production target. This, in effect, will guide a socialist economy.
All-round development:
One doesn't have to worry that the economy will 'stagnate' on account of this, because the law (in this case, diminishing marginal utility) will ensure that development takes place at the right speed. Another example to understand this. India lives in the villages. A socialist state would do well to invest in fertilisers, irrigation and such, than in fancy cars. The former, along with other measures, aims at equiping the villages, to make them prosperous and self-sufficient. This is the NEED in a country where 70% people are farmers and therefore, investment decisions must be based on this.
Once this is accomplished, the law of diminishing marginal utility will take us to the next step. What would a self-sufficient village do? It can become a center of production itself. Thus more wealth is generated. As you can see, there is no 'stagnation' once needs are fulfilled. The very fulfilment will take us to the next stage of development, and development in this case comes about naturally and step-by-step. Compare this with free market economies, where fancy cars and beggars exist side by side. This is the result of development based on greed.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Only creation of wealth can provide for schemes to defend or provide for those who need to be provided for.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but wealth generation based on free market system will not provide for the needy. Here's why.
Dangers of free market system:
As a general rule, majority=mediocrity. Most people want freedom but not the responsibility that comes with it. Turn to India. Everybody wanted freedom, but was there any responsibility or accountability in this country once India became free? Even today, things haven't changed, so it's safe to conclude that most people prefer freedom minus responsibility.
If this attitude entends to economics, imagine the disasters. People will be free to produce anything, without care or concern. The rich man would rather invest and create more casinos, dance bars, fancy cars, electronic gadgets, because there's enormous profit. This is scenario A. He wouldn't invest in fertilisers, for a starving farmer isn't a good customer. Even if he does, the prices have to be too high for the poor (to account for his production costs), and this will put more pressure on the already starving farmer. This is B.
In short, either development and wealth generation will have to cater to the rich at the expense of the poor, as in scenario A; or, development comes at a heavy price, namely farming debts, suicide etc. All this in the name of freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Itâs called taxes â is this term foreign to socialists? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is evasion of taxes a foreign term to you? This problem can be avoided in a socialist system.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In such a scenario, what incentive do you have to work as hard as you do when you could just be a lazy bumb like me since I'll be making as much as you do.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wealth is proportionate to the work done. No work=no wealth. If no wealth is created, a 'lazy bumb' can make nothing, because there's no wealth to be shared. Therefore, wealth creation itself will be an incentive to work, because that's the thing to be shared. More labor=more you enjoy the fruits of labor.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Who exactly are these imperialist? And spell out their designs? America? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
America has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. America has thousands of nuclear warheads while advising the world, including India, on disarmament. America has constantly interfered in other regions, Africa and S America, for instance. Armed rebels in Africa and destroyed nations like Liberia. Supports dictatorial regimes whenever it's convenient. Supports terrorists and terrorist groups whenever convenient. Do I have to go on and on, or you get the picture?
Most of you are living in USA or some western country, so you feel guilty about speaking about its atrocities. Also, most Indians feel inferior to westerners vis-a-vis skin color, development and so forth, which is why you love (or pretend) to ignore the obvious truth that the west is dangerous.