NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:15am:


And what do you think is the objective of Socialism if not human dignity?

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:21am:

By analogy, fish swimming in the same stream do not have to be the same species. If they could talk, maybe they would not be able to define water.

Socialism is not imposed in Scandinavia. Scandinavian social outcomes (their acting on a sense of decency) are evoked by the nature of the people... If the political movement of socialism did not exist or became extinct, it's almost certain the Scandinavians would not need any imposed political sensibility to act the way they do.

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:36am:

What else explains retaining the British monarch as the Australian head of state?

Australians have a deep sensibility towards egalitarianism, which can effectively explain the evolving of Australian society without invoking the effects of political socialism.

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:58am:

Correlation is not causation.

Just societies do not need a philosophy of imposed political socialism to exist.

In fact, the imposition of political socialism is almost certainly the catalyst for reactionary anti-socialism, which requires of the state to impose increasingly more restrictions on the people, that can descend, ultimately, into totalitarianism.

mothra wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 7:24am:


I am sensing slipperiness: they are not Socialists, they just implemented Socialist policies.

But welfare provisions are not Socialist policies. They are what Bismarck called ' practical Christian" policies ( as North alluded).

Otto von Bismarck established the first welfare state in a modern industrial society, with social-welfare legislation, in 1880s Imperial Germany. Bismarck extended the privileges of the Junker social class to ordinary Germans. His 17 November 1881 Imperial Message to the Reichstag used the term "practical Christianity" to describe his program. German laws from this era also insured workers against industrial risks inherent in the workplace. (Wiki).


Socialism - this thread's topic- is the second stage of the Marxist-Leninist political program, between the dictatorship of the proletariat and communism. Socialism starts with the nationalisation of capital, land, resources. Without that, it's not socialism.
Welfare is not socislism. What you and others are calling socialism is social democracy.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 5:48am:


Correct; but the 2nd part of that famous phrase needs modification, to take account of the role of incentive and greed in the productivity of individuals. In other words, equality of outcome is not desirable, to maximize productivity; "need" must be modified by reward, meaning that some will have greater access to discretionary spending than others, owing to greater contribution.

Now the value of the particular contribution is up for debate, and this is where the Job Guarantee of MMT comes in: there is no special contribution made by the CEO of Colacola who is flogging diabetes and obesity (ie junk consumerism) than the worker conscientiously tending a public garden. In fact the latter adds to the community's amenity, while the former destroys the community' health.

Quote:


Correct, and addressed above.

Given the acceptance of the  current 'invisible hand'  market economy, established in most of the world since the collapse of the USSR, MMT offers a way to balance public sector outcomes, on behalf of 'common prosperity'; with private sector outcomes, on behalf of private greed and personal enrichment.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2021 at 8:22pm:


Oh dear, your 'Pavlov dog'-like interpretation the phrase "shared prosperity" has resulted in you erroneously telling me what I advocate..

In fact I am advocating the first part of Marx's famous phrase "From each according to his ability...."

ie, participation in the economy at above poverty level, because a just, functional economy  is one which guarantees above poverty participation, according to ability.

(The 2nd part of Marx's statement "to each according to his needs" doesn't take account of the role of incentivizing individual greed in productivity, which is why the soviet model failed).

Quote:


Er.... back to 'shared prosperity'... or "an economy that works for all" .... or 'common prosperity', it's perfectly achievable, in terms of the explanation I outlined above.

Your apology for the ignorant ad hominem  is accepted .

Quote:


I'm here to destroy your 'survival of the fittest', 'poverty is deserved',  'private wealth above collective well-being', 'sovereignty of the individual' evil ideology.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2021 at 4:04pm:

You don't have to buy and consume Colacola, you know.
And the Gulags and various re-education camps are seen as 'public gardens' for the greater good.
I am all for the greater public good as long as it's not some monster like Stalin, Mao, Xi or Kim is telling me what it is.


Quote:


The market economy pre-dates the collapse of the Soviet Union by about 300 years, at least.

What I like about conservatism is that it gets on with life without needing some 'economic theory of life', like Marxism or MMT.
Experimental science has made a huge improvement to human life. You cannot say the same for experimental 'social science'. Society is what people make it among themselves, not something that a theoretician, sitting in a library or a monster sitting in a politburo, tells them to make it.