Wow, I have a degree in History/Poli-Sci (double major).......I have to say that is tied with one of the dumbest descriptions of Stalin, Lenin, and USSR I have had the amusing pleasure of reading. As far as eminent domain goes that is another absolute lie, and a complete distortion.
Is that right? Would that degree be from an accredited university, or do I enjoy the privilege of conversing with a Bob Jones University graduate?
You should probably make an attempt to rebut the
arguments next time.
Ex. In NC the Raleigh/Durham triangle area the libs want a light rail system. They are convinced that it is absolutely necessary. Despite the fact that all other levels of public transportation run in the red every year, and are hardly used. They went in and started claiming eminent domain at locations where they wanted to put boarding stations. Two locations chosen were business's one was a garage, and the other a paint store. The went in paid the owners about 1/3 of what it was worth, and told them they had to be out by a certain time. Both business owners have since been booted, and are currently suing Wake and Durham counties as well as the state. It gets better after claiming these two properties the budget for the project got pulled. The people have finally had their voices heard, and will have the chance to vote on the Light Rail System. It will lose in a landslide I guarantee.
My point is the took away two business's, two families livelihood, and paid about 1/3 of what the business was worth. That is not capitalism, and that doesn't further capitalism. I suggest you go read up on these laws, as well as brushing up on governmental systems.
This has absolutely no relevance to socialist political economy, and is merely based on the common and primitive economic fallacy that "government = socialism."
There is a difference between "socialistic" and "socialism". Socialism, generally includes a theory of having a more equal society. A progressive tax when used as a tool to attempt to make society more equal, is not a form of socialism, but it is a socialistic ideal.
Incorrect, though a basic economic fallacy. Socialism isn't anything so crude as "a theory of having a more equal society." Socialism utilizes the collective ownership and management of the means of production to eliminate the inefficiency that springs out of market concentration and related trends in a capitalist economy. Progressive taxation is actually a most rational element of capitalism, as it incorporates an accurate understanding of the diminishing rate of marginal utility (a dollar is worth more to a man with ten dollars than to a man with a thousand dollars), to maintain the physical efficiency of the workforce through the creation of welfare programs while not depriving the wealthy of anything of comparable significance.
That said, Capitalism and Free-Market principals, are antithetical to socialism and government intervention in the economy. The whole point of "FREE" market, is to be free of government intervention. Government intervention, and socialism, go hand in hand.
Again, merely further indulgence in the disappointingly common myth that "government = socialism." The government actually behaves as a necessary stabilizing and development agent in a capitalist economy, inasmuch as "free markets" are a utopian fantasy which enjoy no historical record of existence or application outside of the textbook, unlike socialism. For instance, Yu's
A New Perspective on the Role of Government in Economic Development provides an insightful analysis into this role. Consider this excerpt:
[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organisation, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997).
I'd strongly advise you to move beyond this "government = socialism" myth. While government is necessary for the administration of capitalism, such is not necessarily the case with socialism. For instance, your criticism would obviously have little application to anarchism, which Peter Kropotkin terms
"the no-government system of socialism."
Ah, you are one of "those" people.
I doubt you've encountered many people who espouse my particular political philosophy, anarcho-communism.
So Socialism requires collective ownership.
Ownership incorporates the right to rule over one's property.
The right to rule over one's property means managerial control.
So all industry in a nation is under a collective. Does that mean we all get together and vote on it? Well we can not all do that, now can we? So we have to elect people to go determine what to do with our collective property.
This is only a reality if centralized control of industry is the norm. This would not be the reality if we were to implement a participatory or otherwise libertarian socialist economy, in which decentralized economic planning was conducted through non-hierarchical community assemblies and workers' councils, with the delegation of committees to handle specific facets of policy administration and so not deluge the common man.
Now if we do that, obviously there is going to be parties that via for our vote. Usually the ones that are in politics for a long time, and gain more control and power via our voting, end up being the party elite. And you end up with USSR.
Your concession to republicanism (which you assume will degenerate into state capitalism), is a flawed premise to begin with. What you don't seem to understand is that many socialists are opposed to organization via representative democracy, let alone party dictatorship. Indeed, anarchists favor bottom-up direct democracy and strongly disavowed the organizational methods of the USSR from its very inception.
The purpose is largely irrelevant to the basic premise that in a free society, in which people are the owners, the government should not have the ability to take ones property from them. If I own something, it is mine, and can not be taken from me for any reason. Under a socialistic government, everything is the governments, that is only on loan to the subject people, a loan which can be revoked at anytime.
I have already explained to you that this "government = socialism" business is mere economic fallacy. To be honest, the organization of currently existing capitalism resembles the dictatorship that you fear to a far greater extent than legitimate socialism ever could. As was the case in the USSR, control of the means of production is consolidated in the hands of an elite class while the illusion of equal opportunity to control said means of production abounds.
It's a entirely different view point. On one hand, the ultimate power lies within the people. On the other, the ultimate power lies within government. That is why in every case where socialism takes over a country, normally the first thing to go is land rights. From Pol Pot, to Ho Chi Mhin, to Mao, the first thing revoked was land rights. Now all land is ours, and you may use it provided you do as we say.
Continued inaccurate reference to state capitalism shall not avail you, especially in light of my own anarchism. I can assure you that few things are more repugnant to me than unchecked statism.
Military Keynesianism? lol Ok, due tell.
Assuredly, Agnapostate giveth by means of the Almighty Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_keynesianism
