Do you genuinely think that the economic and political problems faced by the socialist states in the 20th century were all down to historical contingencies, no reflection on the merit of socialist economic theory?

If people are to be permitted the same standard of living under socialism, then how is that an improvement on the closed system problem? Why wouldn't people still want nice food, nice housing, nice clothes, paper, toilet paper, biscuits, holidays, internet, and so on?

But if they can't live at the same standard, so as to preserve resources for future generations, then why won't future generations need to forego the use of the same resources for the same reasons - i.e. it's really saying those resources can never be used?

If capitalism is drastically unsustainable, then why will the reduction in living standards not have to be drastic?

If so, and everyone must be made to live much poorer, then how can that be said to be more humane, less alienating, or economically or ethically better?

Even assuming socialism were possible in theory and practice, which it isn’t, how would it be any improvement on the original supposed problem?

So once we get past the socialist technique of histrionic name-calling, and on to actual problems of economics, we find that the whole socialist argument crumbles into self-contradiction and absurdity.

Poirot
So it’s better for them to starve?
Or socialism raises the standard of living of the masses?
Or you’re going to send them the money?

What are you actually saying, apart from having a hissy fit.

hi Squeers,

Actually in breaking my previous post into two parts, I managed to delete at least one paragraph. It related to restricting private wealth and was cut out from the beginning of the second post. I was unable to fi it last night because of Grok's perenial problem (350 words and four posts per day limit) I think it read something like this:

You will recall that I proposed a 'locality tax' that would be like a GST but applied like a trade tariff, whereby goods and services would be more expensive the further away from home they were sourced. This would encourage the development of small, locally focussed private businesses but would make the private ownership of large businesses extremely difficult. As a business became larger therefore, the incentive would be to 'sell' the business into the community/government system.

"There must therefore be continuous innovation and market expansion, i.e. growth."

I think that what we can look for is a consistent renewal of the economic infrastructure rather than necessary growth. Enabling private interests to compete against cooperative ventures (also allowing a cooperative business from one region to sell into the marketplaces of other regions) would help with this renewal by promoting innovation and efficiency. Balancing competition and cooperation!

Personally I think that we are and will continue to be paradoxically motivated by both self-interest and benevolence. As I've suggested previously, it is my belief that both of these are 'good' in context. We just need to structure our society to get the best out of each. Capitalism is built on the idea of competition between self interested parties, communism on cooperation within a mutually supportive community. Both systems then are built on half truths.

cont.

"...how would you suggest we get the government to implement the reforms you recommend?"

I am an advocate of vigorous social reform. In this I am fighting to prevent social breakdown leading to or through chaos. The idea of destroying what we have got in the hope that we will be able to build it better later is in my opinion what led us to Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Pol Pot. And the concept is unfortunaltely built into Marxist thought.

Instead, in my opinion, we need to remain focussed on what it is that we are trying to do, making sure that we get the detail correct to the best of our ability. From this position, we try to stimulate discussion, we advocate, we try to get our policy suggestions into the political arena, etc. If we do gain influence, we engage as many people as possible in the process of determining and implementing appropriate reforms. In short, we proceed carefully and gently, yet vigorously.

Pursuing this kind of agenda, as moderates, I actually believe that the power of those that would try to work against us is pretty minimal compared with what we can muster. Pursuing division and confrontation, however will surely lead to painful swinging on the dialectic rope! (While our planet burns!)

Dear Gilbert Holmes,

You seem to be advocating what Karl Popper called piecemeal social engineering. Try a change. If it works for the better continue in that direction. If it doesn't scrap it and try something different. That seems to me more reasonble than a grand ideological vision leading to an apotheosis. Piecemeal social engineering is the way evolution works. Changes must be advantageous every step of the way.

You don't justify atrocities to produce eventual pie in the sky.

What I'm saying...Sienna, is that people like you always excuse western exploitation on the spurious grounds that if those in third world weren't slogging away for us in some God-forsaken hole of an enterprise, that they would be starving.
Perhaps if the West stopped stomping around the globe disrupting indigenous systems and "capturing markets" those people could exist quite happily.

Have a read of this.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm

Poirot
You haven't established that it is exploitation yet. All you've established is that they're living in poverty. I don't like it any more than you do.

But given that you aren't intending to do anything about it personally, what makes you think that central planning, rules and regulations, bureaucracies and restricting employment and business, are going to be able to improve the situation without creating negative consequences worse than the original problem?

"people like you always excuse western exploitation"
So what we have in your reply is:
1. circular
2. personal
and that's it. You still haven't formed any clear concept of the problems you are trying to solve. Just because there is scarcity and poverty in the world doesn't mean a) that social co-operation is exploitative, or b) that socialism can work, or c) that it's self-evident that you don't have to prove your case.

> on the spurious grounds that if those in third world weren't slogging away for us in some God-forsaken hole of an enterprise, that they would be starving.

So they do have better options, it's just that they choose not to use them? Well that's obviously wrong, isn't it? So obviously they would either be starving, or they would be worse off, without this employment, wouldn't they? What you're saying literally doesn't make sense.

> Perhaps if the West stopped stomping around the globe disrupting indigenous systems and "capturing markets" those people could exist quite happily.

What's that supposed to mean? People shouldn't travel overseas? Perhaps the evil West shouldn't sell them tractors or tools or machines or technology or fertiliser? I thought profit was evil, Poirot? Only loss-making is morally okay, Poirot? So those farmers were private property owners, and therefore evil capitalists, and their trying to make profit was evil, too?

See the thing is, your entire technique consists of seeing something you don't like, having an emotional reaction against it, and blaming capitalism without understanding what you are talking about. You're just endlessly saying "exploitation", even if the arrangement is keeping them alive and is therefore obviously beneficial.