ITT we talk about socialism

[Cain]

Well, naturally, it's going to depend on your definition of socialism.  Most of those states are Social Democracies but, statist authoritarians who like to cloak the iron fist of state power with meagre concessions to organized labour, like the Fabians, aside, most people into leftwing political theory seem to think that some form of direct worker control is necessary for a socialist state, and as such Democratic Socialism is the absolute, bare minimum one can go for.  If you accept that definition.

Realistically, even most so-called Socialist countries like Canada or most European states are giving more and more power to corporate, state-supported economic sectors as part of their Neoliberal/Third Way orthodoxy - which has resulted in direct attacks on the welfare state and laws aimed at reducing the power of organised labour in favour of the "free movement of capital" (if you have enough).  Communists, like Slavoj Zizek, have referred to people like Tony Blair, the former leader of the UK Labour Party, as "authoritarian, conservative state capitalists".

As an aside, there is an amusing overlap between the far-left versions of socialism and libertarianism, in that both decry the theft of the effort of the average worker on behalf on a greater power.  In the case of the left, it seems to be the owners of the means of production (because, in order to make a profit, they have to pay workers less than the market price of the goods they make) and in the case of the right, in taxes.  Apparently some political theorists have been looking into trying to unify some of the observations of the Von Mises/Austrian economic school with that of Marx, with varied results.

[Lyris_Nymphetamine]

theres no such thing as a working socialist or communist state. the only thing which has worked so far is capitalism with a touch of socialism. even china (which people claim is communist) is capitalistic. all the rest have failed miserably.

[Disco Pickle]

Back to Socialism, have we established yet that it is more than Soviet Russia and "Communist" China?  It's also Scandinavia, Canada, and quite a few European countries.  So "Socialism doesn't work" is no more accurate than "Democracy doesn't work"

socialism along the lines of say, Sweden, which is still a capitalist economic system, costs the people around 50% of their income in taxes. (I believe at one point it was over 50%)

Education and health are socialized but they have a privatized pension system that does not suffer from the problems we have with ours, namely being insolvent. 

Due to heavy use of Keynesian economics, their system gets fucked ever so often.

ok, so it's working in other countries as long as there is a foundation built on capitalism..  but damn.  50% of income goes to the state?

[HaggisFY]

As a swede, I got an urge to correct above poster.

Concerning swedish taxes:
For someone who makes 0- 18 200 swedish krones (0- 2 444 US dollars)/month, taxes = 0%
                                     18 200- 380 200 SEK (2 444- 51 052 US dollars)/month taxes is 31 %
                                     380 200- .... SEK (51 052-... US dollars/ month) taxes= 31 + 20 %     


It works pretty well here.


Edit: spelling. (Shit, it still came out confusing.)

[Disco Pickle]

As a swede, I got an urge to correct above poster.

Concerning swedish taxes:
For someone who makes 0- 18 200 swedish krones (0- 2 444 US dollars)/month, taxes = 0%
                                     18 200- 380 200 SEK (2 444- 51 052 US dollars)/month taxes is 31 %
                                     380 200- .... SEK (51 052-... US dollars/ month) taxes= 31 + 20 %     


It works pretty well here.


Edit: spelling. (Shit, it still came out confusing.)

cool, thnx for the correction on the info.

that is income tax?

I understand there is a VAT there as well, where does that factor in to those #s or does it?

I made friends with a Swedish couple in mexico a few years back and we'd sit at a local bar and talk respective politics and policies, so I'm admittedly a bit rusty on your entire system.

[HaggisFY]

As a swede, I got an urge to correct above poster.

Concerning swedish taxes:
For someone who makes 0- 18 200 swedish krones (0- 2 444 US dollars)/month, taxes = 0%
                                     18 200- 380 200 SEK (2 444- 51 052 US dollars)/month taxes is 31 %
                                     380 200- .... SEK (51 052-... US dollars/ month) taxes= 31 + 20 %     


It works pretty well here.


Edit: spelling. (Shit, it still came out confusing.)

cool, thnx for the correction on the info.

that is income tax?

I understand there is a VAT there as well, where does that factor in to those #s or does it?

I made friends with a Swedish couple in mexico a few years back and we'd sit at a local bar and talk respective politics and policies, so I'm admittedly a bit rusty on your entire system.

Economy really isn't my subject, but as I remember it it is 6, 12 or 24 procent of the price (of something) without the VAT. (Companies only)
For private persons not owning a business of some sort, the original numbers is all there is.

[BabylonHoruv]

Back to Socialism, have we established yet that it is more than Soviet Russia and "Communist" China?  It's also Scandinavia, Canada, and quite a few European countries.  So "Socialism doesn't work" is no more accurate than "Democracy doesn't work"

socialism along the lines of say, Sweden, which is still a capitalist economic system, costs the people around 50% of their income in taxes. (I believe at one point it was over 50%)

Education and health are socialized but they have a privatized pension system that does not suffer from the problems we have with ours, namely being insolvent. 

Due to heavy use of Keynesian economics, their system gets fucked ever so often.

ok, so it's working in other countries as long as there is a foundation built on capitalism..  but damn.  50% of income goes to the state?

One of the basic assumptions of Socialist political thought is that Socialism is built on a foundation of Capitalism, just as Capitalism is built on a foundation (originally) of Feudalism.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think that most of the pro-capitalist Americans don't realize that its based on feudalism.

America: millions of serfs thinking that someday they'll be manor lords because of OMGZCAPITALISM.

[Requia ☣]

As a swede, I got an urge to correct above poster.

Concerning swedish taxes:
For someone who makes 0- 18 200 swedish krones (0- 2 444 US dollars)/month, taxes = 0%
                                     18 200- 380 200 SEK (2 444- 51 052 US dollars)/month taxes is 31 %
                                     380 200- .... SEK (51 052-... US dollars/ month) taxes= 31 + 20 %     


It works pretty well here.


Edit: spelling. (Shit, it still came out confusing.)

Assuming Sweden has a similar wealth distribution to the US, that is 50% of the people's income in taxes, most of the income goes to the millionaires and billionaires here.

[Doktor Howl]

I think that most of the pro-capitalist Americans don't realize that its based on feudalism.

America: millions of serfs thinking that someday they'll be manor lords because of OMGZCAPITALISM.

DING DING DING

[Disco Pickle]

I think that most of the pro-capitalist Americans don't realize that its based on feudalism.

America: millions of serfs thinking that someday they'll be manor lords because of OMGZCAPITALISM.

DING DING DING

Feudal serfs couldn't purchase property from the Land Lords.

Once you purchase land and put a house on it, aren't you, by definition, becoming a Lord of your Manor?

[AFK]

I think that most of the pro-capitalist Americans don't realize that its based on feudalism.

America: millions of serfs thinking that someday they'll be manor lords because of OMGZCAPITALISM.

DING DING DING

Feudal serfs couldn't purchase property from the Land Lords.

Once you purchase land and put a house on it, aren't you, by definition, becoming a Lord of your Manor?

Fuck no!  You're just one of those peasants in the little ramshackle houses that are outside of the big shiny castle on the hill.  And shit still runs down hill. 

[BabylonHoruv]

I think that most of the pro-capitalist Americans don't realize that its based on feudalism.

America: millions of serfs thinking that someday they'll be manor lords because of OMGZCAPITALISM.

DING DING DING

Feudal serfs couldn't purchase property from the Land Lords.

Once you purchase land and put a house on it, aren't you, by definition, becoming a Lord of your Manor?

There were plenty of smallholders in feudal times. They weren't lords of the manor, but they did own their own homes.  The amount of Americans who are smallholders as opposed to serfs is less than most people think though.  If you "own" a home but have a mortgage you don't own it, the banks do.  We do, at least, have the freedom to leave, which serfs traditionally did not.

[Disco Pickle]

I think that most of the pro-capitalist Americans don't realize that its based on feudalism.

America: millions of serfs thinking that someday they'll be manor lords because of OMGZCAPITALISM.

DING DING DING

Feudal serfs couldn't purchase property from the Land Lords.

Once you purchase land and put a house on it, aren't you, by definition, becoming a Lord of your Manor?

Fuck no!  You're just one of those peasants in the little ramshackle houses that are outside of the big shiny castle on the hill.  And shit still runs down hill. 

Since we don't have a Monarchy, who then are the "Lords" in their shiny castles?

the privileged class?  the decedents of the families who purchased large tracts of land ages ago and now profit heavily from it throughout generations?

Since it is always possible for any of these people to either mal invest, or squander their wealth and thereby loose their shiny castle, where in feudalism you could empty the coffer, but still be a "Lord" how are they not also peasants, just peasants with a lot of money?

[Phox]

Since we don't have a Monarchy, who then are the "Lords" in their shiny castles?

the privileged class?  the decedents of the families who purchased large tracts of land ages ago and now profit heavily from it throughout generations?

Yes, for lack of a better term.

Since it is always possible for any of these people to either mal invest, or squander their wealth and thereby loose their shiny castle, where in feudalism you could empty the coffer, but still be a "Lord" how are they not also peasants, just peasants with a lot of money?

That's not quite true in either case. There were a number of things that could lead to a Lord losing his shiny castle. Not the least of which would be "backing the wrong horse". If a Lord chose the wrong side in a war, he would almost certainly lose his lands, if he didn't lose his life first. The modern version of this is less deadly, and less risky as a whole. If a powerful person chooses to invest in the wrong company,politician, product, etc.  they usually have backdoor means of preserving their wealth as much as possible, which may be simply not investing everything they have in it, or could be something more underhanded. Either way "backing the wrong horse" now carries far less risk. Seriously, how often do you hear about truly rich and powerful people losing their fortunes because of poor choice in investments, or unwise spending habits?