Are state socialism and state capitalism essentially the same thing? And for all the Marxists,,,,,,,
Offline With state socialism the government assumes ownership and control over the means of production. In the case of capitalism, when big business corporations become more powerful through monopolization and the biggest shareholders (ie. the owners) are politicians, we have state capitalism. But still this is essentially government control over the means of production. The former is the ideological manifestation of the Left and the latter the Right. Both have historically resulted in totalitarian dictatorships of the far Left (Stalinism) and the far Right (fascism, Nazism). So is there any real difference?
And for all the Marxists, is it possible to achieve the utopian classless anarchist society (ie. the communist society) without the transitional period of state socialism? And why is the communist path superior to social democracy or democratic socialism?
And also the following silly questions:
1. Is the development of the industrial proletariat conditioned by the development of the industrial bourgeoisie?
2. Is the struggle of class against class always a political struggle?
3. And did the Wolverhampton Wanderers beat Leicester 3-1 and win the FA Cup in 1949?
- Login to post comments
Unregulated capitalism doesnt work due to human nature (ie people cheat, are ignorant and competition becomes impossible once someone gets a large grip on the market). Also the loosers in capitalism don't die fast enough and tend to shoot those who succeed
Communism doesnt work due to human nature, (ie people cheat, are ignorant and are not biologically capable of caring in any real amounts about individuals beyond their immediate friends and family)
So we have a mixed economy which generally at least until now seems to work better than anything that has come before it
I have heard people denoucing failed socialist states as being 'state capitalist' states. So I suppose that authoritarian socialism and state capitalism are one and the same. When some communists denouce the USSR as being 'state capitalist' you pretty much know that the word 'capitalist' is being misused. I think that this is a problem of poorly used definitions. If communists want to denounce N. Korea and the USSR they need to merely denounce them. Labeling them 'state capitalists' just makes it seem as though they don't understand what 'capitalist' even means.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/cc835_44.htm
I found this interesting transcript online of the conversation between SF writer HG Wells and Joseph Stalin circa 1934. Wells puts forth an argument supportive of social democracy against Stalin's adherence to the communism. Stalin's arguments seem to resonate well with the Communist Manifesto. He describes the overthrow of the existing capitalist order to be replaced by the bulwark working class governed by an auxilliary intelligensia (the Party) ie. state socialism.
I am curious whether Marxists agree with Stalin or Wells.
I don't think state socialism has ever existed as defined. All examples I've ever seen from history and today have actually been state capitalism, keeping the social/economic classes, meaning you don't have socialism. So I'm not sure there's anything from which to answer this question. People who suggest that these states were not capitalist don't know what socialism is, and so aren't qualified to make the distinction.
Sometimes. Sometimes not.
No.
Who? What? Hockey is the only sport that requires real skill and tactics, so I don't pay attention to others.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm not a Marxist, and know little about the man or his policies, but I would back Wells over Stalin.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The major difference is that a capitalistic regime continues in the discourse of placing transferable value on ownership. The partiality of owning is secondary to is what it implied by ownership. The status of power in the above cases is directly consequential to the value placed on ownership, when value is placed on ownership the system is definitionally capitalist. In a socialist ideology, in a more pure sense, the value is inherent in the production itself rather than in ownership of it, which would be, ideally, only an academic remnant of pre-socialist history.
I wouldn't exactly call myself Marxist but to answer your question anyway, probably not.
I couldn't say that it is. Marxist communism sounds good and superior because his allusion to incepting itself spontaneously comes off as more liberating a concept. However I don't think they are as polarised as they seem in that regard.
Yeah, it's just supply and demand applied to a labour market.
Again I'll say yeah, class struggles are ideological, class is a reflection of commonalities in the assignment of value.
NFI.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Not much, the communist party leaders become the new bourgeoisie. They become what they hate. If we ever have a a social, political and economic revolution that was based on rationality, it would not need to be forced.
The so-called class-struggle is an illusion. We know now through evolutionary sciences that humans are driven by our genetically inherited to desires to procreate, consume and sometimes horde wealth for our survival. There is no evil demon in business owners causing them to exploit the proletariat. Whatever economic system, people will try to take advantage to enrich themselves and gain wealth with minimum effort. There is greedy rich and greedy poor, it's a natural phenomena, not evil.
The real struggle is between our genetics telling us to procreate, consume and horde in conflict with the limited resources of our planet. The so-called class struggle is a misinterpretation of the real conflict in nature.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Therefore in regards to state socialism the emphasis is on control and thus ownership of the workers and state capitalism, there is ownership of what the workers produce. The distinction is subtle but overall academic. In a practical sense, both seem to have the same end result ie. state control of workers and what they produce. In a social democracy, there is still ownership of what is produced by the bourgeousie but with government regulation to ensure the rights of the workers. Sounds like this is what Wells was advocating to Stalin.
Is the communist path superior to social democracy or democratic socialism ? First of all Happy May-Day !
,which is an American invention ,not a Communist Holiday . But back to the question which you asked "of course not" comparing a communist authoritarian system to a social democracy is like comparing a sledge hammer to a rubber mallet. I personally would like to see a anarchist democracy as a form for the government in the future,which is a participatory democracy. check out these links to understand what I'm talking about www.youtube.com/watch - Chomsky on Anarchism . and Michael Alberts "Real Utopia"-- www.youtube.com/watch 
PS. I was wondering if you ever saw the film "The Corporation" PPS. Well both of these links are malformed,so I'll look for two other ones that work,try these - the first one is Chomsky on Activism,Anarchism and Power globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Chomsky/chomsky-con0.html then Michael Alberts participatory society www.zcommunications.org/znet/topics/parecon
Signature ? How ?
Signature ? How ?
I'm curious why you consider class struggle an illusion? Wouldn't proper resource allocation alleviate the need for constant competition and hoarding instinct? I agree we have the tendency to hoard but don't you think we will inevitably try to overcome that urge for the greater good? I'm really interested in this topic. I'll add that I think there must be an alternative like participatory economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics . Or proper resource allocation for the elimination of scarcity like the Venus Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco#The_Venus_Project .
Also can your provide some links to support your last statement, "The so called class struggle etc..."
Really interesting topic...
This is a response to Miss Eloise statements above. I fucked up using the quote function.
I don't think people view themselves as evil exploiters of members of the other class. A person that has wealth to invest is looking out for his family, his retirement. He believes he is putting his money at risk and therefore deserves a good profit if he succeeds. He knows that if doesn't pay his worker the going rate, he can't succeed.
The poor people that keep having large families do not consider themselves greedy or lazy. They just follow their genetic programming to procreate. They just see no opportunities but they don't see that as reason not to procreate.
There is no grand conspiracy on the part of the rich to exploit the labor of the poor. There is no grand conspiracy on the part of the poor to stay uneducated, unemployed and overpopulate the planet.
So there is a struggle in life. But we know from science what this is: the selfish gene's struggle to survive. But the genes are up against the limited resources of our planet and the competition with others.
People that want to push their own political agenda describe this struggle as class warfare and other political propaganda. As rational people we should understand what science is telling us. Political propaganda is like religious propaganda.
Well they're instincts, so we can't change them without drugs/genetic engineering or brain stimulation. However, humans have a unique capacity for rational thought. We get into airplanes even though our instincts tell us to be afraid of heights. Why? We know process has been design to work and been thoroughly tested.
But what do we have in the political economic realms? We must accept theories that are unproven and untested. People pick a solution based on what is 'fair' rather than what works. And if you oppose them, you must be imprisoned or killed.
It's a matter of developing proof that some solution would be better. We don't accept a religion without hard evidence, so why accept a political or economic theory without anything but some one's anger about being screwed over by the other class?
I have 'faith' that people can be educated on rational thinking leading to rational solutions. The problem is just like religion, people bring their anger, jealousy, hopes and fears into the debate. But there really shouldn't even be a debate just rational processes to resolve various theories via experimentation and hard evidence.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
about a participatory_economics. Did you check out the link that I put up ? Its Michael Alberts "Real Utopia Society"at www.zmag.org Parecon page,its really good !
Signature ? How ?
I don't think people view themselves as evil exploiters of members of the other class. A person that has wealth to invest is looking out for his family, his retirement. He believes he is putting his money at risk and therefore deserves a good profit if he succeeds. He knows that if doesn't pay his worker the going rate, he can't succeed.
Most people don't consider themselves lying cheating scum bags regardless of their politics however that doesnt change the fact that most people are
Except you of course.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Deregulation does not mean permitting theft and fraud. No free market person believes that fraud should be permitted or go unpunished. Deregulation should just mean the government doesn't regulate the types contracts businesses enter into. It worked in the airline industry with lowering prices and giving the consumer more choice.
I disagree that competition is impossible. Look at all our major industries, the problem is not a monopoly but rather overcapacity and too much competition. Competition only becomes impossible when people and corporations monopolize a natural resource.
I believe what needs to be done is what is done in the sports world. Look at the NFL, the league know that everyone is better of with fair competition and every team having players that enable them to compete.
Now if players and teams cheat, you don't change the rules of the game. You do more things to prevent cheating. If players use steroids, don't change the rules to make tackling and blocking illegal. Test the players for steroids.
If a team loses it games badly, don't give the team a 14 point lead to start it's games(socialism). This discourages both teams from improving. Give the bad teams an opportunity to improve by letting them pick first in the draft.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
There are varying degrees of difference. They're obvious, and I don't think you or anyone else needs them itemized.
There has never, and there is no reason to believe that there will ever be a utopian anything anywhere.
A comparison of the superiority of economic systems is not possible in the absence of the question of what social system(s) are also to be implemented.
The question is an oversimplification of the issues involved with which to attempt to answer what the question attempts to address. I would not choose to engage in my own views, given the question, as phrased.
"class" could mean social class or economic class or both.
In any case, "politics", as such, can encompass both social and economic issues... as such, sure. Given any of the 3 definitions of "class". Given that politics involves societal and economic issues. Yes.
No fucking idea.
American football leagues sound like a bit socialism to me
, I can't believe American restrict teams buying/selling players.
Strangely you dont get that in the English football league where you basically do get 4 super elite teams that dominate all competition while everyone else is going out of business.
But I'm not convinced about business would ever think that competition was good for them, that would imply they actually care about the consumer or end product which simply isnt true. Business exists to make money they dont exist to keep consumers happy (which is a side product)
Essentially, you've hit the nail on the head, with respect to anarchistic capitalism... which is what I would call our current economic system. (Previously, i.e. subsequent to Reagan, I would have called it the same as you did, but during the psat several decades our economic system has evolved from deregulation to anarchy.)
However, I would very much take exception to your statement that we have the best economic system "than has ever come before", and I include as implicit in that statement that you include current economic systems.
As an example, checkout the unemployment rate in the Neatherlands. Checkout the social programs for citizens of Norway. Checkout the medical system in Canada. Checkout the socialized educational systems throughout several countries in Europe, including England.
However, the most damning of all of the evidence that our economic system has proved itself to be the worst on the planet, is only a portion of our debt, which is
62-65 trillion dollars. Granted, a more accurate figure when including ALL of our debts and deficits would be closer to 100 trillion, and counting.
It's quite obvious (to me, at least), you have absolutely no idea of how far in the shitter we are now, and that we will continue go further into it, in the future.
I'm speaking of the U.S.... soz for the ethnocentric reference to we/our... as this is a global site. But, our current economic and social systems require VERY radical change, and as Americans go, we are amongst the most idiotic, ignorant bunch or bastards on our Planet. Our current fucked up social and economic systems, as well as, our foreign and domestic policies and status are ample evidence of that statement. If Americans "get it" within two centuries, I would be surprised, and even then we will be so far in the shitter that EVEN IF people at that time effect what could be a bloodless revolution, it would still
take several more centuries for us to even find out if we can get our noses above water. (That is to say, it might not even be possible. We may well evolve into one more 3rd World Country and/or an true Oligarchy with effectively no middle class). Until then... folks like yourself will need to realize alot more pain than they think they are experiencing today, because you ain't seen nothing yet. I guarantee that. In fact, in only 10 to 15 years, you're going to see clear evidence of it, as 10's of millions of boomers try to survive on social security, no health insurance, and a cost of living that will very far exceed their capabilities to survive in a manner that they've been doing, in the past.
As for myself... I'd give any arm of your choosing, just to have enough bread to get out of this fucked-up country and moved to any number of countries in Europe, AND I was going to, until the goddamn housing market collapsed, not to mention our domestic computer software industry, as well.
Err I'm British not American and the term mixed economy applies equally to the UK, Holland and America. Of course the mix is different but all nations share a regulated market economy.
As for health services I do share the European and most other civilized countries that it is a prime role of the state to ensure its citizens are healthy as the nation (not the citizen) can afford, but even to a small extent the US shares that view. I'm not really sure why the US society thinks its morally ok to ensure old people get health care but are quite happy to allow the poor young to die but they are at least partly right.
The exact model of health care among 'socialied medicine' countries does vary a lot. I think the French system seems to work well according to the UN , its privately run and the patient pays for his hospital treatment then claims most of the costs back from the state and I assume knowning the French that if any private hospital takes the piss its CEO gets guillotined through of course taxes are high to pay for it
Unregulated capitalism gone amok in the US is the product of a culture of mediocrity and entitlement. Everyone feels he/she deserves a big home with a big screen TV, a big yard, hot tub, etc....whether or not they are affordable. Combine this mentality with the fact that about 20% of Americans think the sun revolves around the Earth and far too many teenagers have this orgasmic desire to be Paris Hilton's BFF. And I don't see this cultural mindset changing any time soon. Capitalism decays in this milieu wherein there is little innovation. The Chinese state capitalists or communists (or whatever you wish to describe them) are clearly capitalizing upon American unreason.
I personally don't see libertarians offering any elegant solutions. Only with a liberal, secular and rational government regulating (not take over) the free market can the American economy compete globally. The case in point is Canada. Owing to government regulation, the recession has not hit Canadians hard as here in the US.
If you loved Monty Python, you'll probably recognize the silly questions in the opening thread.
Don't the Brits get tired of this system?
They tried doing a totally unregulated system where teams could just buy the best players. The good teams would get better and make more money, they bad teams became worse because the fans stopped supporting, so they lost even more money. They found this system was bad for everyone. Everyone benefits if the losers teams have the chance to improve and compete.
It's a tricky balance to help the losers improve while not giving teams an incentive to lose. This happened in basketball, where teams would deliberately lose to get the top draft pick, they had to change the draft rules to try to eliminate this problem.
I think this is a microcosm of the economy as a whole. The winners in our economy now are worse off because there are too many losers. Doctors can charge millions of dollars for their services, but few can afford it. The auto companies can build great cars, but they are not profitable if few can buy their products. That's what the free-market capitalists don't get. If the same people always win and the same people always lose, it's not going to be sustainable.
Communism is basically saying the games don't matter, all the teams get a championship trophy and the same pay. Socialism is spotting the bad teams a few goals if they fall behind during the game. Both are unsustainable systems.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I think Brits do get a little tired of the elite teams but it continues for two reasons
1) football is our religion, people really do think their team that costs 1/10th of the opposition will win if they cheer loud enough. When it comes to England the national team even me the worlds greatest rationalist thinks we will win the World Cup one day
2) It doesnt matter if we get tired or not, these elite teams are raking in enormous amounts of money internationally Man United makes millions from countries as far as Japan, China and the US.
The teams dont exist for the benefit of local fans but to make money which at least until the recession were very good at it
hannah arendt would say no. more recent theorists on dictatorship like richard overy would probably say something reminiscent of reverend lovejoy's classic answer, "short answer yes with an 'if,' long answer no with a 'but.'"
"totalitarian" is a very shaky word anyway. it was originally used quite proudly by the italian fascists to describe themselves. do you mean "totalitarian" in the sense of unquestioned rule by decree by a single, sacrosanct individual? because that was never the case with hitler or stalin. not even mao can claim that honor, especially since liu shaoqi managed to highjack the great leap forward. or do you mean it in a sort of kafkaesque sense as a giant bureaucracy buffered by an extended police network? because yes, both nazism and stalinism manifested themselves in that sense, but then again, so did the governments of cromwell, napoleon iii, bismarck, the weimar republic, and the romanovs.
"totalitarian" states were a natural consequence of the liberalization and industrialization of europe as it struggled its way out of the last vestiges of feudalism, and as the powers of liberalism and the reaction struggled to find equilibrium. i think it's a very fallacious method to lift such states out of their historical context and hold them up as some sort of archetypal cautionary tales as to the dangers of the "left" and "right." the left and right have their historical contexts too, and what's right one day may be left the next (just observe how the democratic and republican parties have constantly flip-flopped throughout american history).
like...me? cause as far as i know i'm the only one here who has openly declared myself as such.
anarchist? why anarchist? anarchist in the sense of proudhon, bakunin...what are we lookin' at here?
well, first and foremost, the objective material conditions must be met before socialism can even be tried, much less communism. obviously, these conditions will vary from country to country, and, in my opinion (and this is the sense in which i am a trotskyist), are impossible to attain without simultaneous revolutions throughout much of the developed world. the main reason for the inevitability of the collapse of the soviet union and the warsaw pact, as well as the gradual capitalist transitions in china, vietnam, cuba, etc., was nothing more the impatience of lenin and the third international.
ummmm...sing rittle birdie?
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Many economists point to the AIG financial products office in London as the epicenter of the economic crisis. Seems like they tried to buy good publicity from the Brits by sponsoring one of your holy shrines(Manchester United). Looks like they used this good publicity in order to sell fraudulent insurance contracts.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I'm really trying to get my head around the fact that American the most 'pure' free market economy in the world has what is basically communist (never mind socialist) intervention in its national sports but has limited intervention in health care. (ie if you can't compete die)
I would love to see a non-American psychologist do a paper on that, anyone want to explain it?
The government doesn't mandate that sports teams do this. This is an agreement among owners that made their fortunes in the free-market economy. The players unions have sued the owners for collusion and creating a monopoly, saying it is very anti-labor. But in the end, they've accepted limits on salaries and teams buying a championship, because they know it is better for the league and the union members. It's not communism, socialism or capitalism. They evolved into a system that works and avoids the major pitfalls of the free-market and socialism that rewards failure.
I don't think it has much to do with psychology, it has to do with maximizing the income of owners and players.
As for health care, we have major government intervention in the market now. The government pays for every one's treatment that shows up in an emergency room. They pay for seniors and children as well.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Thanks, iwbiek for the best response to the silly questions. And I'm glad it came from a Marxist. What are your thoughts of the conversation between Wells and Stalin ie. the path of gradual evolution towards socialism via social democracy versus the rapid transition via state control and collectivization?
As for health care the government pays for all that show up in a hospital emergency room. That's a bunch of shit,first off they have closed so many hospitals in recent years,and if your lucky enough to live near one that will see you,you get to be assessed,to see if you can make some kind of payments and if your not abled to work out a agreement,then your told to go to the nearest charitable hospital ,and in Las Vegas they're all closed,they have shut the door in the face of cancer patients three weeks ago,so now they have all been given a death sentence.
Signature ? How ?
Not quite. Ideally state socialism puts no emphasis on ownership at all because ownership is a dichotomous concept which relies on the existence of a disenfranchised party. Y own x necessitates that Z not own x.
This is what I meant by ownership becoming an academic remnant of pre-socialism. The key socialist agenda is the abolition of the other side of the ownership coin. State capitalism is definitionally opposed to such an agenda.
The distinction is probably academic, but in theory even as such it would be palpable. Socialism sans a capitalist politic should simply mean that control and ownership of resources has no transferable value.
Government regulation must also protect the rights and interests of the bourgeousie and the distinction between human dignities and personal demands gets blurred in the process.
The watermark of socialism is clearly defining essential human dignities as distinct from demands and expectations and sanction them as perpetually above politicking.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Slow down there. We don't have the freest market. We aren't even close. Hong Kong and Ireland are light years beyond our economy in terms of economic freedom.
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking.aspx
We love free market rhetoric in the US, but we don't deliver on that promise. We have a rather free market, but Bush's corporatism and Obama's stimulus package (since when could the US president fire CEO's at will?) are working together to take that economic freedom away. We were only kind-of-free to start off with, and we are losing that freedom slowly.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
I'm not sure how Hong Kong can be a free market with restrictions on association, unions (union is just another name for a company) and the flow of information?
As for Ireland another EU nation which like my own the UK is part of a regulated social market (rightly so in my opinion)
that is fucking rapier brilliant, right to the goddamn point, and the only thing i can find wrong with it is that i didn't think of it.
eloise, seriously, while we probably wouldn't agree 100% on everything, i have to say: i don't know what line of work you're in now, but if you're not applying yourself to serious writing on political economy, you're depriving us all of a brilliant theorist. i think the last theorist i read that struck me so much was the aforementioned hannah arendt. believe me, i am not being hyperbolic. you might not be there yet, but you have the requisite measure of incisiveness.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
"Hong Kong ranks world's freest economy for 15th straight year"
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/13/content_10651160.htm
"Hong Kong named world's freest economy"
http://www.businessday.com.au/business/hong-kong-named-worlds-freest-economy-20090113-7fuz.html
"And the World's Freest Economy Is... Hong Kong"
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=6634363
They have the world's freest economy. Period. They are not perfectly free, but they are more free than any other nation. You and I could think up ways that they could be freer, but that doesn't change the fact that they currently have the freest market in the world.
Ireland underwent a series of economic reforms that has made them economically the freest country in the EU and by some estimations the 3rd or 4th freest economy in the world. So yeah, they are an EU member, but they are far from being an average EU state in terms of economic freedom.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
For x to exist, Y or Z or some letter must have a motivation to create x. What is anyone's motivation to make x?
That is why you need to draw a distinction between natural resources and man-made resources. A partially socialist society could exist if we draw a distinction between natural and man made resources. If x is iron ore or oil in the ground, this statement could be true. If x is a machine or gasoline, these will not be created without an incentive like transferable ownership or profit sharing.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Thanks for the compliment iwbiek, you yourself have definitely influenced me a heap to come out again as a political creature, and it's this forum that is responsible for resurrecting my love of politics from the grave. For a few years now I've been doing science and only science, but I'll make a point of remembering your comment cause maybe that will change.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com