The best damn soda for every socialist!

Bab5crusade · 2012-05-24T22:52:24.086030+00:00

No anarchist myth. Many of the inmates in the first Gulag camps (which were, yes, established under Lenin) were socialist-revolutionaries, Mensheviks and anarchists.

One interesting tale is that of the elections of 1918. Yes, the new Bolshevik rulers still allowed elections which were already planned to take place, and they were even fairly free. Unfortunately, they lost them, getting just a quarter of the vote while the socialist-revolutionaries won half. So what happened? On the first day of the newly elected parliament's session, troops surrounded the building - and many of the newly elected delegates were arrested right there and then.

karnovichvalua · 2012-05-24T22:43:18.549479+00:00

Privatizing profits and socializing losses

karnovichvalua · 2012-05-24T22:38:27.145818+00:00

Germany had free education until, I believe, some five years ago or something. Didn't bring them to the brink of financial ruin. Even now, in the middle of a global economic crisis, Germany is staying relatively strong - and it still has modest tuition fees compared to America.

EDIT: Huh, even now, or at least in 2010, public universities in most German states do not charge tuition fees.

karnovichvalua · 2012-05-24T22:33:36.590317+00:00

It has to do with incentive .. as well. [O]nce you destroy the incentive for profit through work, knowledge, creativity, and ambition, you destroy the standard of living for the entire society.

However, you don't in any way need the kind of inequality where the wealthiest 1% is hundred times richer than the bottom 10% for that incentive to be there. You could have a maximum [picks random numbers], say, 10:1 proportion and, in combination with people's thirst for status, professional recognition, the pride in one's work and the admiration of others, the human psyche would work in such a way that those who are ambitious would be just as ambitious as they are now.

Just look back into history. Back in the 50s, when even under Eisenhower the top income tax rate was 90%+, the difference in income between the top layer and the bottom layer was much smaller than now. It was still a decade of hard work, high hopes, professional pride and almost unprecedented material and technological progress.

Some examples:

In the 50s, under a Republican President, in a capitalist system, the very, very richest, the top 0.01%, earned some 150 times more than the average income of the bottom 90%. Sounds like a lot? By 2006, they earned 976 times as much. Did it make them harder-working and more productive?
In the 1950s, the top 10% earned, even including capital gains, some 33% of the national income share. By 2006, it was 50%. Was the top 10% in the 1950s less motivated, less hard-working, than now?
In the early 80s, under Reagan, the top 20% earned some nine times as much as the bottom 20%. By 2007, it was fourteen times as much. Did it make them more incentivized?

Et cetera. Some level of wage difference between top and bottom (on top of other, real incentivizers such as pride, status etc) does provide an extra incentive, and it's a choice whether to approve of it because of that. (Even communist countries had some differentation, as you point out.) But you still heard the incentive argument used as a defense of why taxes on the top 0,1% or top 1% should not be raised, for which there really just is scarce logical justification. Earning 1,000 times the average instead of 100 times the average isn't going to make most people work a lot harder, and it certainly won't make them work 10 times harder.

karnovichvalua · 2012-05-24T22:02:43.810018+00:00

The total bullshit part he means is people thinking it was just their hard work that got them the success.

DrJulianBashir · 2012-05-24T17:20:39.751975+00:00

I know nothing about that history myself, but /r/islam had an interesting link a while ago about the Irish famine ... unlikely? Yes, but the story was that the Ottoman ruler wanted to donate far more than £2000 to fight the famine, and was told not to by the British court because it would be embarrassing for the Queen if he gave more than she did. He did end up sending a boatload of food, contrary to the Brits' wishes, and a grateful Irish city still has the Ottoman crescent in its coat of arms.

See: http://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/srek1/ireland_thanks_ottoman_caliphate_for_humanitarian/

The blog post that the submission links too looks a bit sketchy, but some further Googling showed that it basically just brings together what a bunch of other bloggers had unearthed about the episode, hence the uneven styles of the different parts.

MrTulip · 2012-05-24T17:11:52.616003+00:00

Some, of course. But it's the notion that the persistent existence of an underclass of young blacks is a reflection of still-entrenched structural racism as well, and not just a question of stereotypical irresponsible/angry/bling black culture, that tends to get you the haters here. (Fortunately, this time my comment was buried deep enough.)

I mean, I dunno. Overall I like Reddit's outlook, more or less, sort of. But if I were black, I would feel uncomfortable here - or I would just start to avoid any discussions about race. Come to think of it, I would feel less at ease if I were a woman too - some of the stuff that's posted here, damn.

Mind_Virus · 2012-05-24T17:04:00.829926+00:00

Car insurance requirements are to protect society

Sure, but if you're going to include broader arguments about how laws that protect people from themselves also serve to protect broader society as a whole, that goes for the student debt epidemic too. It's not good for society, or the economy, as a whole when bright people are scared away from quality education by seeing the endless and enormous debts it results in.

Mind_Virus · 2012-05-24T17:01:55.616460+00:00

Well he and I agree on the main idea: no, not all mortgages should be allowed, just the extortionate/usurous ones. Where we draw the line on that of course differs starkly: I think his response is unrealistic.

Mind_Virus · 2012-05-24T13:08:54.224653+00:00

Reductio ad absurdum. There should be regulations limiting how extortionist the interest rates and payment conditions should be for mortgages, yes. Of course there shouldn't be a ban on all mortgages, just like only few here are arguing for a ban on all kinds of student loans.

Mind_Virus · 2012-05-24T13:06:59.190212+00:00

There are already plenty such laws. You're obliged to strap on your seatbelt, for random example, and to have car insurance.

Bab5crusade · 1 day

The so-called October revolution itself was not a revolution, but a coup. And the terror which Lenin's bolsheviks and Cheka unleashed during the ensuing civil war, aimed first of all at fellow leftist groups, was autocratic and militaristic.

Bab5crusade · 1 day

I know this was posted for its "funny" value, but I wish this subreddit would stop equating communism with socialism. Lenin's communists persecuted socialists (socialist-revolutionaries, mensheviks, etc) more harshly than many right-wing dictatorships, and the totalitarian system he helped establish violated many of socialism's original values. It's bad enough that conservatives try to make out that every socialist must just be a commie, without us doing the same thing too.

Qwill2 · 1 day

The Heritage: Learning from the Past page is a valuable read. I remember reading about the old party, which was a bit of an odd duck in the American left and, in my opinion, had seriously lost its way. Glad to see a new generation (or grassroots members of the old generation?) pick up the pieces and build something new that sounds quite promising. Good luck!

Atomdude · 1 day

They'd have to be pretty young kids not to understand, I'd think ... don't kids start learning English at 8 already or something nowadays? And they'll have picked up stuff from computer games before that already, at least my nephews do..

MrTulip · 1 day

Just one random guy's opinion, but:

To your first point, no. (Birth rates among second-generation Muslim immigrants are lower than among the generation that itself immigrated, and those among third-generation Muslim immigrants are lower still - the longer they're here, the more their birthrates become like regular Europeans'.)

To your second point - I believe that to be true, yes, and I believe that kind of thing to be a legitimate reason for why esp some second-generation immigrants are angry young men. Don't expect many of my fellow white Dutchmen to back me up there, but I think that many Morrocan-Dutch would agree.

To your third point - I think there's definitely a real point there too. Mind you, minorities in America, especially blacks, find it harder to find jobs than white Americans too, and that is in part because of remaining racism and prejudice. (Cue hordes of white young middle-class Redditors fuming about how black youths have only themselves to blame.)

anutensil · 1 day

No they changed after the whole Research2000 (or whatever it was they were called) fiasco. Got a reputable pollster with a good track record now (PPP).

lodde · 1 day

Ha ha ha the results I got were the absolute opposite of reality:

The results.

To begin with, you clearly disagree with civilian gun control, universal health care, more progressive taxation and public campaign finance. Something striking now: you shoulder strengthening immigration laws. And we would think you frown at ending capital punishment. Then, you should think once more about your viewpoint on foreign interventionism, abortion restrictions, drug liberalization and legal same-sex marriage.

The advice is a tie between Constitutionalists and Republicans.

For the record, I am in favour of gun control, universal access to health care, more progressive taxation and campaign finance - every one of them. And I'm against more restrictive immigration laws, and in favour of ending capital punishment. I would vote for the Democrats, if in a swing district/state, or for the Greens or some other leftie party if not. There's literally not one item in that advice that's correct. :-D

lodde · 1 day

Mmm.. are you the person behind the site? Just asking cause this link is your first / only one. Edit: and because the makers of the site are Dutch, from Groningen, and your username has a north-Dutch twang to it..

almodozo · 1 day

Beetje kip of ei vraag. Zijn lager-opgeleiden meer sceptisch over zo'n soort akkoord omdat hun partijen tegen zijn? Of stemmen ze op die partijen omdat ze tegen dit soort bezuinigingen zijn?

maxwellhill · 2 days

The other one is Germany giving them the finger, exiting Eurozone, and rebuilding from scratch but this time without parasites that try to enslave you

I think you'll find that Germany has made out pretty well from the establishment of the European common market and the Eurozone; the Germans have benefited more than it cost them. There's a reason that not a single credible German economist or politician, left or right, is advocating such an exit from the Eurozone.

PS Not important of course, but I'm not the one downvoting you - I fiercely disagree with you, but don't see why you should be downvoted.

maxwellhill · 2 days

Were the periphery not buying German goods with borrowed money in the first place, it would've simply not have contributed to German growth that much, but it wouldn't have made much difference in the long run.

Hmm. The PIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain) together account for 12% of German exports - that's some 130 billion $'s worth of German products in 2010 alone. If that market collapses, I would hazard a guess it would have a serious impact on the German economy.

Meanwhile, the far-away markets are certainly growing at a rapid pace. But it's worth minding the proportions. Take the famous BRIC markets (Brazil, Russia, India, China). All the way back in 2000, they made for just 5.1% of German exports. Ten years on, it's 12.1%. A healthy and impressive growth, for sure. But that still merely makes these four booming behemoths ... just as important for the German economy right now as the failing PIGS countries currently are. They represent what is sure to be an ever increasing share of the market for German products ... but for now, the gradual growth in those markets wouldn't be able to shield Germany from the massive impact a collapse of the PIGS markets would hold.

In short, the German economy has been partly doing pretty well this past decade, even through the financial crisis, thanks to those South-Europeans buying its products with money they borrowed from ... well, in part, German banks and the EU. As someone else further down this thread bitterly noted: " Basically southern countries borrowed money from Germany to buy German goods." It wasn't altogether a bad deal for the Germans, was it?

So I think there's a fair argument to be made that, since the Germans benefited a fair bit from that deal, maybe they shouldn't quite complain so much now part of the bill for it comes due their way as well?

maxwellhill · 2 days

I think at least Greece have seen a rather sudden increase in VAT, and from what I've understood, a lot of southern Europe has been forced to raise taxes, so the divide is not as big as it used to be as well.

Mm, good point - I have no idea how these rates have developed over time! And of course, yes, just because tax rates are comparable, doesn't mean that they're actually also being paid that way...

By the way, this finally gave me an opportunity to try out another web program that I saw presented in a workshop the other week, called ggplot2. This is really the first time I used it, so the result is quite ugly, but it still gives a good visual perspective of the proportions:

The further right a country is, the higher the top income tax rate; the further up it is, the higher the standard VAT rate

almodozo

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login