[dragonfire]

Originally Posted by crashnburn_in

Thats quite a rebranding. Do you think its going to get a lot more acceptance that way from the "enterprising" folks who are iffy about socialism/ communism and its now known, but quite known dangerous outcomes?

Yeh, that man has tried all kinds of masks all all through his career trying to sell communism in America. He did find some success with the bogey called democratic socialism, but the US citizens are indebted to the DNC for dumping him in the trash by rigging the democratic primaries, not once but two times.

However it needs to be said that it is not him but AOC and her gang of four that is going to reap what Bernie sowed.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by crashnburn_in

Thats quite a rebranding. Do you think its going to get a lot more acceptance that way from the "enterprising" folks who are iffy about socialism/ communism and its now known, but quite known dangerous outcomes?

Yes, that would help. Most people who grew up around communist propaganda or during cold war tend to confuse political philosophy (communism) with economic philosophy (socialism). Communism hijacked socialism for a long time, it is better to leave that label behind. By enterprising folks, if you mean entrepreneurs like me, it certainly does. I can't stand communism, but I am cool with democratic socialism, I know the difference.

Democracy is majority rule, so it should look after the interests of the majority. That sound like socialism...

[carboy]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Most people who grew up around communist propaganda or during cold war tend to confuse political philosophy (communism) with economic philosophy (socialism).

I don't think this is true. Both include economic philosophies.

Encyclopedia Britannica

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

Communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society

https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

Marx regarded Socialism as the intermediate stage during the transition from Capitalism to Communism.

In Socialism, all the means of production would be owned either by co-operatives or govt & people would continue to be paid according to their skills & the work they do.

In Communism, the means of production would be owned by the society at large & people would work as per their ability but would be paid according to their needs.

That said, Marx & Engels used those 2 terms interchangeably.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by carboy

I don't think this is true. Both include economic philosophies.

Encyclopedia Britannica

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism
Marx regarded Socialism as the intermediate stage during the transition from Capitalism to Communism.

Boss, these are all outdated definitions, which have completely lost relevance. Isn't China Communist while following capitalism?

That is why we are using new definitions like democratic socialism or democratic capitalism.

All these isms are not physical laws. They are changing constantly to meet the zeitgeist of the time. Is anyone in Bangalore worried about the next decree of their King Yaduveera Wadiyar? How many even know his name? The old meaning of socialism is as irrelevant as our local King.

[crashnburn_in]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Yes, that would help. Most people who grew up around communist propaganda or during cold war tend to confuse political philosophy (communism) with economic philosophy (socialism). Communism hijacked socialism for a long time, it is better to leave that label behind. By enterprising folks, if you mean entrepreneurs like me, it certainly does. I can't stand communism, but I am cool with democratic socialism, I know the difference.

Democracy is majority rule, so it should look after the interests of the majority. That sound like socialism...

All these ISMs are limiting social definitions of a mental concept which also changes across various minds.

Its not physics or maths for it to remain "defined" and "discrete".

Its not even hijacking when something captures the mind and then means become so dangerous that the ends get clouded.

Its hard to realize it in action with millions all having selfish drivers.

Rights & Responsibilities have various subtle levels & layers & circles.

From personal, to familial / friends/ social, to neighborly/ tribal/ community (hijacking of communal), to regional, to state/ national, to global.

India is a living example of so many diverse entities co existing.

Not easy to dissect online.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Samurai

When I heard about how the #1 company in my industry domain went bankrupt thanks to a share market trick called LBO, I wanted to understand more about it.

So I read this book. It describes a similar scenario that happened 30 years ago, which killed the golden goose for executive greed.

Adamn Conover finally catches up to LBO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5PLEZiSZVw

[nakul0888]

A thorough, clear, concise point to point rebuttal of the mainstream center to left thinking about the economy. I don't think anyone could have done it better than this gentleman.

The original video that was put up by the wired magazine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Mx1koLOGc

The Rebuttal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSQaIrFhAj8

[Turbohead]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

The original video that was put up by the wired magazine.

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=2_Mx1koLOGc

The Rebuttal

https://www.Youtube.com/watch?v=rSQaIrFhAj8

Honestly, I would agree with the rebuttal. However, despite calling out Wired magazine for not providing data, he himself doesn't provide any concrete data to counter it once in for all making him look like a hypocrite.

I can only imagine this video stirring up the leftists without making them question or re-think their view point.

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by Turbohead

Honestly, I would agree with the rebuttal. However, despite calling out Wired magazine for not providing data, he himself doesn't provide any concrete data to counter it once in for all making him look like a hypocrite.

I can only imagine this video stirring up the leftists without making them question or re-think their view point.

Fair point. But the counter arguments as far as I can see is concrete especially when the arguments put forward by leftists are so flimsy to begin with. He does however do a good job of taking leftist statistics head on too. Here is another brilliant video countering the mainstream left's post 1970s worker wage stagnation narrative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbmufWQrUs0

[Samurai]

A brilliant firsthand explanation about democratic capitalism practiced in EU by a former CEO.

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shift...ml#post5460847 (Emigrating to a Foreign Land!)

There is nothing wrong with wanting to look after yourself only. I just prefer a society where there is some common sense on what society needs to provide to all. Which is in my book, schooling (education) health care and some basic benefits to people when they are without income. Which means you need to have political and tax system that regulates that. This is a fundamental difference between the USA at large and the EU. There is virtually no political party (left or right) in the EU that doesn’t believe society needs to cater for its people and provide benefits and support to those who need it. The debate is more about who pays how much, how much will be provided. In the USA the debate is much more fundamental about whether society (government) should provide these sort of services/benefits at all??

By American standards, every party in EU is on the left-wing, if you consider them purely by economic policy.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Samurai

By American standards, every party in EU is on the left-wing, if you consider them purely by economic policy.

These days I find terms such as left right wing, socialism, communism very “fluid” . Meaning everybody seems they have a different definition for each term.

That why I always like good old senator Bernie in the USA who rarely talks about right versus left, but just tells what he believes is appropriate and fair for everyone. E.g. adequate affordable education and health care.

Jeroen

[nakul0888]

One of the most intriguing things I have witnessed both on this thread and everywhere else is the perception of USA when it comes to its economic policies.

It is seen by advocates of more government control and redistribution as some sort of anarchic wild wild west land with no laws or taxes or regulations, as if straight from a Clint Eastwood movie set in 1700s Wyoming. They say completely ridiculous things like "there is no safety net in USA", "its a free for all dog eat dog country".

When the actual reality couldn't be more different. The US federal govt spends almost 4 Trillion dollars on welfare programs every year. That's the entire German economies' GDP set aside for welfare in ONE YEAR. Wrap your head around that. There is much more welfare spending done at state and local levels too, especially when you're talking about states like New York and California. More than half of its healthcare spending is done by the federal govt. So much for the free market healthcare system of America. The private health insurance market itself is heavily regulated and controlled. Most schools are govt run public schools, on which money is lavished on a per student basis like you couldn't believe.

Even when it comes to taxes, if you just set aside the noise and look at the details, you can clearly see that Europe taxes its middle class and poor much more than the US, especially via Sales Taxes. The USA actually has the most progressive tax structure in the developed world. I mean these are all plain to see and still people go on about how America is some libertarian dreamland. I have no idea why.

I mean if basic facts cannot be agreed upon, there is no point in debating.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

These days I find terms such as left right wing, socialism, communism very “fluid” . Meaning everybody seems they have a different definition for each term.

That why I always like good old senator Bernie in the USA who rarely talks about right versus left, but just tells what he believes is appropriate and fair for everyone. E.g. adequate affordable education and health care.

Jeroen

Aren't the terms "adequate affordable" equally fluid ? Who decides what is 'adequate'? The Left or pro-Big Govt parties just wants this power to decide what is 'adequate or affordable' and on whom the government largesse has to be bestowed upon. Even the term "health care" is fluid. e.g. Is a gender transformation surgery health care?

And as regards EU, let the population become more heterogeneous (through immigration) and let us see in a couple of decades how socialist they are. This is just my personal opinion, not to offend anybody.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

I mean if basic facts cannot be agreed upon, there is no point in debating.

I agree. You should live a few years in USA and understand the ground realities, like Jeroen or I have. Otherwise, it is just shadowboxing.

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I agree. You should live a few years in USA and understand the ground realities, like Jeroen or I have. Otherwise, it is just shadowboxing.

As far as I know you are the only person who dismissed and put down the post liberalization growth of the Indian economy in the 90s as some sort of misguided mistake made by Reagan and Bush. If you ask me, you yourselves have plenty of "understanding of ground realities" to do right here in India. That's all I have to say to you.