Where is Socialism in 2014?

[Second Summer]

With the ever-growing income inequality in the world, and the increasing automation of the workplace, one would think socialist ideas, movements and political parties would have an easy time in recruiting new followers, supporters and voters. This does not seem to happen. If anything, popular support is historically low (at least at the election polls).

Why? I've suggested a couple of reasons in the poll.

Your thoughts?

Article about income inequality here:

Oxfam recently hit headlines with their report that the combined wealth of the 85 richest people in the world was equal to more than the wealth of the bottom 50% of people worldwide – that’s just 85 people with more wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion people in the world. This stunning figure has thrown the issue of income inequality into the limelight, and to the forefront of economic debate.

10 Countries With The Worst Income Inequality - TheRichest (02.03.14)

 

[ledboots]

With the ever-growing income inequality in the world, and the increasing automation of the workplace, one would think socialist ideas, movements and political parties would have an easy time in recruiting new followers, supporters and voters. This does not seem to happen. If anything, popular support is historically low (at least at the election polls).

Why? I've suggested a couple of reasons in the poll.

Your thoughts?

Article about income inequality here:

10 Countries With The Worst Income Inequality - TheRichest (02.03.14)

In the US, socialism is viewed as a system that takes away your freedoms and gives you just enough to sustain a way of life that you can never change, never improve upon for your children. We are a still new country and many Americans believe in the bootstraps method of living. We want a government by the people, for the people, of the people. Not bossing the people and controlling every aspect of our lives.

Interestingly for the US Obama supporters, from the article above:

"From 2009 to 2012, the top 1% in the U.S. claimed 95% of gains from the economic recovery. And the rest of country, the other 99%? They only saw income growth of 0.4% while their richer counterparts saw their incomes rise by over 30%."

 

[Second Summer]

In the US, socialism is viewed as a system that takes away your freedoms and gives you just enough to sustain a way of life that you can never change, never improve upon for your children.

You mean, a bit like how the people of Cuba have to live due to the US sanctions...? Sorry, couldn't resist!

So do you think it's just a matter of improving the PR work for socialism? Or is it something inherent in socialism that makes it oppressive in the manner you describe?

We are a still new country and many Americans believe in the bootstraps method of living. We want a government by the people, for the people, of the people. Not bossing the people and controlling every aspect of our lives.

But "corporations are people too!" according to the US supreme court! Sorry, couldn't resist (again)! Do you feel that this ideal ("by the people, for the people, of the people") is more or less successful in any country or under a certain system of government? Do you feel that freedom (in the sense that is relevant to you) is more or less a reality in any country or under a certain system of government?

Interestingly for the US Obama supporters, from the article above:

"From 2009 to 2012, the top 1% in the U.S. claimed 95% of gains from the economic recovery. And the rest of country, the other 99%? They only saw income growth of 0.4% while their richer counterparts saw their incomes rise by over 30%."

Yes, Obama, the "socialist" president! Do you feel that there would have been more or less income equality with a president from a different party? If so, which ones? How about a socialist party?

 

[beancounter]

Income inequality is just a function of greed. Those at the top keeping more for themselves.

e.g. Reducing or eliminating raises so you can give more to shareholders, or giving exorbitant raises to those at the top, so thta nothing is left to give the regular workers.

It just amazing how they can often say "we didn't do well this year, so we can't give raises, yet give themselves raises.

It seems this new generation of wealthy are greedier than ever. Back in the Regan era, taxes were much higher than today, yet they still complain about taxes, and since the economy was booming when the tax rates were higher, it kills the argument that "high taxes" inhibit growth.

They are also psychotically paranoid about the gov't taking their stuff away which has resulted in the growth of a cottage industry that caters to this "Prepper" mentality.

That's were the money is, selling survival gear to the new rich.

 

[beancounter]

And while I'm on a roll, remember that "are you a psychopath" survey a few months back?

I sent it to a forum where there are a handful of developers who would fall under the category of "new rich". They all scored 50% or more. The higher the score, the lower the persons empathy toward others, so this "all for me" attitude nicely fits with their psychological profile.

 

[beancounter]

All that being said, capitalism encourages people to strive for more and fuels innovation, whereas socialism dampens innovation.

It would be great if humanity could strike a balance, but it seems we swing from one extreme to the other.

 

[Spang]

All that being said, capitalism encourages people to strive for more and fuels innovation...

Human creativity only happens because capitalism? Really?

 

[beancounter]

Human creativity only happens because capitalism? Really?

Nope, it acts as the most effective incentive to innovate.

 

[Spang]

Nope, it acts as the most effective incentive to innovate.

Let's see some evidence, please.

 

[flyingsnail]

In the US, socialism is viewed as a system that takes away your freedoms and gives you just enough to sustain a way of life that you can never change, never improve upon for your children.

Yeah....its a clever piece or propaganda.

It seems this new generation of wealthy are greedier than ever. Back in the Regan era, taxes were much higher than today, yet they still complain about taxes, and since the economy was booming when the tax rates were higher, it kills the argument that "high taxes" inhibit growth.

Most wealthy people don't believe that high taxes inhibit growth, that is just a useful narrative to sale less progressive taxes to the masses.

In any case, I've thought about this question for years. Not so much in terms of socialism, but instead in terms of inequality. Why are human civilizations always so lopsided? Why do the masses, which vastly outnumber the elite, seem so willing to attempt being subjects? I've started to come to the view that perhaps humans have become an eusocial species with the possibility of a genetic component (e.g., the working class being more complacent towards authority).

 

[flyingsnail]

Let's see some evidence, please.

Yeah, I think its interesting that the USSR was at one point more advanced, technology wise, than many western capitalist states. Also even in western capitalist states, most significant discovers are made by academics at of intellectual curiosity rather than profit. As such it would seem that any nation that allows talented individuals to pursue their academic interests would generate intellectual achievements. But perhaps capitalist societies would be more likely to take the discoveries and create widgets out of them.

Plus "innovation" is vague, is any new thing that generates a profit an innovation? Or do we only include those things that actually benefit society in some way?

 

[beancounter]

Ok then, anyone have a source that supports that socialism amd communism as the engines of innovation...

Im guessing this has more to do with anti capitalism sentiment than anything else.

And the Soviet Union was never a communist country in the real sense of the word. In fact, they acted more like a totalitarian state.

 

[beancounter]

Most wealthy people don't believe that high taxes inhibit growth, that is just a useful narrative to sale less progressive taxes to the masses.

I'm referring to corporate taxes, not individual. Generally speaking they argue that "high taxes" prevents them from hiring new people and investing in R&D. This sounds good on the surface, but really only applies to companies that have cash flow issues. In those situations, taxes are the least of their problems, but they have to blame it on something other than themselves...

What it boils down to is priotities. That is, where the executives choose the spend the cash flow that's available.

And as someone who has had access to the detailed financial records of numerous companies, I tell you first hand that there is a lot of waste.

Two of my favorite examples - one small, one big;

As a staff accountant, I saw the CFO submit an expense report that contained a receipt from victoria's secret.

A little known fact about a large insurance company is that they built a heated tarmac for their executive jet...you know the poor exec's might get cold feet on the way to the terminal... as if a private jet wasn't enough..I wonder how many people they could have hired with that money...

 

[Second Summer]

Ok then, anyone have a source that supports that socialism amd communism as the engines of innovation...

I'm doubtful that any reliable evidence exist, neither in support nor in opposition, of that hypothesis, for the following reasons:

• The only genuine and lasting socialist governments have been of the authoritarian flavour, and it can be argued that this tends to puts a damper on creativity.
• Most (all?) socialist countries were quite poor at the time when they turned socialist.
• Capitalist countries have often been very hostile to socialist countries, attempting to overthrow or sabotage these governments. (Several socialist governments in Latin America have been overthrown by the CIA. They somehow failed with Cuba, but not for lack of trying.)

A "liberal" definition of socialism would include social democracy in the fold. There have been a number of social-democratic / "Labour" governments around the world, that have governed with success: UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Germany, India, Brazil, to name a few. These are/were not authoritarian, but neither genuinely socialist, since the means of production remains largely in private hands.

However, the "pink tide" is currently dominating Latin American politics. Evo Morales and his Movement Toward Socialism party seem particularly successful at the moment.

The socialist Evo Morales, who yesterday was re-elected to serve a third term as president of Bolivia, has long been cast as a figure of fun by the media in the global north. Much like the now deceased Hugo Chávez, Morales is often depicted as a buffoonish populist whose flamboyant denouncements of the United States belie his incompetence. And so, reports of his landslide win inevitably focused on his announcement that it was “a victory for anti-imperialism”, as though anti-US sentiment is the only thing Morales has given to Bolivia in his eight years in government.

More likely, Morales’s enduring popularity is a result of his extraordinary socio-economic reforms, which – according to the New York Times – have transformed Bolivia from an “economic basket case” into a country that receives praise from such unlikely contenders as the World Bank and the IMF – an irony considering the country’s success is the result of the socialist administration casting off the recommendations of the IMF in the first place.

Evo Morales has proved that socialism doesn’t damage economies | Ellie Mae O’Hagan | Comment is free | theguardian.com

These countries/governments might be suitable as sources to find evidence for or against the claim that socialism is good/bad for innovation.

 

[Spang]

Ok then, anyone have a source that supports that socialism amd communism as the engines of innovation...

That doesn't appear to be anyone's argument. You made the claim, that capitalism is the most effective incentive to innovate, and now you need to back it up with some facts. That's one of your guidelines.

 

[beancounter]

That doesn't appear to be anyone's argument. You made the claim, that capitalism is the most effective incentive to innovate, and now you need to back it up with some facts. That's one of your guidelines.

Nope. It's my opinion, and I don't think there is a definitive study
Here's a link:
Capitalism vs Socialism | Economics Help

"It is argued that the profit incentive encourages firms to be more efficient, cut costs and innovate new products that people want."


But let's look at it from the perspective of the individual. Which motivates the average person more in the long run?

The opportunity to make money from your ideas, or just doing it for the glory of the motherland?

 

[Spang]

But let's look at it from the perspective of the individual. Which motivates the average person more in the long run?

The opportunity to make money from your ideas, or just doing it for the glory of the motherland?

This idea that people can't make money in a socialist, or communist, economy is utter nonsense. Money is still made--goods and services are bought and sold--however workers are not exploited, because they own the means of production. The wealth that a company creates is more equally distributed among the workers. It's a more just society.

 

[flyingsnail]

I'm referring to corporate taxes, not individual. Generally speaking they argue that "high taxes" prevents them from hiring new people and investing in R&D.

Yes, that is the narrative they present but my point is that they don't actually believe it. Most wealthy folks are well aware of how corporate taxes work, that is, they are aware that wages are a deductible business expense so higher corporate taxes wouldn't impact hiring.

As a staff accountant, I saw the CFO submit an expense report that contained a receipt from victoria's secret.

That's small fish and could be a proper business expense.

 

[flyingsnail]

But let's look at it from the perspective of the individual. Which motivates the average person more in the long run?

The opportunity to make money from your ideas, or just doing it for the glory of the motherland?

Not everyone is motivated by monetary gain and all one has to do is take a trip to a research university to find many people that are more interested in discovery than money. Monetary gain is, after all, about status...and researchers can gain status by making discoveries and that is motivation enough.

 

[beancounter]

Yes, that is the narrative they present but my point is that they don't actually believe it. Most wealthy folks are well aware of how corporate taxes work, that is, they are aware that wages are a deductible business expense so higher corporate taxes wouldn't impact hiring.

An increase in the tax rate, effectively reduces the impact of the deduction... If you are interested, I can show you the math.

That's small fish

Like I explicitly stated - I provided one small example and one big example. Obviously, that was the small example.

and could be a proper business expense

Do you seriously believe that a purchase from Victoria's Secret by a male could be a legitimate business expense?!?

Even if the CFO had been female, the purchase would have been questionable, as undergarments can be purchased in a variety of places..as where there is a VS, there is usually other clothing stores, malls, etc.

Not everyone is motivated by monetary gain and all one has to do is take a trip to a research university to find many people that are more interested in discovery than money. Monetary gain is, after all, about status...and researchers can gain status by making discoveries and that is motivation enough.

Like I said, the average person in the long run. There are always exceptions, but they are not the norm. Furthermore, university professors are not exactly poorly compensated...