Left/pol/ get's a bit arsey when someone tries to define socialism, so we'll not waste too much time with that and just assume that one aspect is alleviating the suffering of the poor and exploited the world over.
By this metric neo-liberalism has done much more by way of bringing about socialist ideals than communism managed over the past century. Discuss.
Other urls found in this thread:
indianexpress.com
aljazeera.com
books.google.gr
marxists.org
twitter.com
Actually what's happening is people running in circle about Socialism= big gubmint when it's about workers owning ther workplace.
by that standards feudalism was socialism by slavery standards.
the point is history has to progress and its only natural that capitalism will slowly move to socialism.
created instability in the middle east and africa, create dogshit-tier working conditions in the third world and not to mention increasing wealth inequality while maintain wages is considered socialistic?
if you dont understand what socialism then ask questions. dont make shitty threads.
Fair enough. But surely, behind the theory and ideas there is some degree of egalitarianism, something that wants to make life better for people. And by this metric, if you discount the west, neo-liberalsim has been doing this for 30 years +. TPP/TTIP will do even more.
History has a point?
This was more neo-cons
Said conditions were already shocking. Just like the UK 150 years ago.
Perhaps on an individual level between individual western wage slaves and their bosses. It has closed to some extent the macro gap between nations. That's to say there are less third worlders now living in poverty when you factor in population growth.
See this is waht I mean about getting arsey.
For the record, I don't like neo-liberalsim. But this is for selfish reasons. It is making my life and the lives of others in my community worse so improve the lives of others.
That has nothing to do with socialism, you might as well call charity as socialism then. Socialism is the workers owning the means of production and Capitalists getting kicked out/purge in a revolution.
That graph was probably pulled out of you ass most likely. here are more credible sources on that dubious claim of yours and assuming it was the "neo-liberal" dogma your messiah Friedman birthed to appease his porky masters and not advances in science, automation and communication and industrial technologies. Also I don't trust any source from the World bank that tells us world poverty is dropping when they are constantly reevaluating poverty and making it mean Somalia-tier lower income levels.
indianexpress.com
More sources that show how the American dominated institutions like the IMF, World bank , and UN lie constantly on this issue to keek on their side the ideological hegemonic status quo:
aljazeera.com
Guess that makes Obama a neo con then.
Nigga, what? Neoliberal policies are putting populations on their knees. Growth in GDP doesn't mean neccessarly more prosperity for the people. The third world is more exploited than ever, actually not it's even more perverted, every fucking country in the world is slowly turning into China, majority of proles with XIX tier working conditions, small middle class, tiny minority of rulers.
Fuck the poor. Much of the poor are lumpen proletariat who are the social scum thrown off by the lowest layers of society including beggars, gangsters, rackteers, swindlers, tramps, petty criminals, and other degenerates. Many of these lumpen proletarians will steal / kill / otherwise harm working people. To include these scum in any movement with workers would be delusional.
There is a reason we focus on the working class. Because socialism is a product of the labour movement. At least get your understanding of what socialism is about right. The idea of stopping the suffering of the poor is a liberal ideal. Not that your claims are even true anyways.
Why should the workers own the means of production? How do you justify it without at least conceding the fact that their life will (in theory) be better as a result?
It came from Forbes so just as good. At it's most basic though, capitalists seeking to maximse profit seek cheap labour to exploit. But they DO create jobs in these third world shitholes. They do pay wages, which is better than the subsistence that some in the recently exploited areas were practicing before.
I am not the person you are replying to but this is general based upon abolition alienation assuming you want a justification.
Clinton is a neo-con. She orchestrated Libya. Obama has held back from full deployment to Syria.
Yes. Largely western populations who cannot compete in manufacturing. Neo-liberalism has been a tool of rebalancing, where only 30 years ago somebody in the west could afford a house on a single salary, and saw this property increase their equity, this level of comfort sustained by an invisible safety net has been eroded. But the money is not destroyed. It has gone east.
Your vulgar definition of 'socialism' fits almost all modern governments on Earth, which all have some degree of regulation and social welfare to assist citizens are in poverty. Actual socialist states, in the Marxist sense of a worker-run state where private property is owned collectively by the proles and where the goal is the future advancement of Communism, are practically nonexistent.
And yes, maybe neoliberalism has lifted millions out of 'poverty' in the sense that they now work in factories for wages instead of practicing rural subsistence farming on their own land. You're delusional if you think neoliberal economics will somehow export a middle-class standard of living to the rest of the world, though. 'Middle classes' are the creation of the state, and without strong protectionism and social welfare the only people who will be living comfortably under global capitalism are those who happen to have in demand careers, or who own the means of production.
The endgame of global neoliberal capitalism is a planetary society where class divisions are equalized; in every country, there will be a fabulously wealthy 0.1% who own all means of production, a small 5-10% cushion of 'middle class' workers in tech or management who are capable of negotiating good salaries because their labor is in demand, and a massive majority of impoverished, struggling precarious proletarians, workers who are easily replaced and command no bargaining power to improve their wages, or their lives.
Where is this movement? Where are the protests by all the workers at their job being shipped out? If they don't care enough to fight for it why do they deserve their job more than a guy in India who'll do 16 hour days at a tenth the cost?
Because presumably alienation is bad. So socialism seeks to alleviate the bad.
There are numerous labour organizations and unions around the world and there have been even protests about outsourcing. Admittedly, the worker's movement may be a bit weaker in the west. It may be better to look at countries like China, South Africa, and India.
Oh I don't think that. The way I see it, the gulf between the true global elite and everyone else will continue to grow, to the point it is insurmountable and everything is owned by said elite, while the rest of us live life to death in jobs the elite deign to create for us.
Basically as you went on to describe though I see a much smaller 'middle class'
It shows no sign of strengthening either. Large singular employers are becoming rarer and rarer in the west and where they do exist their employees are so compartmentalised that organisation along common lines is rare. Im mean fuck look at the Junior doctors strike in the UK. These people are in a job for life, paid directly by the taxpayer and generating zero profit for anyone. And yet they strike for more. Can anyone think of the last strike in the private sector that achieved any of its goals? I'd never even considered this aspect of neo-liberalsim til today, but it has in effect worked as the world's greatest union buster.
>But the money is not destroyed. It has gone east.
I never mentionned anything about money being destroyed, it went from workers pocket's to Porky's pocket. The geographical position of the money is irrelevant.
And as i said more GDP in not an improvement in itself. More wealth is created but only an ever diminishing proportion is being enjoyed by the workers. And the price of this economic growth is social structures being weakened and environnment beingdestroyed. So whatever improvment of living conditions due to wages is balanced by the worsening of lots of other sides of life.
More accurately it went from western workers pocket to eastern workers pocket, with porky taking his cut.
Wrong. It is massily imporant. This is why real term wages are falling in the west along with net worth, while debt is rising. This is the rebalancing, taking from western workers who were too comfy and becoming unproductive and giving to easterners who have a shot at social mobility.
If you were born in the west, chances are you're worse off than your parents were at your age.
Capitalism does that via industrialization and globalization, I mean what is special about that?
But capitalism is a particular form of social relations in an industrial society, i.e. means of production and distribution are privately owned, the majority of the population has to sell itself into wage-slavery on the labour market to get the goods they produce, capital is constantly trying to invade all the other spheres of human life and commodify them to put them on the market (housing, education, healthcare, science etc); and neoliberal form of globalization is a particular form of organizing international economic relations that stems from the world-wide defeat of workers movements in the 70s and counter-attack of Capital – as everyone knows all the process of globalization are managed by the transnationals and in their interest, and based on the mainstream anti-labour neoclassical economics (particularly its branch on trade theory) and set of policies that is derived from it (Washington consensus).
ftfy.
You're conflating productivity and rentability chaim.
oh, hello Holla Forums
Bit pedantic lad. What would be scraps to us in the west is a decent wage in east asia.
I have no idea what renatbility is so I could well be.
If porky take most of the money, what is left is scraps compared to the initial amount. I bite in a cake, scraps fall on the floor, ants are fed for months with it. Does it change the fact thoses are still scraps?
rentability is how much money you make compared to costs. It's related to profits.
Productivity is the wealth produced in a given time. It's related to wealth created.
Porky have two factories:
First factory, workers are making 100 shoes per day for 2000 dollars worth at the cost of 1500 dollars. In a day, 100 shoes have been produced, and Porky won 500 dollars
Second factory, workers are producing 50 shoes a day for 1000 dollars worth, but it cost only 100 dollars to make thoses shoes. In a day, 50 shoes have been produced, but porky won 900 dollars.
First factory is more productive, but second factory is more profitable. Porky seek to maximize profit, so'll throw the first factory under the bus to open a third factory like the second one.