Work for it or do without

[Starcraftmazter]

Here's a definition of socialism:

That's more communism than socialism, and it doesn't much apply to the modern world.

Look here buddy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

And just to follow up, here's what the Heritage Foundation (who sit slightly to the right of Genghis Khan) think of Australia's economy...

They rank Australia third and Singapore second in terms of economic freedom. Kind of blows your scale out of the water.

Australia’s modern and competitive economy benefits from the country’s strong commitment to open-market policies that facilitate global trade and investment. Transparent and efficient regulations are applied evenly in most cases, encouraging dynamic entrepreneurial activity in the private sector.

This is a funny comedy site, 10/10.

 

[McLovin]

That's more communism than socialism, and it doesn't much apply to the modern world.

No it's not, you just don't know the difference between the two.

Here's another definition, this time from Britannica.

socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

It's hard to see how you could call Australia socialist but not Singapore given how their economy is structured.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

It's hard to see how you could call Australia socialist but not Singapore given how their economy is structured.

Because Australia has very significant wealth redistribution and Singapore does not?

 

[CanOz]

Wow McLovin, you weren't long replying to that, were you lurking:couch?? LOL!

 

[McLovin]

Because Australia has very significant wealth redistribution and Singapore does not?

If you knew anything about socialism you'd know that it advocates the complete opposite: "To each according to his own contribution" (you get out what you put in; don't do anything don't get anything), which hardly sounds like income redistribution, is a fundamental tenet of socialism. Socialism, however, does believe in state owned or controlled enterprises, some 60% of Singapore's GDP is based on those types of corporations. I know which one appears to be more socialist, although in reality they are both mixed-market economies.

Wow McLovin, you weren't long replying to that, were you lurking?? LOL!

I was on my way to bed.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

If you knew anything about socialism you'd know that it advocates the complete opposite: "To each according to his own contribution" (you get out what you put in; don't do anything don't get anything), which hardly sounds like income redistribution, is a fundamental tenet of socialism.

It's actually, "From each according to ability, to each according to need". And yes, it does sound like wealth redistribution - and that is precisely what it is.

 

[McLovin]

It's actually, "From each according to ability, to each according to need". And yes, it does sound like wealth redistribution - and that is precisely what it is.

Oh dear. No, that is Communism. Why is this so difficult?

Here you go.

To each according to his contribution is considered by socialists and Marxist socialists as a characteristic of society directly following the transition to socialism, but preceding the final step to communism.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] In German, "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!". In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Oh dear. No, that is Communism. Why is this so difficult?

Here you go.

Socialism leads into Communism - says right there, doesn't it?

 

[McLovin]

Socialism leads into Communism - says right there, doesn't it?

No, it says socialism is a step that precedes Communism. Socialism in itself doesn't "lead into Communism".

Now back to the question, why is Australia socialist but Singapore isn't?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Now back to the question, why is Australia socialist but Singapore isn't?

I already answered it - because of much greater wealth redistribution from the productive members of society to everyone else, and significant government intervention in the economy.

However I would again like to point out my scale thesis, and that it is no an absolute "socialism" or "capitalism".

 

[McLovin]

I already answered it - because of much greater wealth redistribution from the productive members of society to everyone else

Which as we just discussed is not socialism.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Which as we just discussed is not socialism.

Why not? What do you call it?

 

[rumpole]

Australia strikes a pretty good balance, except I think we are a bit too open to foreign imports. We have lost a lot of industries and expertise offshore that, in an uncertain world we may regret. Buying lots of cheap foreign goods has kept some multinationals rich, but their workers poor and exploited.

I'd like to see us charge the same import duties on other nations that they charge to us.

 

[McLovin]

Why not? What do you call it?

I've given you two definitions, both of which define it as the state owning or controlling the means of production. I've shown you that income redistribution goes against the basic fundamentals of socialism. So, it has nothing to do with what I call it, and everything to do with what it is.

How on Earth can someone who doesn't understand what socialism is start classifying countries as socialist?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

I've shown you that income redistribution goes against the basic fundamentals of socialism. So, it has nothing to do with what I call it, and everything to do with what it is.

I just can't disagree more.