Re: Former Russian President Yeltsin Dies

On Apr 28, 6:10 pm, Briarroot <wood...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ngo Dinh Diem wrote:

I don't suppose you noticed the question mark at the beginnig of that
'article' stating it to be unverified, wikipedia is not exactly an
academic source which is cogent and reliable.

Translation: Peter is having trouble wiping the egg off his face.

Wikipedia lists the following references:

1. "Socialism" Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia
Britannica Online.
2. "Socialism" Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia
Britannica Online.
3. Economic Justice and Democracy, by Robin Hahnel, Routlege 2005,
page 170
4. Making Modern Economics, by Mark Skousen, M.E. Sharpe 2001, pages
414-415
5. The Socialist System: the political economy of communism, by
János Kornai, Oxford University Press 1992, page 476
* Whither Socialism, Joseph Stiglitz, MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-19340-X.
* Market Socialism: the Debate Among Socialists, edited by Bertell
Ollman, also with contributions by James Lawler, Hillel Ticktin and
David Schewikart.
* Equal Shares: Making Market Socialism Work, John E. Roemer et al.
(E. O. Wright, ed.), Verso, 1996.

Which of these is (in your words) "not exactly an academic source
which is cogent and reliable?" <mirthful laughter>

Wikipedia may not be perfect but since the editors accept
contributions from nearly anyone, you may submit your own essay if
you feel that there is some inaccuracy in that entry. Please let me
know how they respond. I'm sure it'll be hilarious!

Market socialism as the
term is commonly known, is in fact used to denote co-operative
enterprise owned by workers (not the state ie Yugoslavia/Soviet Union
model).

Quote: "Market socialism has also been used as a name for any
attempt by a Soviet-style economy to introduce market elements into
its economic system. In this sense, "market socialism" was first
attempted during the 1920s in the Soviet Union as the New Economic
Policy (NEP), but soon abandoned. Later, elements of "market
socialism" were introduced in Hungary (where it was nicknamed
"goulash socialism"), Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia (see Titoism) in
the 1970s and 1980s. Modern Vietnam and Laos also describe
themselves as market socialist systems. The Soviet Union attempted
to introduce a market socialist system with its perestroika reforms
under Mikhail Gorbachev, but this led to the collapse of the USSR in
1991.

Historically, these kinds of "market socialist" systems attempt to
retain government ownership of the commanding heights of the
economy, such as heavy industry, energy, and infrastructure, while
introducing decentralised decision making and giving local managers
more freedom to make decisions and respond to market demands. Market
socialist systems also allow private ownership and entrepreneurship
in the service and other secondary economic sectors. The market is
allowed to determine prices for consumer goods and agricultural
products, and farmers are allowed to sell all or some of their
products on the open market and keep some or all of the profit as an
incentive to increase and improve production.

The Chinese experience with socialism with Chinese characteristics
has been described by some as another case of market socialism."
Unquote.

Point, set and match. You lose!

Yes there are problems with Mondragon which is readily
conceded but it is far better to have an accountable managerial
'elite' as opposed to a distant coterie whom one cannot relate to and
is not financially implicated in the firm itself.

The above is little more than a baseless assumption evidently
stemming from complete ignorance of how modern corporations
function. Corporate CEOs *are* financially linked (not
"implicated," as you ineptly put it) to their firms, usually through
both performance bonuses and stock options, and they *are*
accountable to both the board of directors who hired them and to the
stockholders themselves who elect those directors.

Democratically
elected managers who are responsible to those who are affected by
their decisions are needed in the modern firm as in many ways it is
much like a public entity (see Morris Cohen/Klare/Simon/McPherson)

LOL! Yeah, democratically elected politicians are also responsible
to those who are effected (not affected!) by their decisions, too.
We may spend a lot of time complaining about them, but we sure as
hell don't want to change our system. But then, you don't like
democracy much either, do you? In essence, Capitalism is ultimately
the most democratic of all economic systems. Each individual, from
the lowest to the highest, is free to pursue his own ambitions and,
providing he possesses the diligence and willingness to work hard,
he may enjoy the rewards of his own efforts - or suffer for his own
failure - *without* the overarching ever-watchful eye of socialist
society directing his efforts or his ends.

So when Jim Heintz wrote, in his article, that Boris Yeltsin had "
pushed Russia to embrace democracy and a market economy," he was
honoring Yeltsin for a great triumph, because democracy and a market
economy *are* very good things indeed. And you, in your idiocy,
exclaiming "for shame" are little more than a laughable nut case.

Market socialism does not want at all to do away with the profit
notive or markets, far from this. A worker who has a financial stake
in his firm will be far more industrious and diligent than what one
sees at the moment, where slave labour accordingly results in
employees doing as little as possible for their wages-Mill noted this
as have many others. Therefore productivity and profit-for those who
do the work-is likely to be drastically increased.

The terms "slave labor" and "wage slaves" as used in this context,
are idiomatic hogwash, typical of your type. Workers in Capitalist
countries are free to withdraw their labor if wages or conditions
don't suit their needs. They are also free to seek employment
anywhere they choose, whenever they choose for any reason that suits
their fancy. Such has *not* been the case in many socialist
nations. Socialism almost inevitably devolves into totalitarianism
because human beings simply don't want to look after each other in
deference to their own needs; they have to be *forced* to do so.

써주실게요ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

One cannot return to a feudal society-that has already been destroyed
by capitalism but greater equality (at the start gate) can be reached
by underpinning an economy with co-operatives and according people the
material assets for self-development and a comfortable life.

ROTFLMAO! Speaking of "not cogent and reliable!"

Marx was a lousy economist but his greatest mistake was assuming he
knew something about the inner workings of the human mind. He
didn't, and neither do you!

--
"Any attempt to replace a personal conscience by a collective
conscience does
violence to the individual and is the first step toward
totalitarianism." - Herman Hesse



Corporate CEOs *are* financially linked (not
"implicated," as you ineptly put it) to their firms, usually through
both performance bonuses and stock options, and they *are*
accountable to both the board of directors who hired them and to the
stockholders themselves who elect those directors.

-Accountable to whom? Certainly not those most directly affected
(check your dictionary) by their decisions-those who work at the
factory they decide to outsource or those unfortunate enough to be
sacked to further line the directors' already bulging pockets. The
corporate elite is only 'accountable' to shareholders, who are merely
passive investors. Workers have no real voice in the direction of the
place in which they work, there are unions but these are wholly
ineffective at providing each and every worker an opportunity to have
a say over decisions that concern him or her.


But then, you don't like
democracy much either, do you? In essence, Capitalism is ultimately
the most democratic of all economic systems. Each individual, from
the lowest to the highest, is free to pursue his own ambitions and,
providing he possesses the diligence and willingness to work hard,
he may enjoy the rewards of his own efforts - or suffer for his own
failure - *without* the overarching ever-watchful eye of socialist
society directing his efforts or his ends.

-You fool, the whole point of having a worker owned co-operative is to
institute democracy in the workplace (economic democracy) which is not
at all present currently. In a co-operative each worker is given a
share-one person one vote-which entitles him/her to vote on decisions
bearing on the direction their company will take and its future. Co-
operatives engender democracy. Not to mention the fact that wage
earners are not paid all they are worth, an amount of their labour is
appropriated by those who own the means of production hence the term
slavery.

You are evidently completely unaware of real-world record of "market
socialism" as practiced in those "workers paradises," the Soviet
Union and the Peoples Republic of China. In both cases, worker
ownership of the means of production was as much an abject failure
as state ownership was, and produced *exactly* the results you keep
trying to pin on Capitalism

-Yet again you have either chosen to ignore or misunderstood what
another says to you. The USSR and China both operated on systems of
state, yes s-t-a-t-e ownership, not worker ownership and in turn are
entirely irrelevant for the purposes of the present discussion. UNder
market socialism proper the enterprise is owned by those who work
there, it is only by this route people are accorded (once more)
Lockean ownership rights in what they produce.



Workers in Capitalist
countries are free to withdraw their labor if wages or conditions
don't suit their needs. They are also free to seek employment
anywhere they choose, whenever they choose for any reason that suits
their fancy.

-This excuse is best dealt with by Hale “When we enter contracts
therefore we are not in a position to exercise voluntary freedom
(completely free choice) for our capacity to contract is governed by a
pre-existing regime of property relations which determines, first,
that we must engage in the process of proprietary exchange in order to
survive and, secondly, that our ability to engage in or abstain from
this process at any particular time will be governed by the extent of
our bargaining power vis-à-vis others.’”p88/9. Every party to a
contract does so [becomes a party] to acquire certain legal rights he
does not possess, or to escape certain legal obligations with which he
is now burdened. If their liberty was not so circumscribed they might
never have submitted themselves to the contract in the first place.
One imposes the terms of the contract on the other by the threat to
call on the government to enforce his ‘private’ power, each party
tries to exert coercive pressure on another by virtue of their
capacity to withhold or threaten to withhold their property.

The point being that one is never 'free' to contract, any market is
underpinned by political and substantive ground rule choices that
determine the outcome. All markets are characterized by a structure of
mutual coercion which reflects in part the legal rights the law grants
a few and restrictions it places on others. One party may be compelled
to submit to another, vastly more powerful party. In labour contracts
there is an indirect coercion to work in someone’s employ.

“By entitling their possessors to dictate the terms and conditions
with which others have to comply in order to have access those things
designated property-or, as in the contemporary corporate context, with
which they have to comply in order to prevent firms from moving their
property and jobs elsewhere-private property rights give coercive
governing power to private individuals.”

No hackneyed and trite quote necessary.





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Jericho style rationing
    ... I prefer an economy functioning with VOLUNTARY ... a market environment. ... situation) is a choice between socialism, ... success at creating and distributing goods and services. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Priming the economic pump
    ... fuel prices that give far more economic stimulus than anything the ... bad effect on the economy. ... Compared to that shite, market ... Socialism, is one for all and all for one. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Capitalism versus Socialism
    ... The rule of thumb is really simple: If the economy works, ... Socialism require common ownership of ALL the production means ... revolutionary process to secure their persistence on power. ... Destroying the democracy was the only way a junky communist was able to ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Capitalism versus Socialism
    ... Socialism require common ownership of ALL the production means ... revolutionary process to secure their persistence on power. ... Destroying the democracy was the only way a junky communist was able to ... economy to prevent waste of workforce, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Capitalism versus Socialism
    ... Socialism require common ownership of ALL the production means ... revolutionary process to secure their persistence on power. ... Destroying the democracy was the only way a junky communist was able to ... economy to prevent waste of workforce, ...
    (sci.econ)