1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Tax Rates of Various Difference countries

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Archbob, Dec 15, 2010.

  1. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,575
    Location:
    Scotland
    I would humbly request why I am being singled out for this treatment. Is there something which I have done to offend you personally, or is this just, as I suspect it may be, a general vent against your political opponents? Because, honestly, right now, I'm not really sure. (Especially given that I am explicitly not a statist, hence all my jibber-jabber about "worker's self-management" that FAL took such offence to...)
     
  2. sonorakitch

    sonorakitch Overseas hunter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,766
    Location:
    Phoenix AZ when I'm home
    Uh, wow. You were obviously born in...what....1997?
     
  3. Richard Cribb

    Richard Cribb He does monologues

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2003
    Messages:
    4,291
    I think you are right about his motivs, and feel free to think that his impotent rage is directed towards me. I don't mind.
    And since you are a nice and well-educated person (despite your ideas about the USSR:p), could you please explain to me what this "statist" concept is (Please note, he is the only one with the username traitorfish, so the others might as well save the effort). Can't remember having been through that in my salad days when I studied political philosophy, but I seem to remember even Chomsky using it.
    I also notice that I find it hilarious that a thread about taxes have developed into reactionaries showing their true colours and their lack of historical knowledge, but since I don't have that big a surplus of mental sanity I prefer to stay out of this particular "discussion".
     
  4. Archbob

    Archbob Ancient CFC Guardian

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    11,774
    Location:
    Corporate USA
    He basically has no idea what he's talking about when referring to Russia and China. Russia is suffering quite a bit from their switch because it was too rapid but their centrally planned economy was going to tank very soon, thats why they decided to make such a drastic switch. There was basically no one the centrally planned economy of the USSR could compete much longer with the market economy of the western world and the ruling class knew that. Russia was simply running out of money and were getting outcompeted completely by the 1980s. He's completely wrong about China because Mao was about communism. He did in fact take the land away from the old landlords and parse them out to the peasants when he came to power. The peasants didn't really know how to manage it, production dropped both because of that and some drought in the early 1950s and through this failed decision to give the peasants the means of production came to strict Maoist regime that everyone knows today. Mao didn't implement the later reforms until it was obvious that his first one totally failed.

    He keeps telling to to read history, but his own grasp on it is pretty weak.

    I've read quite a few books on the times between WWI and WWII and Hitler's rise to power. I don't remember any of them connecting Hitler to Capitalism. Most of them didn't mention the economy at all, and the ones that did never mentioned capitalism. Hitler allowed private industry -- but only if they produced what the Nazi State wanted to produce. The companies had to be completely subservent to the Nazi government which isn't true capitalism. Hitler himself did not place much importance in the economy. His own philosophy was that everything had to bend to the will of the Nazi state.

    He's in denial that the US/UK system has worked better than any centrally planned economy.

    @Traitorfish -- Even Marx, who first used the term in an economic system sense as you claim, agreed with the capitailist definition, not the socialist one. Your socialist definition doesn't really exist. Marx specified that Capitalism was mainly privately owned means of production. Your "state capitalism" doesn't actually refer to what Marx coined as "capitalism". And the social definition didn't come first. People where using "capitalist" to describe a economic frame before then. Modern capitalism in its earliest references is rooted somewhat in Mercantilism. Marx himself agreed that that "capitalism" referred to privately owned means of production in a market economy, not this "state capitalism" you are talking about. The first coined definition is largely the modern-day concept of capitalism.

    And seriously, you have still not pointed out very many (or any) mostly Egalitarian societies after humans settled. You want to dismiss this claim, but you can't really find any large societies that ran successfully on this concept for any length of time.
     
  5. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,575
    Location:
    Scotland
    It's used to refer to those ideologies or regimes which advocate the primacy of the state in organising society and in achieving political goals, Fascism being the most obvious example, as well as the most extreme. It's usually contrasted with libertarianism, used in the sense of ideologies which hold that primacy as belonging to the people themselves. Of course, there's a huge amount of middle ground- the early USSR, for example, involved a significant amount of activity on the part of the both the central Bolshevik-lead government and the worker-controlled Soviets and collectives- and so the terms being better used as tendencies, rather than formal positions.
    Unfortunately, it has become on of the pejorative of choice among American "libertarians", who have adopted it as a conveniently ambiguous alternative to the more emotive but more easily disproved "socialist" and "fascist". Hence Abegweit's usage.

    Here's the thing: Marx had a very limited historical perspective. He had not seen the emergence of any state capitalist regimes- "left" or "right wing"- and spent most of his life during a period in which an individualistic bourgeoisie new to political power was still wresting it away from the established aristocratic institutions. He did not- and, one can argue, could not- envision the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, or understand the potential of the capitalist mode of production to exist outside of a society dominated by the bourgeoisie, a particular form of capitalist ruling class. As such, the particular usage of "capitalism" by Marx cannot be taken at face value, and must be reduced to its essential nature, which is a society in which the capitalist mode of production is present, something which is not reliant on the entertainment of Western liberal institutions of formal private property and the free market.

    If you'll recall, I observed that settlement did tend to produce inequalities in human societies, because it allowed the emergence of permanent material and social inequalities which small, simple hunter-gatherer societies were not able to support. That's not new: it is, in fact, pretty basic to the entire socialist analysis of civilisation. The point was that these inequalities therefore do not innate to human society, but a tendency of human society which is manifested by particular material circumstances. If the material circumstances change, the theory goes, then so can social structures. It's not as if it hasn't happened before.

    They didn't mention Hitler's alliance with big business, the internal conflict between the Hitlerites and the Strasserties, or Röhm's call for an anti-capitalist "second revolution"? They must not have been very good books.
     
  6. Brian Shanahan

    Brian Shanahan Permanoob

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,897
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The house that I shaped in my heart
    You know the more you write the more ridiculuous you make yourself sound. Keep eating that steady diet of Fox and Tea Party propoganda, I'm sure the real world won't destroy your mind too much when it hits you.

    Frankly when somebody keeps dishing out baseless propoganda as his "arguement" against me, and then tries to make out that my grasp on reality (which by the way FAL is based on the real events as they happened, no matter how loudly you shout otherwise) is worse than his own, I know that it is better for me to walk out the door and let that person spout his delusions to himself, and not to bother him.
     
  7. Richard Cribb

    Richard Cribb He does monologues

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2003
    Messages:
    4,291
    I thought that much. So basically it is a term describing practically every existing political organisation of a society while obfuscating the differences and the inner conflicts those contain. Good I spent my time studying more worthy topics then.
    I also assume that the private state daddy is going to on in the propertarian paradise is no problem, but then I don't think propertarianism is very healthy for ones brain.


    Can't really say I am impressed by this state capitalist term. Can't say I can remember exactly where Marx presented a stringent definition of capitalism either. Well, never mind, not important.

    While my speciality as a historian is the Victorian Era, I did some lecturing on highschool level and I can assure you that quite a few works about the Third Reich recommended for curricula had a tendency to be embarrasingly silent or trying to explain away these topics. So that somebody who basically lacks the ability to genuine critical thinking should have some weird notions in regard to this is quite understandable. For instance, I think I would have my work cut out if I should find 10 people aware of the substantial privatisation of public assests Hitler's regime carried out.
     

Share This Page