Why is capitalism 'freer' than socialism?

[PiMan]

What you're describing is not an improved form of Democracy--it IS Democracy.

Sure but there are different qualities of democracy. As I understand it, the suggestion being made is closer to direct democracy than any large nation in history has achieved; because unlike petitions, the agreements made between those many people are expected to be made law, not merely "looked at" as would happen in most free nations today.

 

[willemvanoranje]

You still didn't answer the question. Fine and dandy, people have meetings and decide. HOW do they decide? What is the SPECIFIC PROCEDURE?? If you use any synonym of "vote" then I was right from the start because that's how EVERY Democracy does it.

What you're describing is not an improved form of Democracy--it IS Democracy.

I may not have explained every single detail, BasketCase, but as you can see PiMan understands the idea. Maybe the way he describes the difference explains it better to you. I already explained to you how decisions are made in this mechanism. Just check back. Even if there is voting you were not right, because it is the people that choose what happens directly instead of through politicians. Do you get the difference between choosing who will make policy and then not having barely any influence anymore, and talking about, making, and voting on policy directly?

Then ignore the word "socialism" wherever I wrote it and replace it with "deepening democracy"

Now, as for replacing 'socialism' with 'deep democracy', your statement becomes "Hence my position on deep democracy: there's no way to transfer Power To The People any more completely than we currently do." How would you explain Porto Alegre and hundreds of other mechanisms then?

Did you not say earlier on that stuff gets sent to a Head Honcho for approval?

It is more acceptance than approval. The final list needs to be submitted to the mayor and the council because they must officially know that the list exists. Do you get what I mean?

Yep. Seems you did. Same in the U.S.--you have bureaucrats in the system too. Who do their jobs well, I'm sure?

As for your remark on bureaucrats, it has been shown in these cases that what bureaucrats think society needs is often quite different from what society itself identifies as its main problems and needs.



This is it, though. If you after this still don't understand that it is a different mechanism, regardless of whether you think it is a desirable mechanism, then I have no more hopes for you. Maybe one day you can, maybe not.

 

[Archbob]

@ fallen angle lord
AGREE with you there, say 50% then we could aford to ...........

You know the middle and lower classes would never agree to that. People in the lower rungs hardly pay 20%.

 

[kosiosko 1]

You know the middle and lower classes would never agree to that. People in the lower rungs hardly pay 20%.

here a family pays no tax till $au20k, (debatable on how you interpret tax law) then we have brackets which sorta go working class- middle class - rich.
just as an aside-- the goverment lowered the rich rate, one year, then the middle class the next, then working/lower income class next, we have a four year election cycle. so in election year, it was pionted out everyone had recived help re- rising prices......... except retirees/pensioners who are living off their retirement capital/ recieve goverment pension and pay no tax........ being an election year they were given Cash by the govt. for the tax concessions every one else got, every body is happy govt. stays in power. Fast forward, I have have recived payments of $500, $1000, $1000,each year at christmas, SO has EVERYBODY
(tax payer/pensioner/welfare recipitant) in the COUNTRY. the last one was for the global finacial crissis, people are not spending, so
" here,s a thousand dollars go out and spend it, save our Country's ecconomy"

Sometimes politics gets really wierd

 

[PiMan]

here a family pays no tax till $au20k, (debatable on how you interpret tax law) then we have brackets which sorta go working class- middle class - rich.
just as an aside-- the goverment lowered the rich rate, one year, then the middle class the next, then working/lower income class next, we have a four year election cycle. so in election year, it was pionted out everyone had recived help re- rising prices......... except retirees/pensioners who are living off their retirement capital/ recieve goverment pension and pay no tax........ being an election year they were given Cash by the govt. for the tax concessions every one else got, every body is happy govt. stays in power. Fast forward, I have have recived payments of $500, $1000, $1000,each year at christmas, SO has EVERYBODY
(tax payer/pensioner/welfare recipitant) in the COUNTRY. the last one was for the global finacial crissis, people are not spending, so
" here,s a thousand dollars go out and spend it, save our Country's ecconomy"

Sometimes politics gets really wierd

Technically there's also the GST. So depending on what they buy, they could be spending somewhere up to 10% on tax.

 

[kosiosko 1]

Technically there's also the GST. So depending on what they buy, they could be spending somewhere up to 10% on tax.

true, thats why i said its debatable but the gst is paid on disposible income( just go with that ), the mortage/rent no gst, many exemptions exist, i don't know how a FAMILY would have any money left to spend on Goods and Servives taxable items ON twenty grand a year

your point is correct , is it offset thoe by additional family allowance , health care card for low income earners, giving access to concession fares on public transport, cheaper movie tickets, heck even cheaper OPERA tickets-- a 50% saving on opera tickets vs a 10% tax on tiolet paper

I know you are correct, but our tax laws are just so wierd

 

[willemvanoranje]

Is GST the same as VAT? We have 19% over here...

 

[kosiosko 1]

Is GST the same as VAT? We have 19% over here...

Yes 10% on most everything, its collected by the federale goverment and all of it goes to the states. they had to agree to drop most state taxes in return, saves arguing how much the feds give to the states, every election cycle as a" %" it goes up as time goes by, plus states used to have different taxes made interstate bussiness akward

 

[BasketCase]

I may not have explained every single detail, BasketCase, but as you can see PiMan understands the idea. Maybe the way he describes the difference explains it better to you. I already explained to you how decisions are made in this mechanism. Just check back. Even if there is voting you were not right, because it is the people that choose what happens directly instead of through politicians.

Yes, I got it the first time, and I keep telling you, WE ALREADY DO IT THAT WAY HERE IN THE U.S.

We mostly do it at the state level and not the federal level, but the process is the same. The PEOPLE create legislation (such as California's infamous Prop. 187!) and then the PEOPLE vote on that legislation. DIRECTLY. Having seen the process directly all my life, I can say with 100% confidence that the results are no "freer" than America's federal Congressional method.

Oh, and I take back what I said earlier on: I don't give a crap if you were talking about socialism. I am. Because this theme we just did, this argument you and I are going through? I've done this all many times before with many socialist losers. They're all talk and no walk; they say fancy things that sound really great, but when I force them actually DESCRIBE their socialist mechanisms, they come up with systems that are identical to the businesses and corporations that already exist. A rose by any other name. The words are different, but the concepts you describe are the same old thorny flower.

This is it, though. If you after this still don't understand that it is a different mechanism, regardless of whether you think it is a desirable mechanism, then I have no more hopes for you. Maybe one day you can, maybe not.

Happy to let you down. I already got what I needed from this thread. To me, you're the one who's the disappointment.

Edit: To reiterate: even if the PEOPLE vote directly on fiscal policy, the same old problem always rears its head. Somebody's gotta lose the vote. In the end, it's not "government of the People, by the People, for the People". It's "government of the People, by half the People, for whichever People won the vote". No, it's not perfect, but as far as is known today to political theorists, it's the best we can do. The only way to get everybody to agree on everything is to plug them all into a Borg cube, which I'm pretty sure even Willie Orange (or however ya spell that) will agree is a gigantic violation of a very basic human right.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Yes, I got it the first time, and I keep telling you, WE ALREADY DO IT THAT WAY HERE IN THE U.S.

We mostly do it at the state level and not the federal level, but the process is the same. The PEOPLE create legislation (such as California's infamous Prop. 187!) and then the PEOPLE vote on that legislation. DIRECTLY. Having seen the process directly all my life, I can say with 100% confidence that the results are no "freer" than America's federal Congressional method.

Finally an example where I can understand you mistake it for what I've been saying. According to wikipedia "Proposition 187 was introduced by Republican assemblyman Dick Mountjoy of Monrovia" though. The referendum that followed is a step in the right direction, but still so far from what I am talking about. Now that we have moved this step, though, can you appreciate the difference between a passive right where the threshold is pretty damn high because you need to do everything yourself, and a mechanism where the state supports and facilitates?

Oh, and I take back what I said earlier on: I don't give a crap if you were talking about socialism. I am.

In case you didn't know, socialism is dead. No risk from that side. No reason for a rant. It's passé. No one wants socialism. I get that you need to put me in a little basket or case or box or whatever, so that I am in some corner you can release your anger to (whatever caused that anger), but not trying to catagorise me might actually enlighten your vision to appreciate that I am in fact not a socialist, nor proposing anything socialist. If you don't care, then stop quoting me and stop posting here. No reason to talk to no one but yourself online.

Because this theme we just did, this argument you and I are going through? I've done this all many times before with many socialist losers. They're all talk and no walk; they say fancy things that sound really great, but when I force them actually DESCRIBE their socialist mechanisms, they come up with systems that are identical to the businesses and corporations that already exist. A rose by any other name. The words are different, but the concepts you describe are the same old thorny flower.

Yawn.. well, I am not a socialist and I did not describe a socialist system... but since you do use 'you'.... I described the mechanism of participatory budgeting for you, and for some reason you lack the imagination to see it for what it is and need to fit it inside the world structures you are familiar with. The concepts are distinct, but you seem to be able to perceive them that way. Not your fault. Nature. And maybe you just lack expertise or knowledge in this specific area. How you can say I am describing systems identical to the businesses and corporations that already exist is a great mystery to me, though.

Again: Can you appreciate the difference between a passive right where the threshold is pretty damn high because you need a considerable level of skill, knowledge, and lots of time, and a mechanism where the state supports and facilitates? Can you understand the difference between an individual act or that of an interest group, and a platform or space where many citizens and civil society organisations get together and interact? Do you understand the difference between agenda-setting and actual decision-making? And the difference between those two and policy-making? Do you understand the difference between a politician and/or bureaucrat making it, and the people designing it with the help of experts for the most technical parts? Do you understand the different consequences for individual citizens and civil society at large?

Happy to let you down. I already got what I needed from this thread. To me, you're the one who's the disappointment.

Great comeback.

No, it's not perfect, but as far as is known today to political theorists, it's the best we can do.

Duuude... that's so totally wrong. Are you even at home in political science? So far it didn't sound like it. I'll give you a basic starter: David Held (2006) Models of Democracy. There you can see half a dozen of models that are not all the limited representative system with some participative tokenism we have today. As for participatory mechanisms I can recommend Abers (2000), Wampler (2007), Baiocchi (2005), Nylen (2003), Avritzer (2005 and 2009)... just some political theorists that do not agree that the present system is the best we can do.

 

[kosiosko 1]

@Willemvanorange

i feel that you miss a major difference between the two system, in the U.S. they have so many polictical appointments by ballot, at the locale level, sheriff, D.A. etc. they often joke "you wouldn't be elected dog catcher" i wouldn't be surprised if this actualy happens somewhere in the States. In western , European styles of govt. They wouldn't dream of having a populist vote as they do in the states for positions like these. In the Calif. Propotion example can you even imagine a where a group can just get together and get something on the ballot, without a major party first taking it through the system, imagine if some dutch populistgroup did it , it wouldn't be accepted by the E.U. parliment

There are exceptions and this is NOT a critism of your points , I know your system is completely different, but when "BasketCase says we already have that, they probally do. some where in the states, not like your saying but something pretty close. In most European demorcray, its pretty top down policey making with a bottom up consences approach, hence why your system has so many merits,

 

[willemvanoranje]

You're absolutely right. I sent BasketCase a pm before, because as long as this debate stays so polarised we will never find any common ground. I feel that what you say is a pretty accurate assessment: it is not the same, but the way it is in the US does go in that specific direction more than here in Europe. If this was the point BasketCase tried to make, then apperantly all that was necessary was a little bit of nuance.

It was my intention, before this got somewhat out of hand, to point to the added value of more delegation of actual authority in a more systemised manner. I can imagine someone argues that this is not necessary because the present system is fine, and demonstrating this with examples. I would not agree, but it is a point I can imagine one making. Saying that the very mechanism I spoke about is already present in the US, though, is something different.

Now, of course my background means I take a more European view on it, while the background of many of these mechanisms warrant a bias towards Latin America. Especially in the latter context it is, in my opinion, an absolute necessity. Far more than in Europe or in the US, planning tends to be extremely top-down with solely elite interests taken into account appropriately and the already marginalised still being structurally excluded. Nonetheless I think such structures exist in a lesser form in the democratic developed world as well, and therefore the mechanisms I discussed before could provide a means alter some of that.

Now I would love to discuss the merits of such a system, as well as its shortcomings, pitfalls, viability in different contexts (who am I to say that it will work well in, say, Australia), or of course alternatives. Because we got stuck in 'it is the same' vs 'no it's not' we never got there though. I do hope your post is that step ahead though.

 

[BasketCase]

There are exceptions and this is NOT a critism of your points , I know your system is completely different, but when "BasketCase says we already have that", they probally do.

Bingo. Different parts of the U.S. do it different ways. But then, one of the hallmarks of Democracy is in letting the People decide how they want to implement it......

Other side note: there's an elemental conflict in any Democracy, in that the common citizen may not be knowledgeable about whatever policy he or she is voting on. Do you give the political power to those who don't understand the topic, or do you concentrate power in the hands of those who do understand it? Both approaches carry risks.

 

[willemvanoranje]

There's no doubt about the citizen lacking the capacity to decide on everything. Even on the local scale one could identify themes where it is somewhat iffy. However, I do consider deciding on a part of the investment budget (streets, parks, small social programmes, etc.) an area where it is much more feasible to have the citizen in on the making and shaping his/her direct environment. Of course it can go wrong. In writing on this subject, there have been enough cases where it did not work or was even abused by power hungry politicians.. but the cases where it did function properly give me hope. I belief in its transformative potential.

That's about 'the end' from my part. BC, do you want to make a 'closing statement'?