To which economic ideology do you ascribe?

Personally, I'm critical of most aspects of economics. On a practical basis, I would advocate state capitalism, similar to the system used in Japan.

Well, I would advocate a social democratic state. Think of it as Socialism, but it advocates Democracy and free rights as well.

I think socialism is inherently undemocratic...

Actually both Britain and the US - along with the majority of the Western world already utilise a system of social democracy. As Disraeli described it in "Sybil", if you raise people from off the very bottom and give them something to lose, you've immediately staved off revolt or - to paraphrase a rather amusing quote I once read - "There's no such thing as a fat revolutionary". Any form of a Welfare state is Social Democracy in action.

Socialism itself is brilliantly democratic and undoubtedly the finest economic system. Unfortunately to get there means that certain people have to take power for a period of time, which can only lead to trouble and a decidedly un-socialist system. Infact, the only time it's ever worked was in the case of the Spanish Anarchist movement, but that didn't last long thanks to Franco so it's debatable whether even an anarchist system could truly work.

Myself I'd advocate a system of widespread communes such as the Jewish Kibbutz which would produce what is required and any excess traded with other communes for required products.

I like moneys.

And the retro videos on how the federal reserve works.

I think the goverment should set up a system where they simply build important buildings that can allow trade and such. They should then take skilled tradesmen from faraway lands and have them work and operate these places. Everything else will be left to people who appear at the nation. These people will work by themselves to feed themselves and survive by means of self intrest and the pursuit of power.

The problem with that is not all goods are of equal value. Therefore, the commune with the more valuable product would have more economic power than the others. Sooner or later, the more communes with more economic power would use their influence and start to control other communes, and cities/countries would arise.

Value would be ascribed to the time required to produce the product, rather than a material value assigned by people. You'd also require a balance of communes producing certain "staple" products in order to ensure that no-one can hold a monopoly on these products. It requires a massive amount of small balances in order to ensure that no-one's tempted to try and take power, but that even if they should try they'd be unable.

Give me a few more years and I may have fixed all the problems with it.

Got a chuckle out of that.

It's rather impossible to ascribe value based upon the amount of time required to make it, as people don't attribute value to how fine the products are themselves but rather how much influence they have over daily life.

Democracy is a funny thing. What it means today is equivalent to that of a republic. Regardless, socialism by idealistic measures is rather contrary to direct democratic principles. Basically, you can have power over everything except economics. Which, of course, doesn't actually work out due to the widespread influence of economics. Even in today's American society, socialism would call for an end to whatever economic initiatives or referendums that currently can be made.

i think that... US currency is going down the crapper with more that's bein put out there so what is the point? don't worry about it. by the time we are out of the recession, pesos and euros will be worth more. can you say Peso Peso Bills ya'll!

December 21, 2012

I don't really follow any set Economic Ideology, so long as it isn't Capitalism.

But I guess the closest Ideologies I adhere to would be Socialist and Marxian.

+1

Socialism and Marxism are quite different...

I think you're confusing say Social Democracy with Socialism. Socialism is the same as Marxism; it's just when you start throwing things like Social Democracy or Russian Communism in there that ideals start spreading out.

In a political sense yes, a Socialist Democracy is different from a Marxist state.

However in terms of Ecomy, Marxian is a form of Socialist Economics.

Marx invented Socialist Economics. Why do you think any socialist economic system always uses the terms he coined ("Means of Production", "Bourgeoisie" etc.)?

With the exception of Bakunin's anarchism (First International) every form of socialism subsequently has been based on his ideas, although usually watered down to entice the proletariat of the time.

Marxism is not a form of a Socialist Economics, Socialist Economics are all aberrations of Marxism.

Oh, well in that case Herbert Spencer first came up with Evolution. After all, he did coin the phrase "Survival of the Fittest".

Marx didn't invent it, however he helped to shape it through Scrutiny. Namely Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's work.

Survival of the Fittest is nothing to do with Darwin, so that's a poor parallel to draw.

Proudhon believed in something rather different to Marx. All current forms of socialism are offshoots of Marxism. Marx founded the first international and people joined who followed his ideas. The second international was based on his ideas. The Cominterns claimed to be based on his ideas - although it's debatable how much akin to Marxism Russian, South American or Chinese Communism actually are. Whilst Proudhon believed fully in the redistribution of wealth, much like Marx, there the similarities end. Proudhon was a libertarian whereas Marxism inevitably ends in authoritarianism. Whilst it therefore seems a no-brainer as to which is the path which should be taken, Anarchy has yet to offer a viable transitional model through which such a society would come about. Marx at least offered something.

To say that Proudhon actually formulated a Socialist Economic system is much the same as me saying I've formulated a floating city made of clouds. I can't make it, but I can tell you what it'd be like when you got there.

I believe that Marxism entails that the means of production are owned by the people, whereas Socialism implies that the means of production are owned by a state.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Marxism entails the selling and reconditioning of the said device currencies, whereas Socialism is soley found in and around production of vehicles owned by a state.