Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I'd like to add that I'm not a "pig", and I think there's more to capitalism and making the world great than "business".

You Are 44% Capitalist, 56% Socialist

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogthingsimages.com%2Fareyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz%2Fpolitics-3.jpg&hash=2db02c1d35d721c574b65bf79ff437367685c5d9)

While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.

Nothing new here... :P

The more socialism, the better...

Jenn

You Are 12% Capitalist, 88% Socialist

You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.

You Are 20% Capitalist, 80% Socialist

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogthingsimages.com%2Fareyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz%2Fpolitics-1.jpg&hash=227aab13ff5ac31501edcbc3efe4411b7daaa3bc)

You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.

Wow, do I feel out of place in this thread.  I should start my own support site for transgender capitalists - all five of us.  Even I don't like the word capitalism, though.

You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.

QuoteYou Are 12% Capitalist, 88% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.

Quote from: Katie Leah on October 19, 2008, 06:38:16 AM
Wow, do I feel out of place in this thread.  I should start my own support site for transgender capitalists - all five of us.  Even I don't like the word capitalism, though.

It's ok Katie, we still love you even though you're system is misguided.  :laugh:  Just kidding dear.  ;)

Jenn

Quote from: Katie Leah on October 19, 2008, 06:38:16 AM
Wow, do I feel out of place in this thread.  I should start my own support site for transgender capitalists - all five of us.  Even I don't like the word capitalism, though.

Actually there is one but it is women only. Just search Genderlife-sites and you will find one.

You Are 16% Capitalist, 84% Socialist
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogthings.cachefly.net%2Fareyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz%2Fpolitics-1.jpg&hash=3e9913f18472d06ee0b7c57b5154544df36af327)
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.

http://www.blogthings.com/areyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz/ (http://www.blogthings.com/areyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz/)


Anna

Capitalism and Socialism? Why does it imply that socialism and capitalism are irreconcilable? Ever heard of Clement Attlee? FDR? Modern Spain?
It irks me how people keep confusing socialism and communism too. That test looked mostly like a list of practices of laissez-faire predatory capitalism with a libertarian slant on the social side than anything else anyway.

Amusing.



You Are 16% Capitalist, 84% Socialist
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogthings.cachefly.net%2Fareyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz%2Fpolitics-1.jpg&hash=3e9913f18472d06ee0b7c57b5154544df36af327)
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.

http://www.blogthings.com/areyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz/ (http://www.blogthings.com/areyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz/)

Well, the standard definitions would lead one to think they're mutually exclusive - state control vs. private control of the the means of production.  The more of one you have, the less of the other.  I'd put Attlee and FDR at the midpoint.

Quote from: Katie Leah on October 20, 2008, 01:54:39 PM
Well, the standard definitions would lead one to think they're mutually exclusive - state control vs. private control of the the means of production.  The more of one you have, the less of the other.  I'd put Attlee and FDR at the midpoint.

Thats the point.  Communism is closer to being the opposite to Capitalism.  Socialism comes somewhere in between those extremes, where exactly depends on whos definition you use though.  But Atlee's usually regarded as socialist, at least in this part of the world.

You Are 20% Capitalist, 80% Socialist 

You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person. 
Myles

Quote from: jenny_ on October 20, 2008, 04:15:13 PM
Thats the point.  Communism is closer to being the opposite to Capitalism.  Socialism comes somewhere in between those extremes, where exactly depends on whos definition you use though.  But Atlee's usually regarded as socialist, at least in this part of the world.

Communism in theory is socialism in practice - at least on the level we're concerned with.  All the communists I've ever spoken with have been American analogues of the Fabians - advocating a transition through the existing system.  Then there's the fact that actual communism, with compete abolition of private property and the absence of a state, has never existed on a scale relevant to political economy.  If that's the standard, it's damn hard to reach.

Quote from: Katie Leah on October 20, 2008, 05:49:04 PM
Then there's the fact that actual communism, with compete abolition of private property and the absence of a state, has never existed on a scale relevant to political economy.  If that's the standard, it's damn hard to reach.

I have to agree that a true state of Communism is hard to reach.  However, I'm fairly certain that Karl Marx never advocated for the abolishment of personal property entirely.  It seems perfectly reasonable to me that personal property can exist within a communist society, so long as everyone has a fair share.  We don't all have to be John/Jane Doe's, individuality can still exist and so can personal property.

Now, here's an interesting conversation I had with my aunt recently:

Me (fairly liberal): "Explain to me how trickle down economics works, if all the people at the top hang onto their money and don't share it."
Her (fairly conservative): "Well, first explain to me how trickle-up economics work, if all the people at the bottom have no money."

:o ???

Jenn

Quote from: fae_reborn on October 20, 2008, 07:28:03 PM
I have to agree that a true state of Communism is hard to reach.  However, I'm fairly certain that Karl Marx never advocated for the abolishment of personal property entirely.  It seems perfectly reasonable to me that personal property can exist within a communist society, so long as everyone has a fair share.  We don't all have to be John/Jane Doe's, individuality can still exist and so can personal property.

I'm pretty sure that he did, but don't quote me on that.  Regardless, property implies usufruct, which communism abhors.  Communism supports only the right of possession.  You can have a car of your own, and defend it from theft, but you can't lend it to someone legally.  It just becomes theirs when you give it over, and they can choose not to give it back.  Whether or not it's workable, it's not personal property as we understand it.

Posted on: October 20, 2008, 09:34:09 pm

---

Let me add that I've got no problem with consensual communism.  That is, people can join and leave whenever they want, taking with them an appropriate share of the common wealth (probably determined by consensus or democratic vote).

Then I guess I'm not a communist, just a well-to-do socialist who wants to keep her personal property, but also wants everyone to have their own and the basic needs for survival.

Jenn

I would make a great Central European style Democratic Socialist.  Unfortunately, I live in the United States.

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. " - John Maynard Keynes

If you think FDR was a socialist, it just shows how far to the right this country has drifted.

FDR wasn't so much a socialist as he was a fascist - in the literal, policy sense of the word.  It was all the rage at the time.  If anyone is offended by that, I'd like to point out that it wasn't always a dirty word associated with death camps.

And Keynes, oddly enough, is usually considered a capitalist.

Quote from: Katie Leah on October 21, 2008, 09:33:27 PM
FDR wasn't so much a socialist as he was a fascist - in the literal, policy sense of the word.  It was all the rage at the time.  If anyone is offended by that, I'd like to point out that it wasn't always a dirty word associated with death camps.

And Keynes, oddly enough, is usually considered a capitalist.

Well, I hadn't thought of FDR as a fascist but now that you mention it, the New Deal and FDR's leadership do meet many of the requirements of a fascist regime.  The USA is still intensly nationalistic.  The Cult of the Flag for example.  But he was a good kind of fascist...unless you hapen to have Japanese ancestry or the misfortune to be African American.

Keynes was indeed a capitalist, though he didn't seem very enthusiastic about it.  None the less, management of aggregate demand and employments/inflation are the foundations of modern state economic management despite the protests of the poor souls living in Chicago.

Our economic system is based on the theories of a wealthy Caucasian closeted gay male eugenicist renowned for claiming, "In the long run, we're all dead."  That sounds just like the Republicans of today. :P

Quote from: Katie Leah on October 21, 2008, 09:33:27 PM
And Keynes, oddly enough, is usually considered a capitalist.

He wasn't a very good one then!  He believed state interference was necessay in the market.  And supported protectionism, and hated laissez-faire capitalism.  Supported redistribution of wealth. Doesn't sound very capitalist to me.

He's usually considered a social liberal in Europe.  And he's surely not as capitialist as Friedmann say?

Quote from: jenny_ on October 22, 2008, 04:33:03 PM

Quote from: Katie Leah on October 21, 2008, 09:33:27 PM
And Keynes, oddly enough, is usually considered a capitalist.

He wasn't a very good one then!  He believed state interference was necessay in the market.  And supported protectionism, and hated laissez-faire capitalism.  Supported redistribution of wealth. Doesn't sound very capitalist to me.

He's usually considered a social liberal in Europe.  And he's surely not as capitialist as Friedmann say?

Keynes advocated demand management in the face of deep depression.  Deficit spending by government to boost aggregate demand was the specific remedy.  He posited that there was a liquidity trap, that in depressed economies the normal market stimulus provided by falling interest rates would not spur business investment and hence economic growth.  He never advocated micromanagement of normaly functioning economies.  That came from people that followed.

Friedman always struck me as the protypical economic theorist railing at tempests over the failure of reality to conform to theory.

Quote from: jenny_ on October 22, 2008, 04:33:03 PM

Quote from: Katie Leah on October 21, 2008, 09:33:27 PM
And Keynes, oddly enough, is usually considered a capitalist.

He wasn't a very good one then!  He believed state interference was necessay in the market.  And supported protectionism, and hated laissez-faire capitalism.  Supported redistribution of wealth. Doesn't sound very capitalist to me.

He's usually considered a social liberal in Europe.  And he's surely not as capitialist as Friedmann say?

No, Keynes wasn't a very good capitalist.  Friedman wasn't perfect, but he was a lot better than Keynes.  To my knowledge, no one's ever used Friedman's theories to justify creating countless billions of dollars out of thin air to give people who are already wealthy.  Or using the counterfeit money to pay for endless wars.  Or dumping it out of helicopters.  Or burning crops in the field and killing cattle and leaving them to rot - while people go hungry.  The list of crimes that can be laid at Keynes' door goes on and on.  God only knows why liberals and social democrats would want to claim him for their own.

Katie:

Interestingly, western political thought has evolved since the 1930s and I don't think anyone that calls themselves a socialist nowadays is interested in achieving a communist state. Those people call themselves 'communists'. A socialist state in the modern sense is a mixed economy, a social democracy for a common good. That socialism implies communism is as wrong as saying that capitalism implies plutocracy.


FDR the fascist:
Hmmm... I don't know that FDR could be called "fascist". It's certainly not fascist in the pro-corporation, autocratic, cult of personality sense of Mussolini which was the original sense (ie before the "death camps"). I think that there's a nationalistic, populist element in 1930s politics that permeated different stripes and different ideologies but that wasn't the province of fascism only.

Quote from: Katie Leah on October 22, 2008, 09:58:24 PM

Quote from: jenny_ on October 22, 2008, 04:33:03 PM

Quote from: Katie Leah on October 21, 2008, 09:33:27 PM
And Keynes, oddly enough, is usually considered a capitalist.

He wasn't a very good one then!  He believed state interference was necessay in the market.  And supported protectionism, and hated laissez-faire capitalism.  Supported redistribution of wealth. Doesn't sound very capitalist to me.

He's usually considered a social liberal in Europe.  And he's surely not as capitialist as Friedmann say?

No, Keynes wasn't a very good capitalist.  Friedman wasn't perfect, but he was a lot better than Keynes.  To my knowledge, no one's ever used Friedman's theories to justify creating countless billions of dollars out of thin air to give people who are already wealthy.  Or using the counterfeit money to pay for endless wars.  Or dumping it out of helicopters.  Or burning crops in the field and killing cattle and leaving them to rot - while people go hungry.  The list of crimes that can be laid at Keynes' door goes on and on.  God only knows why liberals and social democrats would want to claim him for their own.

Keynes isn't guilty of any of those thingd you accuse him of.  Fiat money originated in the 19th century before he was born.  Personally I see no reason why economic management should be constrained by the value of a precious metal who's value is derived by it fascination for savages.  At any rate fiat money dominance begins in the Bretton Woods System created in the waning days of WWII and whose chief proponent was Cordell Hull.  That system collapsed in 1972, 25 years after Keynes' death.  Helicopters really weren't of much use until the turbine engine came about, again post-mortom.  Agricultural subsidies were a product of FDR's administration.  You may recall that Lord Keynes was English.

Yes, Keynes was British, and no, he didn't personally advocate any of the actions I described.  Nor was he the originator of fiat currency.  However, his theories were the basis for all of the above actions.  Keynes is the father of economics, and governmental economic intervention, in America.

Although Keynes did believe that governments should only run the presses during periods of recession, and slacken the expansion as things picked up again, he should have realized that he was asking an unreasonable amount of self-control from the people running the press.  The incentives are all for printing as much money as you can get away with, and Keynes provided a framework and moral justification for it.  As for destroying goods, that's directly in line with his ideas about demand being the determining factor in economic health, and -- assuming his demand-side theories are correct -- is an effective way to combat a depression.

I happen to be an advocate of Say's Law, so I disagree with those policies, and Keynes' ideas in general.

Posted on: October 27, 2008, 12:05:42 am

---

Quote from: soldierjane on October 25, 2008, 12:19:25 PM
Katie:

Interestingly, western political thought has evolved since the 1930s and I don't think anyone that calls themselves a socialist nowadays is interested in achieving a communist state. Those people call themselves 'communists'. A socialist state in the modern sense is a mixed economy, a social democracy for a common good. That socialism implies communism is as wrong as saying that capitalism implies plutocracy.


FDR the fascist:
Hmmm... I don't know that FDR could be called "fascist". It's certainly not fascist in the pro-corporation, autocratic, cult of personality sense of Mussolini which was the original sense (ie before the "death camps"). I think that there's a nationalistic, populist element in 1930s politics that permeated different stripes and different ideologies but that wasn't the province of fascism only.

I'm not sure where I said that socialism = communism.  If I didn't, then I'm sorry if I seemed to imply it.  It was Marx who believed socialism to be a stage between capitalism and communism, but socialism is older than Marx and most socialists aren't Marxists.

As for FDR...  the New Deal was extremely pro-corporate, in the same sense in which fascism was pro-corporate.  The "corporate" part of fascism doesn't refer to business per se, but to corporations in the strict legal sense.  That includes includes unions and many social organizations, in addition to businesses.  We tend to think of fascism as being "pro-business" but that's not actually part of the philosophy.  As envisioned by Mussolini, it was about building unity and power by co-opting all existing groups, economic and social, into the state.

You Are 52% Capitalist, 48% Socialist

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogthingsimages.com%2Fareyouasocialistorcapitalistquiz%2Fpolitics-3.jpg&hash=2db02c1d35d721c574b65bf79ff437367685c5d9)

While you are definitely sympathetic to a free economy, you also worry about the less fortunate.
Wealth and business is fine, as long as those who are in need get helped out too.
You tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.

QuoteYou tend to see both the government and corporations as potentially corrupt.

Oh yeah I do!

You Are 8% Capitalist, 92% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.

Yowza!  This thread is a year old! :)

I've done a heel face turn on political economy in the last year, so now...

You Are 28% Capitalist, 72% Socialist
You tend to be quite wary of businesses, especially big business.
While you know that corporations have their place, you tend to support small, locally owned shops.
As far as the rich go, you think they're usually corrupt and immoral.

You Are 20% Capitalist, 80% Socialist
You see a lot of injustice in the world, and you'd like to see it fixed.
As far as you're concerned, all the wrong people have the power.
You're strongly in favor of the redistribution of wealth - and more protection for the average person.