I had a breakthrough tonight.

i get frustrated when I discuss economic philosophy with Democrats. Something always feels 'wrong' about it.
I can talk to a libertarian or a republican and feel pretty certain that we'll have some common understandings in theory even if we don't agree on all the specifics, but an economic discussion with a Democrat always devolves into something else and I could never figure out why. It's not a simple difference of opinion, it's like I'm talking English and they're all speaking French.

No comprende.

And that's my breakthrough. Republicans and Libertarians think of economic plans in terms of maximizing the flow of money. Money is first.
Democrats on the other hand aren't really talking about money even when money is the topic. It's always about social issues as related to money. Money is secondary. It's just that 'thing' that you need to have.

And I've been wondering if the same thing can be said of socialism. Is socialism a true economic system (implying that the effectiveness of said economy is address) or is socialism more of a 'social system with an economic aspect to it'?
A fine line but I think it's an important distinction.

Here's your problem. You're not listening when you speak to a Democrat. You're filtering everything through your own prejudices and so you feel uneasy. It's an emotional and not an intellectual response. I'm not having a go at you because I feel the same way when I speak with supporters of capitalism. I have to check myself and not respond emotionally.

You've probably identified something important though. I do get the feeling that for supporters of capitalism, the point is individual acqusition of wealth. For socialists the point is social wellbeing. Now let me quickly add that I don't always think supporters of capitalism feel that it's a dog eat dog world, although some obviously do. I do accept that many of them actually do believe that capitalism is good for humanity. And on balance it has been.
But it has now reached its use by date. It's doing more harm than good.

Interesting distinctions there in the nature of socialism. I think, in keeping with its inventors, it's a social theory first but an economic theory second. Marx himself observed that social relations were described by economic relations. To get to the point, I think socialists see the economy as serving society and not the other way around.

I know that's problematic but I'll leave my comments there.
__________________

I would say it is a social system with economic aspects. Great thread, I'll wait for some more opinions to get into it more.

I'd agree with that analysis, although I can see free market capitalists' side. They oppose the current tyranny promoted by corporatism, which they regard as fundamentally different than free market capitalism. I do feel as though capitalists often can't recognize my position as a socialist though, and assume that the only forms of socialism are authoritarian ones. For instance, someone will probably quote this and make a stupid and inane remark about how socialism can't be anything other than authoritarian.

I feel as though Americans have been horribly deceived when they believe that anarchism means a social Darwinist society without rules or laws, communism means an authoritarian society in the manner of the Soviet Union, and libertarian socialism is a nonsensical oxymoron, when that is instead true of "libertarian" capitalism.

mral wrote:i get frustrated when I discuss economic philosophy with Democrats. Something always feels 'wrong' about it.
I can talk to a libertarian or a republican and feel pretty certain that we'll have some common understandings in theory even if we don't agree on all the specifics, but an economic discussion with a Democrat always devolves into something else and I could never figure out why. It's not a simple difference of opinion, it's like I'm talking English and they're all speaking French.

No comprende.

And that's my breakthrough. Republicans and Libertarians think of economic plans in terms of maximizing the flow of money. Money is first.
Democrats on the other hand aren't really talking about money even when money is the topic. It's always about social issues as related to money. Money is secondary. It's just that 'thing' that you need to have.

And I've been wondering if the same thing can be said of socialism. Is socialism a true economic system (implying that the effectiveness of said economy is address) or is socialism more of a 'social system with an economic aspect to it'?
A fine line but I think it's an important distinction.

Good guess, I have one for you... Most of the people working for the government couldn't make it in the private sector so they took government jobs. Years ago when I worked in construction we'd have inspectors come around and do what they do, inspect OUR work so we could continue and make sure he work was up to code. Every last one of these inspectors was formerly a contractor who went bankrupt or went out of business. We would intentionally leave a nail out on sheetrock or a shear panel right where they could see it, just so they'd feel like they were better than us by telling us of our "mistake". Idiots!

They don't understand the flow of currency and/or how to generate revenue. Economic Cripples!
__________________

Money is simply a matter of paper printing, the true strength of an economy is in the volume of production standing behind it. Biggest problem with the American economy has been in the decline of manufacturing and our national industry, which was largely outsourced during the deregulation period. We need to hack the tariffs and quotas back up at least until we can re-develop some serious heavy industry, and move our economy away from expensive consumption (which puts us in too much debt) and make us into a productive economy.