The much talked about Redistributor in Chief took place in 1981 when Reagan took the progressive tax structure on the wealthy from 70% down to 28%, the inevitable consequence of which simply brought into reality the adage the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The additional bonus was the rise in numerous tax shelters to the point that true earnings were distorted. and to rub it in, investors looked to cheap foreign labor to enrich themselves further. Meanwhile in Washington union busting prevailed and living wages began to tank, roiling redistribution even more .
Yap, which is exactly why wealth redistribution is wrong.
In a non free society with slavery, serfdom, caste system, etc. You have the rich being parasites, people who were born into nobility and who take wealth from the poor, making EVERYONE poorer, but ensuring they are the relative rich rather then the relative poor. That is a perfect example of wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich. Communism and socialism is wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. Both are catastrophic.
I am good enough at math to know exactly how much money I am making my employer, and often times it is indeed several times what he pays me. But it is a mutally beneficial relationship, I can and I HAVE left jobs before. I quite and found another job, since I live in a free society nothing prevents me from doing so, which is why the so called "rich" are not parasites exploiting me.
Can you please provide an example where minimum wage can prevent exploitation (not already covered by other laws, such as employing illigal immigrants, etc)?
Must have missed where I said that when Karl lived. Last I checked he was dead, and wrote the communist manifesto back in the 19th century. But then I am not the one saying that the UK is 2 centuries behind the times.
UK is still a monarchy. Since 1689 the sovereignty lies into the hands of the parliament so when you call the England of the 19th century a feudal state it still is, quite easy.
I suggest you look up what defines a feudal state before saying it was one.
UK is still a monarchy. Since 1689 the sovereignty lies into the hands of the parliament
The Queen, Sovereign of the United Kingddom and her other Dominions, will be very surprised to hear about that.
INO. If you want to compare 21st century UK with 19th century Uk (which BTW had slavery) go ahead. But in the 19th century, it was moving out of the "king is all" (it was after all only 24 years earlier when the US revolted and formed a new nation - totally unheard of at the time). Quite simply, while it is not a true MOnarchy in the sense of the Royalty dictate all (they still have power - just not as much), it had, has and always will have a royalty that America has never experienced (much to Hillary Clinton's chagrin). And that was what Karl Marx was writing about.
At the time of his writing, many European nations were entering the Industrial revolution where the "serfs" were taken off the farms and put in factories in what by any modern comparison was deplorable conditions. And that was a great influence on his writings and why he saw things like the Russian Revolution occuring (that of course was corrupted by the fact that man is not perfect). Indeed, many european countries still have a monarchy - in name only.
But england was a feudal state. It is not now, it is socialist. But it was during most of the 19th century. I know what it is. I am not ignorany of European history like many Americans. I have lived it - and may have stared across the wall at you back about 40 years ago. (If you are that old).
But all this is getting away from the point. Marx and Engels did not conceive of a peaceful transition to a non-royalty society, because they had no conception of it. America was still a very backward nation that was struggling with its own self doubts (the Civil War), and they (Marx and Engels) were immersed inthe fiefdoms of europe and what they saw as the "exploitation" of the masses by royalty. NOt of the masses running the show. A shame really. If they had been born in the US, the world may never have had the stain of communism (but I am sure there would still be enough generic dictators to take the place of the faux communist).
just because she is called "Sovereign" doesn't mean she is in possesion of the sovereignty. Someone who is Emperor by By the Grace of God very likely wasn't really appointed by God either.
Sure she is formal the head of the state she has no large legislative or executive force (okay she can dissolve the parliament but you know very well that this would be the end of the british monarchy if she abuses this.
I am not argueing that Marx wasn't influenced by the late-feudal countries in Europe, but England definitely wasn't feudal.
There was no serfdom, no supreme rule by landowners or kings, the bill of rights granted them rights like bearing own weapons, no punishment without a trial, freedom to elect a parliament, freedom from cruel punishments.
That is no feudal society at all.
And nowadays UK is not socialist: the means of production are in personal hands and the national income isn't collected and made equally available to everyone. What makes UK socialist? UK is a social market democracy (you know there is grey not just black and white).
I guess if it wasn't for Marx and Engels which became so popular with communism either someone else would have turned up or some other guy who had same ideas would have become the idol of communism, maybe even Thomas Morus
1800 = 19th centure. You start counting centures at 1, not at 0.
The only real communism humanity has ever had were small communities, like the quaker villages, the mayflower compact and the kibutzes in israel, actually often settlers / fledgeling nations start with communist villages, and when they grow large enough they transition to capitalism.
Russia was NEVER communist, it had money from begining to end. It had horrible brutal dictators and it stripped the riches of everyone but the military and the politicians, but while doctors and engineers were made as poor as anyone else, the ruling class was rich, with money, not just servants, and material goods.
Crazy dictators often used revolutions to try to gain power, it is the most common form of coup detant there is. Heck in england they still learn of cromwell.
But that is not to say that communism/socialism on a larger scale (once you move beyond the "several dozen to hundred people desperately trying to survive) is completely impracticle and repungant.
I don't see who used it wrong honestly.
just because she is called "Sovereign" doesn't mean she is in possesion of the sovereignty.
(Confused because it seems obvious.) Yes, it does. That's exactly what "sovereign" means.
Someone who is Emperor by By the Grace of God very likely wasn't really appointed by God either.
Possibly not, but by law subjects were supposed to see it that way.
Law doesn't necessarily reflect objective reality. Smoking pot is illegal but I don't think it should be.
Leauki, Sovereignty is usually defined by having the legislative and executive power (or at least most of it) and while the queen has to sign laws she has no real legislative and executive power at all. The Sovereign in UK is all their citizen which are represented by their parliament.
superamus = above anything/everyone
Maybe anglo-saxon definitions are a bit different from what we consider sovereign in germany though.
You should watch Yes Minister more often. The show explains it well.
UK citizens are NOT the sovereign. The Queen is.
You are confusing a kingdom with a republic or possibly the UK with Germany (which is a republic).
Leauki, how much power has the queen and how much power have the citizen via their representation by parliament?
(I admit that this might be a bit of a pragmatic definition of sovereignty but a sovereign monarch is a absolut one, not one who is just monarch because of tradition)
And I never said the citizen are "The Sovereign" just that they possess the sovereignty.
Edit: actually I did, my bad. The Sovereign per definition is the Queen yes.
Edit2:
Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law.
source : http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/sovereignty.cfm
The queen can veto any act of parliament she disagrees with. In practice if she did that she'd likely be overthrown, but in theory the power is still there.
The order of a bill(law) is: House of Commons (made up fully of elected members) proposes the bill, it gets scrutinised etc., then they have a vote on it. If successful, it goes to the house of laws (not fully elected) which might veto it, and/or propose amendments. If they veto it it goes back to the house of commons who vote on those amendments, and then it goes back to the lords etc., if the lords continue to veto it then the house of commons can use the parliament act to force the bill through the lords without their consent. The final stage is royal assent where basically the queen signs it off. Hence citizens representation is predominantly through the house of commons (with only partial representation in the house of lords). The queens only (legislative) power is via her ability to refuse to sign/agree to the relevant legislation.
"Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. "
You are confusing type of sovereignty with who owns the sovreignty.
The Queen is the sovereign and soverignty is hers. The fact that she happened to decide that her sovreignty is parliamentary and that she makes parliament come up with all the laws doesn't change that fact.
In Germany the people are the sovereign. Nevertheless, sovereignty in Germany is parliamentary. The German Bundestag (and Bundesrat) make the laws, but they are NOT the sovereign of Germany; the people are the sovereign.
In both cases parliament is the tool used by the sovereign. But in the UK the sovereign is the monarch and in Germany (and the US) the sovereign is the people.
In our prayer books which we import from England (obviously), there is a prayer for the Queen/King and her Prime Minister and his cabinet. We have a card glued to the cover of the book that replaces the prayer with one for the President and the Taoiseach. The president in a republic represents the people and the people are the sovereign. In a monarchy the monarch either represents himself/herself or has a Governor General. (A president might also have a governor general, of course.)
I really would like to see what happens if the Queen decides to remove the sovereignty from the parliament
real sovereignty means factual power not being in possession of some theoretical power.
"The fact that she happened to decide that her sovreignty is parliamentary"
parliament gets elected by the people so they are the de-facto in possession of this sovereignty not the queen (she has one vote in the election like all others have as well)
That is the 19th century. And Marx grew up with it. People often forget that the years with the biggest impact on your life are the early ones as they seem to lasted the longest. 15 years is a life time to a teenager.
England was indeed feudal. WHen it stopped being feudal is open to interpretation, but the fact that it was is not.
Uh, that was Ameican, not English. And if you are referring to the Magna Carta, that applied to nobility only.
YOu are confusing Communism with Socialism. England is not a pure socialist society (that does not exist), but it is mainly socialist.
it was english, stop trying to make a fool of me:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp
(and don't try to seriously tell me you don't know the english bill of rights of 1689 which heavily influenced most modern constitutions)
Could you please give some examples why UK was a feudal society in the 19th century
Could you please give some examples why UK nowadays is "mainly" socialist.
I guess it comes down to the problem that you totally changed the meaning of "socialist" as most americans have changed the original meaning of "liberal".
No, it seems you have changed the meaning. YOur meaning is what is defined as communism, not socialism. There is a big difference. Socialism does not own all the means of production, just that it makes sure there is a cradle to grave caring for all its citizens. Communism owns all means of production and then gives to the people.
If you want examples of socialism in England, I only have to point you to rent control, guaranteed housing, Universal health care, retirement - all owned and run by the government.
Feudalism? Again, who owned the land (the potatoe famine - remember it? It was in all the papers)? The royalty. The serfs merely worked it. Clearly either we do not agree what feudalism is, or you are missing points in history.
That is what I thought, but then I was pointed out that according to the dictionary, socialism IS a system where the government owns all the means of production. Socialism was a trasition stage towards communism. Soviet russia was a socialist state that claimed to one day become communist, but never made good on that promise.
What we have are mixed systems, those countries have a lot more socialism in their socialism/capitalism hybrid. Which by popular definition is called socialism (where total socialism is called communism by popular definition, despite there never being a communist country)
"Will we still have paper money under communism?"
"No, none of that either."
Taltamir,
According to Marxist philosophy socialism is state control of the means of production and communism is the ideal that is thought to derive from it.
But since Marx' time many socialists have changed their views. The world's most influential non-communist socialist party, the German SPD (Social Democratic Party of Deutschland) advocates a mixed system with some socialism (health care, key industries etc.) and some controlled capitalism. Traditionally the SPD has been almost violently anti-communist, but that has changed in recent years*.
A socialist country is not only a country in which the state owns the means of production but also one where the state CAN take such control if it is deemed necessary. Western Europe's socialist countries have capitalism because the government allows it, not because it's the basic system.
Notes:
*In the German state Hesse two weeks ago the SPD candidate for prime minister failed to get elected with the votes of SPD, Green Party, and the communists (which she tried to despite the fact that she promised before the elections that she wouldn't use communist votes). The reason she failed was that four of her MPs, known traditional Social Democrats refused to vote with the communists in parliament. The four MPs cited the promise to the voters, the history of the communist party, Social Democratic ideals, and concerns about employment numbers as their reasons.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
