Originally posted by rwingett
Social liberalism is a political approach toward solving economic problems. Mutualism is an economic approach toward solving economic problems. Guess which is the more direct approach? Besides, there is no contradiction between the two. You could have Mutualism, or worker owned cooperatives, within a social liberal political framework.

Sure, but I'm not convinced about its benefits. Will it really increase the productivity of workers? It seems to be that it would just reduce the flexibility of the workforce and of the assets in the free market.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No - but more so than in any other part of the world. Even with a perfect political/economic system, cultural effects will stop true equality of opportunity.

Your belief in "social liberalism" belongs in Spirituality.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your belief in "social liberalism" belongs in Spirituality.

How so?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Social liberalism is currently implemented in large parts of Europe.

It can't be said that any system works, just because it is implemented, supported by the State by force, and hasn't collapsed in chaos yet.

On that basis, Leninism "worked", and Stalinism "worked". If eliminating an upper class is the goal, collectivism "works". If the goal is prosperity for the worker, it doesn't.

Mutualism is an interesting concept. As long as it is voluntary, doesn't involve Statist force, or criminal fraud, mutualism is totally at harmony with capitalism. The corporate structure is ultimately "mutualism" except that as the corporation grows, the entity most often ignores the shareholders.

Cooperative effort is always a good thing, so long as it is voluntary on the part of those participating. When it is not, it is at least partially slavery.

The Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, the Fascist Corporatism of Americas, and the social democracies all rely on the force and power of the State to exact the "cooperative effort" of the people. Some of the people volunteer, and for a while it becomes populist due to the promised benefits, which inevitably dry up or fall short of promises, while taxation, regulation, and limitations on liberty and choice grow.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How so?

Because it's an irrational belief system impervious to testing by reality. That present social systems anywhere in Europe provide anything like "equality of opportunity" is a fantasy. What do you think of this article:

In Groningen, a special van-taxi takes University and City personnel to work. Unemployed from the job pool act as chauffeur, for these "high-income, central-urban employees". In Maastricht the Local Economic Development Corporation recruited 4 people "from the bottom of the labour market", as shoeshiners. In Amsterdam, employment agency Randstad built a replica of a 1854 clipper sailing ship: 450 young unemployed did the work. Randstad and Amsterdam City council now use the ship, for receptions and business presentations. (When budget cuts threatened this workfare project in 2003 , the chair of the Amsterdam Labour Party asked to keep it, to "put the [expletive deleted] Moroccans on this ship and keelhaul them if they cause trouble"😉.

Besides these examples, thousands already work as street-cleaners, car-park attendants, hospital cleaners, and so on. At most they are paid slightly more than unemployment benefit. All the jobs share one characteristic: the unemployed will never have the income and social status, of the people they serve. They will never have the money to hire a sailing clipper: they will never be a Professor at Groningen University. Almost certainly, neither will their children.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/new.ineq.html

Originally posted by scherzo
Under Hugo Chavez, yes.

All forms of collectivism ultimately fail when they run out of other people's money to spend, and the lack of individual incentives produces stagnation and lack of productivity.

N. Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and soon to follow Venezuala. Hugo Chavez will soon run out of the oil money he stole from the companies which explored, drilled and extracted.

Even in the short term, none of these "Leninist paradises" ever were the utopian worker paradises promised. And Leninism lead directly to Stalinism.

Originally posted by normbenign
All forms of collectivism ultimately fail when they run out of other people's money to spend, and the lack of individual incentives produces stagnation and lack of productivity.

N. Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and soon to follow Venezuala. Hugo Chavez will soon run out of the oil money he stole from the companies which explored, drilled and extracted.

Ev ...[text shortened]... s" ever were the utopian worker paradises promised. And Leninism lead directly to Stalinism.

Not necessarily. Cuba's doing remarkably well despite devastating sanctions.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Sure, but I'm not convinced about its benefits. Will it really increase the productivity of workers? It seems to be that it would just reduce the flexibility of the workforce and of the assets in the free market.

Individual incentives are the only thing know to increase productivity.

Originally posted by scherzo
Not necessarily. Cuba's doing remarkably well despite devastating sanctions.

Cuba is doing well? Lack of trade with the US is devastating? Cuba trades freely with most of the rest of the world, but it's economy doesn't produce anything, not even it's cigars are as good as pre Castro.

If Cuba were such a shining light, there might be people trying to sail small boats from Florida to Cuba instead of the other way around. Cuba has universal health care, free education, and universal poverty, and universal substandard housing. And if you verbally disagree with the government you can be shot.

Originally posted by normbenign
All forms of collectivism ultimately fail when they run out of other people's money to spend, and the lack of individual incentives produces stagnation and lack of productivity.

N. Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and soon to follow Venezuala. Hugo Chavez will soon run out of the oil money he stole from the companies which explored, drilled and extracted.

Ev s" ever were the utopian worker paradises promised. And Leninism lead directly to Stalinism.

The oil in Venezuela does now, and always has, belonged to the Venezuelan people. The oil companies got paid for the oil they extracted.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because it's an irrational belief system impervious to testing by reality. That present social systems anywhere in Europe provide anything like "equality of opportunity" is a fantasy. What do you think of this article:

In Groningen, a special van-taxi takes University and City personnel to work. Unemployed from the job pool act as chauf ...[text shortened]... either will their children.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/new.ineq.html

You need to get out more. Experience things yourself rather than looking for articles that back up your gut feeling.

Your article here covers a tiny dot in an enormously complex and historical environment.

Originally posted by Wheely
You need to get out more. Experience things yourself rather than looking for articles that back up your gut feeling.

Your article here covers a tiny dot in an enormously complex and historical environment.

Why is it that so many people on these forums feel a need to personalize issues on a constant basis?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because it's an irrational belief system impervious to testing by reality. That present social systems anywhere in Europe provide anything like "equality of opportunity" is a fantasy. What do you think of this article:

In Groningen, a special van-taxi takes University and City personnel to work. Unemployed from the job pool act as chauf either will their children.

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/new.ineq.html

Unemployment benefits provide for a reasonable standard of living in Holland - having more than unemployment benefits will surely. (I'm not sure what the figure is, but I think it's something like $750 per month for a family)

The unemployed get health insurance for about $40 per month. Children are insured for free.

Universities are heavily subsidized and parents don't need to chip in.

Children of the unemployed, cleaners etc. will most likely not turn out to be professors at Groningen University. But that's not because they don't have the opportunity. Partly, it's because schools in lower class areas tend to be of lower quality (not anywhere near the differences of the US though). But mostly, it's because these children aren't raised in an environment where they are encouraged to perform well in school.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Unemployment benefits provide for a reasonable standard of living in Holland - having more than unemployment benefits will surely. (I'm not sure what the figure is, but I think it's something like $750 per month for a family)

The unemployed get health insurance for about $40 per month. Children are insured for free.

Universities are heavily subsid ren aren't raised in an environment where they are encouraged to perform well in school.

$750 per month is a "reasonable standard of living" for a family? The minimum wage in NY is $7.15 an hour which averages out to $1230 a month for a full time worker. And the cost of living in Amersterdam is only marginally lower than NYC.http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm

Your last statement is borderline racist or at the least bigoted.

Originally posted by no1marauder
$750 per month is a "reasonable standard of living" for a family?

Your last statement is borderline racist or at the least bigoted.

Well it's not luxurious, but it's enough to live from.

And my last statement is neither racist (since I wasn't referring to any race) nor bigoted - higher educated people tend to encourage their children more to get high educations themselves. How is that controversial?