Capitalism vs Socialism

[DAF86]

Why is this still an issue in the year two thousand and fucking twenty? :lol

By now everybody should already know that neither system can work on its own. When was the last time a 100% Capitalist system or a 100% Socialist system was implemented with success? Have they ever?

Extremists on both sides need to stop living on the stone age and get with the times to help society progress, tbh. I can't believe the Libertarian party is something that people still find cool :drunk

The only viable economic system in the World is a mixed one and, sorry anarchist lovers but, the only way to have an efficient mixed economy is with an intellegent and alert government that knows when, where and how to intervene. These "when", "how" and "where" depend on the particular circumstances of each country or region at a specific period in time, but as a way of example, I leave you with a vídeo of one of my current favourites:

hKGwGAHznFQ

Please, do watch it if you are one of those persons that thinks that everything the government touches becomes inefficient and unsustainable. And please do it with an open mind, you might learn something and improve as an individual. Cheers, and Tim Duncan bless.

[spurraider21]

Capitalism was a massive improvement but ultimately failed to cure the underlying issues of Feudalism, massive inequality of wealth and power which is hyper concentrated at the very top.

Social democracy seeks to salvage capitalism by alleviating that issue through broader safety nets to the working class. This is effectively the Nordic model. Still capitalist, but with robust general welfare programs. And no, socialism isn’t “when the government does stuff, and the more the government does, the more socialist it is.” Socialism is where workers own the means of production, capitalism is where owners (capital) owns the means of production. You can have more or less state involvement in either system

states that have tried going full socialist thus far have generally done so via authoritarian regimes, which is typically a recipe for a failed or unstable state. They have also typically had state planned economies, which are also problematic. Socialism could still exist within free markets, basically by switching our current corporate model for worker co ops (look up Mondragon corporation in Spain)

imo social democracy is the best version we’ve seen successfully implemented. Optimized capitalism

[midnightpulp]

Yep. Democratic Socialism is the best balance we have. And fun fact, the US was actually a lot more democratically socialist when "America Was Great," that period between 1950-1970. CEO and rank file pay was closer in gap. Marginal tax rates of 70 percent on the wealthy. Social security created. Eisenhower trying to implement universal healthcare. Nixon was probably the beginning of the end. Opening up trade with China, which eventually gave corporations a cheaper manufacturing base and then Reagan finally sticking the knife into the middle class with the tax cuts and legalizing stock buy backs.

We've been an Oligarchy ever since.

[DAF86]

Capitalism was a massive improvement but ultimately failed to cure the underlying issues of Feudalism, massive inequality of wealth and power which is hyper concentrated at the very top.

Social democracy seeks to salvage capitalism by alleviating that issue through broader safety nets to the working class. This is effectively the Nordic model. Still capitalist, but with robust general welfare programs. And no, socialism isn’t “when the government does stuff, and the more the government does, the more socialist it is.” Socialism is where workers own the means of production, capitalism is where owners (capital) owns the means of production. You can have more or less state involvement in either system

states that have tried going full socialist thus far have generally done so via authoritarian regimes, which is typically a recipe for a failed or unstable state. They have also typically had state planned economies, which are also problematic. Socialism could still exist within free markets, basically by switching our current corporate model for worker co ops (look up Mondragon corporation in Spain)

imo social democracy is the best version we’ve seen successfully implemented. Optimized capitalism

Would you consider government owned means, worker/people owned means?

[spurraider21]

Would you consider government owned means, worker/people owned means?
in theory, sure. would depend on the implementation, if the government is actually aligned with the interest of the workers. that hasn't been the case historically when tried, though it's never really been democratic. i think adding that additional layer would only complicate things and give room for corruption/abuse. but this has basically been every version of attempted socialism we've seen. soviet union, venezuela, cuba, and maoist china, as examples.

even though modern china is functionally capitalist (communist in name, in the same way north korea is a "democratic republic"), they do technically have some elements of this, like having a national labor union. the problem is there is only one labor union, which is run by the government (people are not allowed to organize into separate, private unions) and the chinese government doesnt have workers interests in mind at all. they have no problem exploiting the labor of their own people to get big trade deals and concentrate power at the top, while people in poorer surrounding countries actually have better workers rights

[spurraider21]

Yep. Democratic Socialism is the best balance we have. And fun fact, the US was actually a lot more democratically socialist when "America Was Great," that period between 1950-1970. CEO and rank file pay was closer in gap. Marginal tax rates of 70 percent on the wealthy. Social security created. Eisenhower trying to implement universal healthcare. Nixon was probably the beginning of the end. Opening up trade with China, which eventually gave corporations a cheaper manufacturing base and then Reagan finally sticking the knife into the middle class with the tax cuts and legalizing stock buy backs.

We've been an Oligarchy ever since.
though unintuitive, there's actually a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. even though bernie calls himself a democratic socialist, his policy positions almost all point to social democracy.

[DAF86]

in theory, sure. would depend on the implementation, if the government is actually aligned with the interest of the workers. that hasn't been the case historically when tried, though it's never really been democratic. i think adding that additional layer would only complicate things and give room for corruption/abuse. but this has basically been every version of attempted socialism we've seen. soviet union, venezuela, cuba, and maoist china, as examples.

even though modern china is functionally capitalist (communist in name, in the same way north korea is a "democratic republic"), they do technically have some elements of this, like having a national labor union. the problem is there is only one labor union, which is run by the government (people are not allowed to organize into separate, private unions) and the chinese government doesnt have workers interests in mind at all. they have no problem exploiting the labor of their own people to get big trade deals and concentrate power at the top, while people in poorer surrounding countries actually have better workers rights

Then why would you call "Capitalist" a system that has means of production owned by, both, the workers/people and private individuals? Is there some type of one-drop rule? :lol

[spurraider21]

Then why would you call "Capitalist" a system that has means of production owned by both, the workers/people and private individuals? Is there some type of one-drop rule? :lol
huh?

capitalism is when an owner owns the business and profits off labor of his workers (ergo owns the means of production).

socialism is where the workers own the means of production. that could be the general public collectively owning the means of production (most likely state-run) or cooperatively owned among the people in the business (again, look up the mondragon corporation as a model).

either way, you dont have owners/shareholders in companies who profit off labor. the profits of the labor are filtered back to the workers

[IronMexican]

Yep. Democratic Socialism is the best balance we have

Did not know we'd agree on this issue.

Way too many people like to call themselves socialist/communist for the aesthetic and it's fucking stupid. Same shit with a lot of hate groups. Marginalized people trying to find a niche

[DAF86]

huh?

capitalism is when an owner owns the business and profits off labor of his workers (ergo owns the means of production).

socialism is where the workers own the means of production. that could be the general public collectively owning the means of production (most likely state-run) or cooperatively owned among the people in the business (again, look up the mondragon corporation as a model).

either way, you dont have owners/shareholders in companies who profit off labor. the profits of the labor are filtered back to the workers

Yes, I know of all that. I'm asking why would you call an economy that has both of those type of businesses (private owned and public owned) a "Capitalist" economy?

[TheGreatYacht]

Capitalism vs Socialism is another tactic used by the controllers (Zionists & Jewish supremacists) to divide and conquer us Goyim.

Just like they use race, LGBT, religion, gender identity, left vs right, Democrat vs Republican, etc... that's how we get divided and conquered.

[midnightpulp]

Did not know we'd agree on this issue.

Way too many people like to call themselves socialist/communist for the aesthetic and it's fucking stupid. Same shit with a lot of hate groups. Marginalized people trying to find a niche

Or we can call it the Nordic model. Basically tax the rich and upper classes more and use that revenue to pay for social services like universal healthcare, free education, mental health, social safety nets, and so on. The albatross here of course is the fuckin' military budget. Cut it in half. Conventional military is obsolete. Disinformation campaigns by Russian and probably Chinese actors through fuckin facebook and twitter have done more to harm the stability of the US than any kind of pot shot from a terrorist.

[spurraider21]

Yes, I know of all that. I'm asking why would you call an economy that has both of those type of businesses (private owned and public owned) a "Capitalist" economy?
because its on some spectrum. we have some publicly owned enterprises like the usps, etc. but a vast majority of our economic productivity is privately owned and operated. even in something like the USPS, its still not really "socialism" because the workers are still agreeing to alienate their labor for wages, not for ownership of the means of production (to speak in pure marxist terms if we are talking about academic socialism)

i think socdem is the way to go because we've actually seen it implemented as a successful model. keeps capitalism in place but artificially bridges the gap between haves and have-nots. those who want to engage in "socialism" through a worker co-op can just do so voluntarily by starting a business that way. if people start liking that, or if the modle proves successful, it can become more commonplace on its own without government force. it can still be incentivized with more favorable loan policy for startups of that nature, etc, but any kind of "forced" socialism would basically be unconstitutional because it would violate 4th amendment property rights of any company owner or shareholder

[spurraider21]

Did not know we'd agree on this issue.

Way too many people like to call themselves socialist/communist for the aesthetic and it's fucking stupid. Same shit with a lot of hate groups. Marginalized people trying to find a niche
some people call themselves socialists/communists/anarchists because thats what they believe is the optimal system, but not necessarily once which is feasibly attainable... so their "short term" aspiration might resemble social democracy more than anything, and thats how their voting would be reflected. its not like there are any actual socialist members of congress right now. democratic party right now is almost entirely neoliberal with a fringe minority being socdem. if somebody called themselves a socialist/anarchist... they're probably going to vote socdem in our current climate

[IronMexican]

The DNC is a socialist org, or that's what Fox News tells me

[IronMexican]

Or we can call it the Nordic model. Basically tax the rich and upper classes more and use that revenue to pay for social services like universal healthcare, free education, mental health, social safety nets, and so on. The albatross here of course is the fuckin' military budget. Cut it in half. Conventional military is obsolete. Disinformation campaigns by Russian and probably Chinese actors through fuckin facebook and twitter have done more to harm the stability of the US than any kind of pot shot from a terrorist.

:tu

[spurraider21]

The DNC is a socialist org, or that's what Fox News tells me
:lol tbh

Fox News thinks raising tax rates makes you socialist

[midnightpulp]

:lol tbh

Fox News thinks raising tax rates makes you socialist

Forgot about them, too in an "enemy" that causes social instability. Now their new tactic is tell their idiot viewers that if Joe Biden is elected, he'll abolish the police and ever city in America will turn into the CHAZ. Um...


“I do not support defunding police,” Biden wrote in an op-ed for USA Today. “The better answer is to give police departments the resources they need to implement meaningful reforms, and to condition other federal dollars on completing those reforms. … Every single police department should have the money they need to institute real reforms.”

https://theintercept.com/2020/06/11/defund-the-police-joe-biden-cops/

[DAF86]

because its on some spectrum. we have some publicly owned enterprises like the usps, etc. but a vast majority of our economic productivity is privately owned and operated. even in something like the USPS, its still not really "socialism" because the workers are still agreeing to alienate their labor for wages, not for ownership of the means of production (to speak in pure marxist terms if we are talking about academic socialism)

But you were talking about the Nordic model, which has a much more balanced ratio.


This is effectively the Nordic model. Still capitalist

I have a hard time calling "Capitlism" to a system where the government provides all the basic human needs and taxes you about half of your salary. I'm sure hardcore capitalists would agree with me (except the ones that one to take credit for the standard of living of these countries). Heck, some hardcore capitalists would even argue that the US doesn't have a capitalist system either, like this guy:

4HwawjSad5I

And I might tend to agree. If socialist theory is going to be quoted verbatim to determine whether a system is indeed socialist or not, then the same should be done with Capitalism. If a country isn't thought to have a socialist system because it has private businesses despite having many other socialist policies, fine (I agree actually), but it shouldn't be called a "capitalist" country either, imho.

[spurraider21]

But you were talking about the Nordic model, which has a much more balanced ratio.



I have a hard time calling "Capitlism" to a system where the government provides all the basic human needs and taxes you about half of your salary. I'm sure hardcore capitalists would agree with me (except the ones that one to take credit for the standard of living of these countries). Heck, some hardcore capitalists would even argue that the US doesn't have a capitalist system either, like this guy:

4HwawjSad5I

And I might tend to agree. If socialist theory is going to be quoted verbatim to determine whether a system is indeed socialist or not, then the same should be done with Capitalism. If a country isn't thought to have a socialist system because it has private businesses despite having many other socialist policies, fine (I agree actually), but it shouldn't be called a "capitalist" country either, imho.
if you think socialism is when the state does stuff and when the state does more stuff that makes it more socialist, then i get your perspective, but that's not necessarily how they're defined. fascist states have huge government involvement and interference in the economy but there is still corporatism and private ownership of businesses and means of production

but capitalism just means that the means of production are privately owned and owners of businesses profit off the labor of the workers. im not saying that as a good or bad thing, but thats what capitalism is. even in the nordic model with a robust social safety net, you still have private operation and ownership of businesses and people agreeing to work for wages instead of ownership of their labor.

obviously the nordic model has more has more government intervention and wealth distribution than a more laissez faire/pure libertarian model, but they both fall pretty squarely under capitalism. the "mixed economy" comes into play when more institutions are publicly run. obviously we have things like the military, public transportation, postal service that are publicly owned (though i would argue its still not really a system where the workers own the means of production, its a more abstract collectivist ownership than a cooperative one)... a more "mixed" model would just add more public institutions such as replacing private health insurance with a public one (ie medicare for all). but a vast majority of our economic productivity will always be privately owned, which is why you'd call it capitalist

capitalism and socialism really comes down to the adoption of either the exchange theory of value or the labor theory of value. in truth, both have merit and have use, but capitalists lean toward the former and socialists lean toward the latter. but it's not necessarily an all-or-nothing approach

[DAF86]

if you think socialism is when the state does stuff and when the state does more stuff that makes it more socialist, then i get your perspective, but that's not necessarily how they're defined. fascist states have huge government involvement and interference in the economy but there is still corporatism and private ownership of businesses and means of production

I don't.


but capitalism just means that the means of production are privately owned and owners of businesses profit off the labor of the workers. im not saying that as a good or bad thing, but thats what capitalism is

Sure, but what about the countries in which the means of production are divided between private and public ownership?


even in the nordic model with a robust social safety net, you still have private operation and ownership of businesses and people agreeing to work for wages instead of ownership of their labor. obviously the nordic model has more has more government intervention and wealth distribution than a more laissez faire/pure libertarian model, but they both fall pretty squarely under capitalism.

No, they don't. How can you say that a country, where the most important sectors/businesses of the economy are publicly owned and government managed, is still "capitalist" just because they have private owned businesses? Nordic countries aren't capitalists, they aren't socialists either. They are mixed. Just like pretty much every other economy in the World. Some more balanced than others, but they all have aspects of socialism and capitalism. And, under my way of seeing things, when an economy adopts policies of both systems, it stops being either to become a mixture of both. No matter if one system is predominant over the other.

[spurraider21]

I don't.
:tu


Sure, but what about the countries in which the means of production are divided between private and public ownership?
i think you'd look at the split. just about every country is mixed market to some extent, including the US, though the US would weigh more on the libertarian/laissez faire wing of capitalism while nordic model is on the more social democratic wing. i dont think you can naturally scale it up much further than the nordic model, because not every enterprise/business is better off being run by the government. some are, like utilities/healthcare/postage/emergency services. i dont think having the government taking over department stores, etc, is even remotely viable. i think if you want to take it much further left, you'd just want to incentivize worker co-ops.


No, they don't. How can you say that a country, where the most important sectors/businesses of the economy are publicly owned and government managed, is still "capitalist" just because they have private owned businesses? Nordic countries aren't capitalists, they aren't socialists either. They are mixed. Just like pretty much every other economy in the World. Some more balanced than others, but they all have aspects of socialism and capitalism. And, under my way of seeing things, when an economy adopts policies of both systems, it stops being either to become a mixture of both. No matter if one system is predominant over the other.
nordic model has about 30% of the work force working for the public sector. i dont know what the gdp breakdown is, admittedly.

[ElNono]

Then why would you call "Capitalist" a system that has means of production owned by, both, the workers/people and private individuals? Is there some type of one-drop rule? :lol

Because the system for a given country traditionally derives from what the vast majority of the economy is using.

Here in the US you have a lot of socialist systems (owned by a cooperative of people or the state), like the military, Medicare, credit unions, farming to an extent, etc, but the system is largely capitalist, and there's heavy protections towards property.

Venezuela, on the other hand, uses largely a socialist system. There's poor protection towards property (ie: property can be seized by the state in the name of the revolution), most every service in the economy is state-run, etc.

[spurraider21]

:lol how the universe ends according to...

https://preview.redd.it/17vj3gcqr1b51.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&3d727f33https://i.redd.it/17vj3gcqr1b51.png

[DAF86]

:tu


i think you'd look at the split. just about every country is mixed market to some extent, including the US, though the US would weigh more on the libertarian/laissez faire wing of capitalism while nordic model is on the more social democratic wing. i dont think you can naturally scale it up much further than the nordic model, because not every enterprise/business is better off being run by the government. some are, like utilities/healthcare/postage/emergency services. i dont think having the government taking over department stores, etc, is even remotely viable. i think if you want to take it much further left, you'd just want to incentivize worker co-ops.


nordic model has about 30% of the work force working for the public sector. i dont know what the gdp breakdown is, admittedly.

Did you see the video I posted? The most important business, the one that changed the life of the entire country, is a public Oil business that re-invested its earnings to pretty much fund everything else in the country.

[DAF86]

Because the system for a given country traditionally derives from what the vast majority of the economy is using.

Here in the US you have a lot of socialist systems (owned by a cooperative of people or the state), like the military, Medicare, credit unions, farming to an extent, etc, but the system is largely capitalist, and there's heavy protections towards property.

Venezuela, on the other hand, uses largely a socialist system. There's poor protection towards property (ie: property can be seized by the state in the name of the revolution), most every service in the economy is state-run, etc.

Good luck trying to convince orthodox capitalists that a system that taxes you over half your salary is a capitalist one.

In any case, this is just semantics. Call it capitalism, socialism, social democracy, democratic socialism or whatever you want, the truth is that for a system to be sustainable it has to take theories from both sides. Neither system on its own works.

[FrostKing]

Video illustrates the quality in Norwegian leadership.

Also the largest non-European demographic in Norway is Somilian at only 0.5%

The two largest immigrant groups are Eastern European.

[spurraider21]

Did you see the video I posted? The most important business, the one that changed the life of the entire country, is a public Oil business that re-invested its earnings to pretty much fund everything else in the country.
Yaron Brook is the chairman of the Ayn Rand institute :lol

i'm honestly not interested in hearing him talk about how glorious capitalism is for 15 minutes. can you explain what he's specifically talking about? venezuelan oil being nationalized? there's a lot there. norweigian?

[midnightpulp]

Video illustrates the quality in Norwegian leadership. Also the largest non-European demographic in Norway is Somlian at only 2%. The two largest immigrant groups are Eastern European.

has nothing to do with "race" (which is a retarded concept anyway). Social stability has everything to do with class division. Closer that division is, the better the stability. Wider it is, less stability. The US has the worst class division in the developed world and thus has the most unstable society in the developed world.

This is also why "race pimping" is a thing here. You tell the poor as shit rural white the Messicans are stealing his job, the blacks want to turn his neighbor into a haven of drug dealing, and the gays want to get rid of Jesus. What this achieves is keeping him from realizing who the actual cause of his problems are: The corporate class and their political enablers.

On the other side, rich black race pimps like Al Sharpton say, "the white man" is the cause of all their problems. Notice how they never say "rich" white man, just "white man." This ensures the poor blacks and poor rural whites stay in strife to keep either side from targeting the corporate class. Never once have I heard, say BLM, criticize the rich black class, who make their millions and millions, pay lip service to the cause by wearing an "I can't breathe" shirt and then retire to their mansions in white neighborhoods. You can sure as hell bet Jordan doesn't want to pay more taxes for social programs that help black communities.

[DAF86]

Yaron Brook is the chairman of the Ayn Rand institute :lol

i'm honestly not interested in hearing him talk about how glorious capitalism is for 15 minutes. can you explain what he's specifically talking about? venezuelan oil being nationalized? there's a lot there

I'm talking about the video I posted in the OP.

[FrostKing]

has nothing to do with "race" (which is a retarded concept anyway). Social stability has everything to do with class division. Closer that division is, the better the stability. Wider it is, less stability. The US has the worst class division in the developed world and thus has the most unstable society in the developed world.

This is also why "race pimping" is a thing here. You tell the poor as shit rural white the Messicans are stealing his job, the blacks want to turn his neighbor into a haven of drug dealing, and the gays want to get rid of Jesus. What this achieves is keeping him from realizing who the actual cause of his problems are: The corporate class and their political enablers.

On the other side, rich black race pimps like Al Sharpton say, "the white man" is the cause of all their problems. Notice how they never say "rich" white man, just "white man." This ensures the poor blacks and poor rural whites stay in strife to keep either side from targeting the corporate class. Never once have I heard, say BLM, criticize the rich black class, who make their millions and millions, pay lip service to the cause by wearing an "I can't breathe" shirt and then retire to their mansions in white neighborhoods. You can sure as hell bet Jordan doesn't want to pay more taxes for social programs that help black communities.
These are two separate discussions. How America ended up in this predicament and how to fix it. If a growing amount of people are unwilling to even unite under a national flag, I'm supposed to increase my tax contribution why?

[spurraider21]

has nothing to do with "race" (which is a retarded concept anyway). Social stability has everything to do with class division. Closer that division is, the better the stability. Wider it is, less stability. The US has the worst class division in the developed world and thus has the most unstable society in the developed world.

This is also why "race pimping" is a thing here. You tell the poor as shit rural white the Messicans are stealing his job, the blacks want to turn his neighbor into a haven of drug dealing, and the gays want to get rid of Jesus. What this achieves is keeping him from realizing who the actual cause of his problems are: The corporate class and their political enablers.

On the other side, rich black race pimps like Al Sharpton say, "the white man" is the cause of all their problems. Notice how they never say "rich" white man, just "white man." This ensures the poor blacks and poor rural whites stay in strife to keep either side from targeting the corporate class. Never once have I heard, say BLM, criticize the rich black class, who make their millions and millions, pay lip service to the cause by wearing an "I can't breathe" shirt and then retire to their mansions in white neighborhoods. You can sure as hell bet Jordan doesn't want to pay more taxes for social programs that help black communities.
i love hearing "racially homogenous" quips thrown into arguments that have nothing to do with race

funniest is when talking about something like universal health care... "sure it works in norway, but they're a small homogenous country." what the fuck does homogeneity have to do with healthcare?

[spurraider21]

I'm talking about the video I posted in the OP.
gotcha, thought you were referring to the vid in the post i had just responded to.

yes, norway/denmark/sweden have large public sectors, and are among world leaders in % of population which works for the state (around 30% each).

norway nationalized almost all their natural resources, but they've actually dealt with that responsibly unlike the government of a place like venezuela, though they are still somewhat over-reliant on those industries to fund their programs as they have the resources to get away with it. finland/sweden/denmark dont quite have the same natural resources as norway so they have a more diverse economy, making them potentially more resilient to heavy market swings.

i dont know that nationalization of industries is necessarily required to fund those kinds of social programs though. the US has a higher GDP per capita than all of those countries besides Norway, and we spend substantially more of our national budget in defense than those guys, so you could easily rearrange our spending to some degree, and increase taxes on the wealthy without the hyperbolic "omg they're going to take 80% of my paycheck" nonsense.

the whole point is to find a stable system where you aren't going to have massive portions of your population feeling like they've been left behind while the rich say "let them eat cake." i think socialist critiques of capitalism are valuable, but not necessarily all the solutions (ie it's good descriptively, not necessarily prescriptively). but you can somewhat emulate the outcomes of an imagined socialist society by maintaining a generally capitalist system, but with substantial safety nets, to sort of artificially drag the top and the bottom closer together, rather than overhauling the whole system

[midnightpulp]

These are two separate discussions. How America ended up in this predicament and how to fix it. If a growing amount of people are unwilling to even unite under a national flag, I'm supposed to increase my tax contribution why?

Here's what led us to where we are now.

- The Southern Strategy.


the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[

- The destruction of the blue collar (all races) class in Middle America via outsourcing and the Reagan tax breaks.

- Evangelicals hijacking the GOP.


"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

- The weaponization of "opinion based" news shows that seeks to create division and stoke fear. Rush Limbaugh was the watershed figure, followed by the Fox News apparatus and now the fake news propaganda being spread on social media.

The reason I left out "Liberals" in this timeline is because, yes, the American right is majority to blame. They saw their power slipping during the Civil Rights Movement, Roe vs. Wade, and the 60's counterculture movement.

BLM, SJWs, Cancel Culture is simply a reaction to the war the American Right has been waging for the last 50 or so years. Yes, these leftist groups are similarly irrational and divisive, but the American Right created the environment for their rise. For me, there's no "they're all the same." The American Right is considerably more detrimental to the US than sunken chested teenage SJWs trying to "cancel" celebrities on twitter or whatever.

[spurraider21]

The Southern Strategy.
no no thats all made up. all the people in the south magically changed from democrat to republican because they had changes in heart and completely shifted all of their political views over the course of 1 election cycle. the south instantly went from defending jim crow and resisting segregation to become republicans who dont see race while the "real racists" are everybody else

[spurraider21]

my favorite talking point in all this is

"LOL Denmark said they aren't socialist, and to stop calling them socialist"

- leftists propose policies of denmark like tuition free college and universal healthcare -

"STOP TURNING US SOCIALIST"

[SpursforSix]

i love hearing "racially homogenous" quips thrown into arguments that have nothing to do with race

funniest is when talking about something like universal health care... "sure it works in norway, but they're a small homogenous country." what the fuck does homogeneity have to do with healthcare?

It has nothing to do with race. I personally think that's a distraction. Just like the "one percent". Being in the one percent doesn't really mean anything. And to group people making $500,000 / year with billionaires is a dishonest argument imo. That on it's own isn't generational wealth. In a large % of cases, it's people who worked their ass off and now make a good living. But it's usually not something they have made their whole career and it's not something that continues on into retirement. As opposed to a billionaire who can make $10,000,000 a year in a crappy money market account.

Imo, it's the .1% vs. everyone else.

[DMC]

Capitalism was a massive improvement but ultimately failed to cure the underlying issues of Feudalism, massive inequality of wealth and power which is hyper concentrated at the very top.

Social democracy seeks to salvage capitalism by alleviating that issue through broader safety nets to the working class. This is effectively the Nordic model. Still capitalist, but with robust general welfare programs. And no, socialism isn’t “when the government does stuff, and the more the government does, the more socialist it is.” Socialism is where workers own the means of production, capitalism is where owners (capital) owns the means of production. You can have more or less state involvement in either system

states that have tried going full socialist thus far have generally done so via authoritarian regimes, which is typically a recipe for a failed or unstable state. They have also typically had state planned economies, which are also problematic. Socialism could still exist within free markets, basically by switching our current corporate model for worker co ops (look up Mondragon corporation in Spain)

imo social democracy is the best version we’ve seen successfully implemented. Optimized capitalism

Give a couple examples please

[DMC]

i love hearing "racially homogenous" quips thrown into arguments that have nothing to do with race

funniest is when talking about something like universal health care... "sure it works in norway, but they're a small homogenous country." what the fuck does homogeneity have to do with healthcare?

If you understand genetics you should know the answer to that

[spurraider21]

Give a couple examples please
we've been talking about the nordic model quite a bit. aside from them, european countries, generally, are capitalist with stronger safety nets, including varying versions of universal healthcare, and either tuition free or dirt cheap (a few hundred dollars per year) colleges.


If you understand genetics you should know the answer to that
do tell. what does having x amount of black vs white people have to do with the implementation of universal healthcare?

[FrostKing]

i love hearing "racially homogenous" quips thrown into arguments that have nothing to do with race

funniest is when talking about something like universal health care... "sure it works in norway, but they're a small homogenous country." what the fuck does homogeneity have to do with healthcare?
They don't waste time and resources on social awareness. In 2020, every aspect of American life requires atleast a reminder of social rules on basis of inclusion.

Furthermore I have a family member that works for Finnish company and he states they are incredibly transparent. This coming from a German. The Fins don't waste time on tip toeing around people's feelings. Nor would they focus on hiring one specific demographic in the name of inclusion. That's American rubbish.

[spurraider21]

They don't waste time and resources on social awareness. In 2020, every aspect of American life requires atleast a reminder of social rules on basis of inclusion.

Furthermore I have a family member that works for Finnish company and he states they are incredibly transparent. This coming from a German. The Fins don't waste time on tip toeing around people's feelings. Nor would they focus on hiring one specific demographic in the name of inclusion. That's American rubbish.
none of that has to do with healthcare

"we cant fix healthcare because there are other unrelated racial issues" doesnt fly

[BSfromTX]

G. Edward Griffin has some good videos on ideology and collectivism. As for Socialism and Capitalism, they sound great and look good on paper, but like all ideologies, they depend on a trustworthy government to administer. Powerful government and monopolization of money and credit is how these ideologies are crushed. I would be more for a socialistic system if it was national and not global and without a central bank.

[FrostKing]

Here's what led us to where we are now.

- The Southern Strategy.



- The destruction of the blue collar (all races) class in Middle America via outsourcing and the Reagan tax breaks.

- Evangelicals hijacking the GOP.



- The weaponization of "opinion based" news shows that seeks to create division and stoke fear. Rush Limbaugh was the watershed figure, followed by the Fox News apparatus and now the fake news propaganda being spread on social media.

The reason I left out "Liberals" in this timeline is because, yes, the American right is majority to blame. They saw their power slipping during the Civil Rights Movement, Roe vs. Wade, and the 60's counterculture movement.

BLM, SJWs, Cancel Culture is simply a reaction to the war the American Right has been waging for the last 50 or so years. Yes, these leftist groups are similarly irrational and divisive, but the American Right created the environment for their rise. For me, there's no "they're all the same." The American Right is considerably more detrimental to the US than sunken chested teenage SJWs trying to "cancel" celebrities on twitter or whatever.
I blame the Right for destruction of unions, importing cheap labor and allowing business to move overseas

BLM, SJW, and Cancel is social. The right has conceded every significant social issue in the past 50 years. They are fighting an invisible enemy. America is already the most socially liberal nation in the World. Until 2020, I would have agreed their damage is possibly overstated. Not sure anymore. Every industry publicly enacting affirmative action is a good thing?

[FrostKing]

.

[SnakeBoy]

my favorite talking point in all this is

"LOL Denmark said they aren't socialist, and to stop calling them socialist"

- leftists propose policies of denmark like tuition free college and universal healthcare -

"STOP TURNING US SOCIALIST"

That is a good one. On your side I like the old

Capitalism Bad
So what type of economy do you want?
Capitalism

[spurraider21]

That is a good one. On your side I like the old

Capitalism Bad
So what type of economy do you want?
Capitalism
capitalism flawed
so what do we do?
make improvements/adjustments

[ElNono]

Good luck trying to convince orthodox capitalists that a system that taxes you over half your salary is a capitalist one.

In any case, this is just semantics. Call it capitalism, socialism, social democracy, democratic socialism or whatever you want, the truth is that for a system to be sustainable it has to take theories from both sides. Neither system on its own works.

Nova Scotia currently has the highest combined top statutory marginal rate in Canada (54%), and nobody calls Canada a socialist state.

It's simply an outlier over the country's average.

[spurraider21]

Nova Scotia currently has the highest combined top statutory marginal rate in Canada (54%), and nobody calls Canada a socialist state.

It's simply an outlier over the country's average.
how much money would your income have to be for your effective tax rate to even reach 50%? people get hung up on the marginal rates way too much

[Will Hunting]

Good luck trying to convince orthodox capitalists that a system that taxes you over half your salary is a capitalist one.

In any case, this is just semantics. Call it capitalism, socialism, social democracy, democratic socialism or whatever you want, the truth is that for a system to be sustainable it has to take theories from both sides. Neither system on its own works.
A lawyer who lives in Manhattan and makes $1MM a year is certainly getting taxed at a near 50% rate when you factor in state & city income taxes. If you’re factoring in sales tax it’s easily over 50%. Does that make the US socialist?

[DAF86]

Nova Scotia currently has the highest combined top statutory marginal rate in Canada (54%), and nobody calls Canada a socialist state.

It's simply an outlier over the country's average.

Nor they shouldn't. They shouldn't call it capitalist either, but whatever.

[DAF86]

A lawyer who lives in Manhattan and makes $1MM a year is certainly getting taxed at a near 50% rate when you factor in state & city income taxes. If you’re factoring in sales tax it’s easily over 50%. Does that make the US socialist?

Nope. It's not capitalist either. That has been my point from the very beginning, tbh.

[ElNono]

how much money would your income have to be for your effective tax rate to even reach 50%? people get hung up on the marginal rates way too much

Here is the table:

https://www.taxtips.ca/taxrates/ns.htm

Looks like over $215,000 canadian dollars, eh.

[Will Hunting]

Nope. It's not capitalist either. That has been my point from the very beginning, tbh.
So then what is it if it’s not capitalist?

[spurraider21]

So then what is it if it’s not capitalist?
mixed economy... which isn't necessarily wrong. there's a spectrum between socialism and capitalism. but i would say all the countries we've been discussing are predominately capitalist, especially the US. to make that call i'd look at what% of a country's industry is private vs public. what % of the population works for the state (and thus in a publicly owned enterprise), etc. all of these countries, including norway (probably the closest to being "socialist" because their oil and a lot of natural resource production is nationalized), lean quite heavily towards capitalism.

as long as you have a system where owners of a business profit off the labor of employees, it's capitalism, no matter what the tax rates are

[Will Hunting]

mixed economy... which isn't necessarily wrong. there's a spectrum between socialism and capitalism. but i would say all the countries we've been discussing are predominately capitalist, especially the US. to make that call i'd look at what% of a country's industry is private vs public. what % of the population works for the state (and thus in a publicly owned enterprise), etc. all of these countries, including norway (probably the closest to being "socialist" because their oil and a lot of natural resource production is nationalized), lean quite heavily towards capitalism.

as long as you have a system where owners of a business profit off the labor of employees, it's capitalism, no matter what the tax rates are
Yeah we’re saying the same thing, the difference between capitalism and socialism isnt tax rates, it’s whether the means of production is owned by government or private enterprise. Even back in the 1950s when the top marginal rate was above 90%, the US was capitalist.

[DAF86]

So then what is it if it’s not capitalist?

A mixture of both because it has private owned means and public owned means.

[DMC]

Yeah we’re saying the same thing, the difference between capitalism and socialism isnt tax rates, it’s whether the means of production is owned by government or private enterprise. Even back in the 1950s when the top marginal rate was above 90%, the US was capitalist.

You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably, you’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you’re gonna be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year, you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

[spurraider21]

You just got finished reading some Marxian historian, Pete Garrison probably, you’re gonna be convinced of that until next month when you get to James Lemon, then you’re gonna be talking about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year, you’re gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin’ about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.
my boy's wicked smart

[spurraider21]

Yeah we’re saying the same thing, the difference between capitalism and socialism isnt tax rates, it’s whether the means of production is owned by government or private enterprise. Even back in the 1950s when the top marginal rate was above 90%, the US was capitalist.
more specifically, the workers (historically attempts to implement this have been through government)

[spurraider21]

this is about the level of good faith you'd expect from somebody like Musk

1287824348460593154

[ChumpDumper]

this is about the level of good faith you'd expect from somebody like Musk

1287824348460593154Dude was begging Mexicans in Del Valle for tax breaks.:lol

[Pelicans78]

Denmark uses free market principles with large safety nets for social programs. Seems to be working out well. Leads to high taxes across the board, but it can work here.

[DAF86]

Elon Musk is looking more and more like a caricature, tbh.

[Will Hunting]

this is about the level of good faith you'd expect from somebody like Musk

1287824348460593154
Yeah that’s a tweet I’d expect from an alt right type. Das Kapital was mainly focused on the negatives/flaws of capitalism, not the positives of communism. Marx in general was more focused on critiquing capitalism than propping up socialism/communism.

Hate to see it but Musk has really turned into a rich asshole.

[Will Hunting]

Dude was begging Mexicans in Del Valle for tax breaks.:lol
Not to mention that SpaceX has done plenty of suckling at the government teet :lol

[spurraider21]

Not to mention that SpaceX has done plenty of suckling at the government teet :lol
this was going viral :lol

1286031687684632577

[Will Hunting]

DP

[Will Hunting]

Forgot that one of the big reasons people lease solar panels from Tesla subsidiary SolarCity is because of the tax breaks they get for it. Without those leasing solar panels wouldn’t be economically feasible in a lot of cases.

Musk’s companies have gotten more than their fair share of corporate welfare :lol

[boutons_deux]

Trash's toady privatizing military health care

Esper eyes $2.2 billion cut to military health care

Yet defense officials say troops and their families could be hurt.

two senior defense officials say the effort has been rushed

and driven by an arbitrary cost-savings goal,

and argue that the cuts to the system will imperil the health care of millions of military personnel and their families as the nation grapples with Covid-19.

Esper and his deputies have argued that

America's private health system can pick up the slack.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/16/esper-eyes-22-billion-cut-military-health-care-395578

Esper looking for a obscenely paid VEEP of Chair Warming in a major health company?

[boutons_deux]

Socialism Is as American as Apple Pie

The ideology that Republicans love to hate is woven through the fabric of the country.


https://images.newrepublic.com/fb7dea98619cf7370757da57847bf66b22c1e124.jpeg?auto =compress&w=1400&ar=3%3A2&fit=crop&crop=faces&q=65&fm=jpg&ixlib=react-9.0.1


Another bloody shirt that Republicans have waved forever (https://archive.thinkprogress.org/a-history-of-republicans-calling-democrats-socialists-777bcd2b7a6d/) and plan to wave again this election cycle is “socialism.”

I put the term in quotation marks because to hear Republicans tell it,

virtually everything government does is socialism (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/05/what-is-socialism/);

it is utterly foreign to the United States, and

it cannot be implemented without imposing tyranny on the American people,

along with poverty and deprivation

The essence of the Republican attack is to lie about the nature of socialism,

grossly exaggerating its negative excesses while completely ignoring its positive effects.

When they are forced to concede that some socialistic government programs–such as disease prevention or temporarily higher unemployment benefits–may be valuable,

they will nevertheless insist that it must be resisted because it’s the first step on the slippery slope (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2381721) to totalitarianism.

Tom Cotton, a Republican who represents the Confederate state of Arkansas, put it in a tweet (https://twitter.com/TomCottonAR/status/1093886176027643905):

“Socialism may begin with the best of intentions, but it always ends with the Gestapo.” :lol

F.A. Hayek (https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/why-hayek-isnt-paul-ryans-guru/) proved that the welfare state leads inevitably to socialism and tyranny

all the evidence since then thoroughly contradicts it.

There is no evidence whatsoever that welfare states morph into total state control of the economy and

produce a concomitant loss of freedom and prosperity.

There is not a single case of this happening anywhere.

Nor is there anything in Hayek’s theory to explain why socialism collapsed in the Soviet Union

One myth that permeates the right-wing attack on socialism is that America was founded as a sort of libertarian paradise based on the free market ideas (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3491575)

this perspective is very much at odds with the actual views of Smith and the Founding Fathers.

the Founding Fathers understood that government has functions that go far beyond the night watchman state favored by those on the right today.

Thomas Paine ... proposed the revolutionary idea of a wealth tax to fund payments to citizens reaching maturity, a precursor to today’s idea of a basic income (https://basicincome.org/).

James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, agreed that providing income to the indigent was a core government function.

Alexander Hamilton was definitely a big government kind of guy (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-the-left/), advocating direct government aid to industry, extensive public works, and a strong central government,


Harry Truman ... He said in 1952 (https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/289/rear-platform-and-other-informal-remarks-new-york):





Socialism is a scare word [Republicans] have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.

Socialism is what they called public power.

Socialism is what they called social security.

Socialism is what they called farm price supports.

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

https://newrepublic.com/article/158921/socialism-american-pence-biden-sanders-2020-election

[rmt]

I have not read this thread, but years ago when my friends from Toronto came to visit me, they BOASTED about how they could spend their money on "other" things because no country would ever threaten Canada because of its proximity to the US. Pissed me off no end.

[DMC]

I have not read this thread, but years ago when my friends from Toronto came to visit me, they BOASTED about how they could spend their money on "other" things because no country would ever threaten Canada because of its proximity to the US. Pissed me off no end.

Canadian military is no joke. Snipers are best in class.

[DMC]

niether system works when leaders are corrupt. Both can work with pragmatic, honest leadership as long as they are not driven by dogma of system nomenclature and focus on human rights and needs.

[FrostKing]

I have not read this thread, but years ago when my friends from Toronto came to visit me, they BOASTED about how they could spend their money on "other" things because no country would ever threaten Canada because of its proximity to the US. Pissed me off no end.
Today, my friends living in Toronto constantly complain about the cost of living in Canada. Send me photos from the supermarket. Meanwhile their city has morphed into India Jr (look up Brampton).

[BSfromTX]

niether system works when leaders are corrupt. Both can work with pragmatic, honest leadership as long as they are not driven by dogma of system nomenclature and focus on human rights and needs.

THIS

[DMC]

Today, my friends living in Toronto constantly complain about the cost of living in Canada. Send me photos from the supermarket. Meanwhile their city has morphed into India Jr (look up Brampton).

Brampton is fine. Few temples but good real estate value and not a bad place to visit. Indians are nice people mostly.

[spurraider21]

niether system works when leaders are corrupt. Both can work with pragmatic, honest leadership as long as they are not driven by dogma of system nomenclature and focus on human rights and needs.
yeah... we've seen failed states with all sorts of economic systems. the issue with socialism is that at some point, by definition, property has to be taken from the owners of the means of production, and that's not something that is usually able to happen peacefully, and in the US, it would basically be unconstitutional. so what we've seen is that nations trying to implement it do it via a very powerful government... and then the government never cedes that power which was theoretically only supposed to be a means to an end (lenin, for instance, viewed the totalitarian state as a necessary transition step to an actually communist society... which obviously never happened, and in his version, that transition step also included the purging of dissenters).

but the USSR never outgrew its totalitarian status and ended up collapsing for a myriad of reasons (and no, not just because of the arms race like we were taught in schools... but the economic inefficiency of their top-down central economic planning, nationalism among the satellite states, and isolationist economy where they engaged in virtually no foreign trade, putting them at a massive disadvantage)

we've seen repeats of this in a lot of the latin americans states that have taken their swing at socialism, again, through the means of a typically despotic government that doesnt cede control. even a guy like evo morales, who was democratically elected, and in comparison with other guys like castro, chavez, was a "good guy" ended up repeatedly fighting against term limits and his government was full of corruption (despite the fact that he was genuinely popular)

i dont know that socialism is an inherently unworkable system (and based on your post doest seem you do either)... but nobody has really found an effective way to actually have it implemented or transitioned into.

[Blake]

niether system works when leaders are corrupt. Both can work with pragmatic, honest leadership as long as they are not driven by dogma of system nomenclature and focus on human rights and needs.

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being worst, how corrupt is Trump?

Be an honest broker

[BSfromTX]

On a scale of 1-10, 10 being worst, how corrupt is Trump?

Be an honest broker


Trump 10
Pence 10

Beiden, Obama, Bush, Clintons, McCain, Palin, etc. 10

[DMC]

yeah... we've seen failed states with all sorts of economic systems. the issue with socialism is that at some point, by definition, property has to be taken from the owners of the means of production, and that's not something that is usually able to happen peacefully, and in the US, it would basically be unconstitutional. so what we've seen is that nations trying to implement it do it via a very powerful government... and then the government never cedes that power which was theoretically only supposed to be a means to an end (lenin, for instance, viewed the totalitarian state as a necessary transition step to an actually communist society... which obviously never happened, and in his version, that transition step also included the purging of dissenters).

but the USSR never outgrew its totalitarian status and ended up collapsing for a myriad of reasons (and no, not just because of the arms race like we were taught in schools... but the economic inefficiency of their top-down central economic planning, nationalism among the satellite states, and isolationist economy where they engaged in virtually no foreign trade, putting them at a massive disadvantage)

we've seen repeats of this in a lot of the latin americans states that have taken their swing at socialism, again, through the means of a typically despotic government that doesnt cede control. even a guy like evo morales, who was democratically elected, and in comparison with other guys like castro, chavez, was a "good guy" ended up repeatedly fighting against term limits and his government was full of corruption (despite the fact that he was genuinely popular)

i dont know that socialism is an inherently unworkable system (and based on your post doest seem you do either)... but nobody has really found an effective way to actually have it implemented or transitioned into.

It would need to be organically developed, not implemented over capitalism via fiat.

[Blake]

Trump 10
Pence 10

Beiden, Obama, Bush, Clintons, McCain, Palin, etc. 10

Care to provide specific instances of corruptness for those scores or are you just pushing the straight ticket both sides button?

[BSfromTX]

Care to provide specific instances of corruptness for those scores or are you just pushing the straight ticket both sides button?


Like clock work, regardless of party, these things happen:

1. National debt increases almost exponentially
2. Government power grows/expands
3. We replace non compliant governments

You may be for these things, but I am not. If you want to believe anyone of those people are "the good guys" then I don't know what to tell ya. People can be cold hearted and without regard and it seems like most of them end up in politics. I now vote libertarian. As much as you complain about capitalism, I wonder why you don't mention the Federal Reserve, IMF, and Bank of International Settlements more often. For me, that is where the center of power is in this world. People like Trump and Biden are mere sellouts willing to do whatever is asked in order to get theirs.

That is my opinion. Unless a candidate is calling out those institutions (which would be suicide), then I don't put much stock in what they have to say.

[Blake]

Like clock work, regardless of party, these things happen:

1. National debt increases almost exponentially
2. Government power grows/expands
3. We replace non compliant governments

You may be for these things, but I am not. If you want to believe anyone of those people are "the good guys" then I don't know what to tell ya. People can be cold hearted and without regard and it seems like most of them end up in politics. I now vote libertarian. As much as you complain about capitalism, I wonder why you don't mention the Federal Reserve, IMF, and Bank of International Settlements more often. For me, that is where the center of power is in this world. People like Trump and Biden are mere sellouts willing to do whatever is asked in order to get theirs.

That is my opinion. Unless a candidate is calling out those institutions (which would be suicide), then I don't put much stock in what they have to say.

So nothing specific per person that you listed.

Thanks for participating. I'll just mark you down as "lazy both sides do it" guy and move on.

[spurraider21]

It would need to be organically developed, not implemented over capitalism via fiat.
or just incrementally as opposed to a sudden upheaval of an entire economic system

[BSfromTX]

So nothing specific per person that you listed.

Thanks for participating. I'll just mark you down as "lazy both sides do it" guy and move on.

what is anyone suppose to cite in here? Everyone argues about what is credible and what is not. Do you actually believe that even one of those I mentioned is on the up and up? Seems that would be much more difficult to support. Lazy, no, unwilling to participate in the merry go round hoping for a Trump or Beiden to solve our countries problems? Yes

[Blake]

what is anyone suppose to cite in here? Everyone argues about what is credible and what is not. Do you actually believe that even one of those I mentioned is on the up and up? Seems that would be much more difficult to support. Lazy, no, unwilling to participate in the merry go round hoping for a Trump or Beiden to solve our countries problems? Yes


So nothing specific per person that you listed.

Thanks for participating. I'll just mark you down as "lazy both sides do it" guy and move on.

[pgardn]

Like clock work, regardless of party, these things happen:

1. National debt increases almost exponentially
2. Government power grows/expands
3. We replace non compliant governments

You may be for these things, but I am not. If you want to believe anyone of those people are "the good guys" then I don't know what to tell ya. People can be cold hearted and without regard and it seems like most of them end up in politics. I now vote libertarian. As much as you complain about capitalism, I wonder why you don't mention the Federal Reserve, IMF, and Bank of International Settlements more often. For me, that is where the center of power is in this world. People like Trump and Biden are mere sellouts willing to do whatever is asked in order to get theirs.

That is my opinion. Unless a candidate is calling out those institutions (which would be suicide), then I don't put much stock in what they have to say.

1. Increasing the divide between rich and poor.
2. Total debacle of health care
3. Willingness to handle disasters.
4. Attempting to bring people together in a UNITED way.

Now rate these.

[Spurtacular]

So nothing specific per person that you listed.

Thanks for participating. I'll just mark you down as "lazy both sides do it" guy and move on.


what is anyone suppose to cite in here? Everyone argues about what is credible and what is not. Do you actually believe that even one of those I mentioned is on the up and up? Seems that would be much more difficult to support. Lazy, no, unwilling to participate in the merry go round hoping for a Trump or Beiden to solve our countries problems? Yes


So nothing specific per person that you listed.

Thanks for participating. I'll just mark you down as "lazy both sides do it" guy and move on.

Idiot Blake.

But just stop thinking you have hand in the first place, board cuckold.

[boutons_deux]

I have not read this thread, but years ago when my friends from Toronto came to visit me, they BOASTED about how they could spend their money on "other" things because no country would ever threaten Canada because of its proximity to the US. Pissed me off no end.

snowflake

Canada has the same geographical isolation that USA does.

Canada now should fear being invaded by diseased Americans

[spurraider21]

I have not read this thread, but years ago when my friends from Toronto came to visit me, they BOASTED about how they could spend their money on "other" things because no country would ever threaten Canada because of its proximity to the US. Pissed me off no end.
why does that piss you off :lmao

[Blake]

Idiot Blake.

But just stop thinking you have hand in the first place, board cuckold.

He participated then quickly folded when the thinking got tough. The Derp Method ®️

[Blake]

I have not read this thread, but years ago when my friends from Toronto came to visit me, they BOASTED about how they could spend their money on "other" things because no country would ever threaten Canada because of its proximity to the US. Pissed me off no end.

That's what pisses you off? Smh

[DMC]

or just incrementally as opposed to a sudden upheaval of an entire economic system

Incrementally imposed is basically indistinguishable from the erosion of constitutional rights. That is where we are now.

[Spurtacular]

He participated then quickly folded when the thinking got tough. The Derp Method ®️

Nothing is ever tough when arguing against a beta male like you. Stop thinking you have hand.

[clambake]

Nothing is ever tough when arguing against a beta male like you. Stop thinking you have hand.

No women ever gerbil

How many miles on your chairlift van?

[ChumpDumper]

I have not read this thread, but years ago when my friends from Toronto came to visit me, they BOASTED about how they could spend their money on "other" things because no country would ever threaten Canada because of its proximity to the US. Pissed me off no end.They don't have to worry about medical bankruptcies either.

[Spurtacular]

No women ever gerbil

How many miles on your chairlift van?

You have no game either. Blake is in your name. :lol

[ElNono]

You have no game either. Blake is in your name. :lol

:wow :lmao

[DMC]

You have no game either. Blake is in your name. :lol

Glamblake

[clambake]

Gerbilderp is an invalid

No women ever


Ever

[DMC]

Gerbilderp is an invalid

No women ever


Ever

sick burn

[spurraider21]

Incrementally imposed is basically indistinguishable from the erosion of constitutional rights. That is where we are now.
What constitutional rights are we losing because of incremental socialism?

[DMC]

What constitutional rights are we losing because of incremental socialism?

"by definition, property has to be taken from the owners of the means of production, and that's not something that is usually able to happen peacefully, and in the US, it would basically be unconstitutional." - You

Eminent domain comes to mind. Next is gun laws that infringe or completely violate the 2nd Amendment. Next would be 1st Amendment violations and infringements like the federal government taking over social media or censoring it, punishing companies for being too good.

I think it's fair to say that the Bill of Rights has been infringed upon numerous times and not always has the supreme court rectified it.

[spurraider21]

"by definition, property has to be taken from the owners of the means of production, and that's not something that is usually able to happen peacefully, and in the US, it would basically be unconstitutional." - You

yeah, but that isn’t happening now as it relates to the means of production.


Eminent domain comes to mind. Next is gun laws that infringe or completely violate the 2nd Amendment. Next would be 1st Amendment violations and infringements like the federal government taking over social media or censoring it, punishing companies for being too good.
Eminent domain isn’t an intrusion on constitutional rights. It’s allowed by the constitution. The only situation that would be the consequence of socialism is if something like a factory was commandeered by the government “for the public good” or something. Paying somebody just compensation for their home so a freeway can be built isn’t socialist or capitalist. Heck, right now it’s people on the right who seem to want the government to start regulating or absorbing large social media companies...

socialism doesnt mean people cant own property

Neither the first nor second amendment are exclusive to socialism or capitalism so i don’t see how those really enter into the equation. You could easily have a socialist society where people have free speech and the right to bear arms and you could have a capitalist society with neither of those things.

[DMC]

yeah, but that isn’t happening now as it relates to the means of production.

It's not just means of production though. It's "property". Property is property. Erosion means inching closer, not complete loss, not yet. I don't think that's socialism, but what you posted is that socialism would be incrementally imposed. At some point the camel's nose is in your tent.


Eminent domain isn’t an intrusion on constitutional rights. It’s allowed by the constitution. The only situation that would be the consequence of socialism is if something like a factory was commandeered by the government “for the public good” or something. Paying somebody just compensation for their home so a freeway can be built isn’t socialist or capitalist.

You're not talking about erosion. Do you know what erosion means? For example, the erosion of the health care system is leading to a higher mortality rate. That's not to say the healthcare system doesn't exist any longer. (hypothetically speaking).


socialism doesnt mean people cant own property

Neither the first nor second amendment are exclusive to socialism or capitalism so i don’t see how those really enter into the equation.

I said incrementally implementing socialism is indistinguishable from the erosion of constitutional rights. To remove capitalism bit by bit, you have to remove the means to resist and you have to remove the ability to rally the troops, because the US would not allow implementation of socialism. With big money backing capitalism, socialism would have to be a grass roots effort, and this country isn't really run by the virtue signaling mouth pieces of the media. It's run by corporate giants. To slowly implement one is to slowly erode the other.

[DMC]

About the "property" comment -

The answer is a society where the means of production—factories, mines, railroads, the energy sources, all things used to create new wealth—are owned publicly, not privately. And that means socialism—a society where private property has been abolished. Workers.org

Do you disagree with this or are you being creative by calling a toothbrush "private property"?

[ElNono]

I just don't think the US will ever move to a full socialist system, and I'm not sure I would like that.

But, at the same time, it has always been a mixed socialist/capitalist system as the need arose. I get the concern with a creeping-in factor, but I'm less concerned with that in the US than anywhere else, mostly because the Constitution enshrines private property protection, and Constitutional amendments are hard to come by.

Under that premise, it's difficult to see socialist program going beyond what the government already runs, and it would always be a mixed system.

[DMC]

I just don't think the US will ever move to a full socialist system, and I'm not sure I would like that.

But, at the same time, it has always been a mixed socialist/capitalist system as the need arose. I get the concern with a creeping-in factor, but I'm less concerned with that in the US than anywhere else, mostly because the Constitution enshrines private property protection, and Constitutional amendments are hard to come by.

Under that premise, it's difficult to see socialist program going beyond what the government already runs, and it would always be a mixed system.

I think real socialism is a fat pussy waiting to be fucked, because it invites abuse at so many levels. This is made evident in countries around the world who took a pretend swing at it only to end up with some authoritarian regime in control. There will never been an "everyone is equal" society. Someone will need to lead them. That leader by nature isn't equal, they are above the others just as a manager in a company is above the workers and gets treated better because of it. It's why many people come to the US hoping to have a shot at individual success (family success). If it was as possible in a socialist system, it would exist on day one for anyone in the system. It would not make sense to have class structure in a purely socialist system, yet there would be that in any system, any at all. You cannot even stop kids, dressed exactly the same in private schools, from developing class structure. It's human nature.

Capitalism also invites abuse, but pure capitalism is basically every man for himself if it makes the most money for that person.

[ElNono]

I think real socialism is a fat pussy waiting to be fucked, because it invites abuse at so many levels. This is made evident in countries around the world who took a pretend swing at it only to end up with some authoritarian regime in control. There will never been an "everyone is equal" society. Someone will need to lead them. That leader by nature isn't equal, they are above the others just as a manager in a company is above the workers and gets treated better because of it. It's why many people come to the US hoping to have a shot at individual success (family success). If it was as possible in a socialist system, it would exist on day one for anyone in the system. It would not make sense to have class structure in a purely socialist system, yet there would be that in any system, any at all. You cannot even stop kids, dressed exactly the same in private schools, from developing class structure. It's human nature.

As usual, there's plenty of shades on this stuff. It eventually comes down to what people can and will put up with, and how co-opted government is.

Populist demagogues like Trump are as much a threat to democracy as full blown socialism. Hell, like a good populist he uses freeshit socialism to campaign, and this is what grates, coming from what's supposed to be the free market conservative. Of course, it's all a ruse, it always is, even in socialist countries.

On the other hand, you have serious societies that understand that capitalism and the private sector lining their pockets is not always the solution to everything or in the best interest of the population at large, and when there's a value to society above profit, like healthcare for example, a mixed system works well.

So, there's no silver bullet here, nor the supposed black or white of full socialism vs full capitalism. There's degrees of shades, which obviously makes this much more complicated to discuss, especially when people just flat out scream communism, which is a different thing altogether.

[DMC]

As usual, there's plenty of shades on this stuff. It eventually comes down to what people can and will put up with, and how co-opted government is.

And we know these variables already. There's no secret society of well intended people. It only takes a few bad apples to spoil the cart.


Populist demagogues like Trump are as much a threat to democracy as full blown socialism. Hell, like a good populist he uses freeshit socialism to campaign, and this is what grates, coming from what's supposed to be the free market conservative. Of course, it's all a ruse, it always is, even in socialist countries.

They all run on giving shit to people. They always have. It's just different people who get promised free shit.


On the other hand, you have serious societies that understand that capitalism and the private sector lining their pockets is not always the solution to everything or in the best interest of the population at large, and when there's a value to society above profit, like healthcare for example, a mixed system works well.

Nothing works that well. When you have 7 billion people on the Earth and an incredibly lower population of caregivers, everyone will not receive equal or even adequate care. Narrow that down to a country of 330m people with X number of non-payers and Y number of non-registered. Now you have a system where the payers and registered have to foot the bill for the rest, for anyone to have decent medical care. Sure you could bring care to an average which would be better for some and worse for some, if that's the goal. Having been part of a somewhat universal HC system (military) I would have to pass. I might change my mind if I was on the shittier end of the stick and I don't deny that. That's why I've worked my entire adult life to not be there. I imagine it's the same for you as well, you likely came from a worse situation than I did since you grew up in a 3rd world hoping for grain drops and Hershey bars from the GIs.

Just saying.


So, there's no silver bullet here, nor the supposed black or white of full socialism vs full capitalism. There's degrees of shades, which obviously makes this much more complicated to discuss, especially when people just flat out scream communism, which is a different thing altogether.
But this country has a history of witch hunting communism and sorta battling it (though not really). You cannot expect people to welcome socialism with open arms when it means cutting from them to give to people they deem to have never worked for shit. You know the Little Red Hen story... people afraid others are going to freeload off of them. What do you expect, our own families do it.

[ElNono]

And we know these variables already. There's no secret society of well intended people. It only takes a few bad apples to spoil the cart.

But that happens with every economic model though (capitalism as well). We pretend that's it's a silver lining that's the private sector fucking us over instead of the government, but we're getting butt fucked anyways.


Nothing works that well. When you have 7 billion people on the Earth and an incredibly lower population of caregivers, everyone will not receive equal or even adequate care. Narrow that down to a country of 330m people with X number of non-payers and Y number of non-registered. Now you have a system where the payers and registered have to foot the bill for the rest, for anyone to have decent medical care. Sure you could bring care to an average which would be better for some and worse for some, if that's the goal. Having been part of a somewhat universal HC system (military) I would have to pass. I might change my mind if I was on the shittier end of the stick and I don't deny that. That's why I've worked my entire adult life to not be there. I imagine it's the same for you as well, you likely came from a worse situation than I did since you grew up in a 3rd world hoping for grain drops and Hershey bars from the GIs.

Just saying.

It would be plain stupid to try to apply a cookie-cut system to every country. Countries have different population density, education capacities, inherent natural risks, etc. And healthcare systems come in many shapes and forms also. From government picking up the tab of basic care and mandating catastrophic insurance, to mixed systems where government offers the average service you mention, plus the private sector offering a 'concierge' type of service for those that can afford it. To full blown government provided healthcare. Just a cursory look worldwide shows a major palette of options. And frankly, the only reason there hasn't been more reform in the US is simply profit protection. Be it pharma, hospitals, etc.

Yes, I have great health insurance now, but then I also appreciate when I was a kid and I had an accident, I could go to a hospital, get some xrays, even stay overnight if necessary, and don't put my family 20k under. Sure, things have changed, and I've also worked hard for that, but I'm also cognizant that a lot of people work hard and don't make it, or haven't made it yet, and a tough break can seriously set you back. I'm not worried about me right now, I'm concerned with the vast majority of people that are not in my situation. It's on me not to forget about being on that other side of the coin, having been there, and I know there are better ways.


But this country has a history of witch hunting communism and sorta battling it (though not really). You cannot expect people to welcome socialism with open arms when it means cutting from them to give to people they deem to have never worked for shit. You know the Little Red Hen story... people afraid others are going to freeload off of them. What do you expect, our own families do it.

I don't expect people to welcome socialism with open arms, but I also think that as the gap widen between the have and have nots, we're just going to have to face it at some point. Just like now pre-existing conditions is a relatively sacred cow, things are going to keep moving that way mostly out of necessity and under a different mantra from socialism, even if that's eventually what it is. And it's because it's the right call.

[FrostKing]

Situation might change but for me it is quite straight forward at the moment in Western Civ


I want my homogenous nations socialist and my multiculturalism countries capitalistic

[spurraider21]

As usual, there's plenty of shades on this stuff. It eventually comes down to what people can and will put up with, and how co-opted government is.

Populist demagogues like Trump are as much a threat to democracy as full blown socialism. Hell, like a good populist he uses freeshit socialism to campaign, and this is what grates, coming from what's supposed to be the free market conservative. Of course, it's all a ruse, it always is, even in socialist countries.

On the other hand, you have serious societies that understand that capitalism and the private sector lining their pockets is not always the solution to everything or in the best interest of the population at large, and when there's a value to society above profit, like healthcare for example, a mixed system works well.

So, there's no silver bullet here, nor the supposed black or white of full socialism vs full capitalism. There's degrees of shades, which obviously makes this much more complicated to discuss, especially when people just flat out scream communism, which is a different thing altogether.
this is what i'm fundamentally not understanding. why is socialism, even "full blown" socialism inherently a threat to democracy?

its not even a case of me advocating for it. i wouldnt be in favor of a full socialist system either... because we simply dont have data points to suggest that it can actually be implemented the way people envision, plus practically speaking there are constitutional issues re: property rights. earlier in the thread i suggested social democracy... capitalist system with robust safety net, is probably the best we can strive for to address the issues capitalism (an undoubtedly successful model, albeit with flaws that have emerged and grown)

but if socialism just means the people (or in a smaller scale, like in worker co-ops, workers) own the means of production as opposed to a capital investor/owner... its not inherently anti-democratic. you can still vote for people in government to decide on tax rates, social spending, etc.

its not to say that you cant have corruption in government under a socialist model... the disconnect i'm having is just that i dont see the logical connection between socialism and threatening democracy

[spurraider21]

It's not just means of production though. It's "property". Property is property. Erosion means inching closer, not complete loss, not yet. I don't think that's socialism, but what you posted is that socialism would be incrementally imposed. At some point the camel's nose is in your tent.
i'm not trying to get into a war of words here... trying to act in good faith.

what i meant is right now in the US we aren't seeing eminent domain being used to seize the means of production (ie government taking over a private business and saying "we own this now"). and if we ignore the means of production and just focus on property, generally, then that doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with socialism. socialism doesnt mean people cant own property... so i dont see why eminent domain relating to personal property (or residential real estate) is relevant to a discussion about socialism. that is something in place with or without socialism


You're not talking about erosion. Do you know what erosion means? For example, the erosion of the health care system is leading to a higher mortality rate. That's not to say the healthcare system doesn't exist any longer. (hypothetically speaking).
well, i considered erosion to be the gradual destruction of something.

is eminent domain something you consider to be an erosion of property rights... even though eminent domain has been allowed since the constitution was ratified, with or without socialism?


I said incrementally implementing socialism is indistinguishable from the erosion of constitutional rights. To remove capitalism bit by bit, you have to remove the means to resist and you have to remove the ability to rally the troops, because the US would not allow implementation of socialism. With big money backing capitalism, socialism would have to be a grass roots effort, and this country isn't really run by the virtue signaling mouth pieces of the media. It's run by corporate giants. To slowly implement one is to slowly erode the other.
so i guess this is where we have a disconnect.

there is nothing inherent to socialism that requires the erosion of free speech or a right to bear arms... and that was my point. you could have a "free society" with free speech, and heck, the entire US bill of rights under a socialist economic system.

now when you say that you have to remove the means of resist "because the US would not allow implementation of socialism"... i feel like you are conflating things. obviously if the american people dont want socialism, it's not going to happen, because in that case, candidates running on socialism would never get elected to implement it in the first place. but if there was a grassroots mass desire for it... they'd elect those people and you would no longer need to "remove the means to resist" to implement it just you wouldnt have to remove those means to implement any other policy.

the reason i dont think you can ever flip a "socialist" switch in the US is because the 4th amendment will protect the business/commercial property rights of the owners. so if i owned an automobile factory, the state can't just come and say "we are taking this, sorry you can no longer own it."

and if your point is that a despotic US regime would try to implement socialism by force against the desire of the people (thereby necessitating the erosion of the 1st/2nd amendments), i also dont really see how that happens given that all these officials would necessarily be democratically elected in the first place

[spurraider21]

this is all just theoretical mumbo jumbo because i agree the US would never (nor do i think it should) just do away with capitalism.

but general point im making is that there is nothing fundamentally undemocratic about socialism... or that there is nothing inherent about socialism which means we'd have to strip away free speech, etc. the only thing that would be stripped is the ability of individuals to own the means of production and profit off of wage labor

[FrostKing]

this is all just theoretical mumbo jumbo because i agree the US would never (nor do i think it should) just do away with capitalism.

but general point im making is that there is nothing fundamentally undemocratic about socialism... or that there is nothing inherent about socialism which means we'd have to strip away free speech, etc. the only thing that would be stripped is the ability of individuals to own the means of production and profit off of wage labor
Americans start arguing zone defense when discussing economy.

American Dream is better slogan and more effective than X is our Strength

Build the road is more effective than Building bridges

Most of us came here and continue to because we feel confident in our skills and work ethic. So where is the ladder

[rmt]

this is all just theoretical mumbo jumbo because i agree the US would never (nor do i think it should) just do away with capitalism.

but general point im making is that there is nothing fundamentally undemocratic about socialism... or that there is nothing inherent about socialism which means we'd have to strip away free speech, etc. the only thing that would be stripped is the ability of individuals to own the means of production and profit off of wage labor

I suspect that 20 years from now when your lawyer/doctor household is raking in the dough and raising a couple of kids, that you will have much more objection to the bolded than you do now.

[DMC]

But that happens with every economic model though (capitalism as well). We pretend that's it's a silver lining that's the private sector fucking us over instead of the government, but we're getting butt fucked anyways.



It would be plain stupid to try to apply a cookie-cut system to every country. Countries have different population density, education capacities, inherent natural risks, etc. And healthcare systems come in many shapes and forms also. From government picking up the tab of basic care and mandating catastrophic insurance, to mixed systems where government offers the average service you mention, plus the private sector offering a 'concierge' type of service for those that can afford it. To full blown government provided healthcare. Just a cursory look worldwide shows a major palette of options. And frankly, the only reason there hasn't been more reform in the US is simply profit protection. Be it pharma, hospitals, etc.

Yes, I have great health insurance now, but then I also appreciate when I was a kid and I had an accident, I could go to a hospital, get some xrays, even stay overnight if necessary, and don't put my family 20k under. Sure, things have changed, and I've also worked hard for that, but I'm also cognizant that a lot of people work hard and don't make it, or haven't made it yet, and a tough break can seriously set you back. I'm not worried about me right now, I'm concerned with the vast majority of people that are not in my situation. It's on me not to forget about being on that other side of the coin, having been there, and I know there are better ways.



I don't expect people to welcome socialism with open arms, but I also think that as the gap widen between the have and have nots, we're just going to have to face it at some point. Just like now pre-existing conditions is a relatively sacred cow, things are going to keep moving that way mostly out of necessity and under a different mantra from socialism, even if that's eventually what it is. And it's because it's the right call.

What's the point of "making it" if you end up in the same situation regardless?

How do you have a system like socialism AND porous or even open borders AND undocumented immigrants AND 50% obesity?

Just curious who's going to be willing to do all that free work.

[hater]

Americans dont know what true socialism or capitalism is.

They claim DNC is socialist or even said Obama was socialist. Both completely false

They also claim US is capitalist economy when government bails US companies and banks with trillions on a yearly basis. Thats not capitalism.

Both have been bastardized to confuse and trick average american lemming.

[DMC]

Americans dont know what true socialism or capitalism is.

They claim DNC is socialist or even said Obama was socialist. Both completely false

They also claim US is capitalist economy when government bails US companies and banks with trillions on a yearly basis. Thats not capitalism.

Both have been bastardized to confuse and trick average american lemming.

Says the Trump supporter

[boutons_deux]

typical pro-Capitalism assholes spouting Red Herring(s)

Which politician is promoting all yall's Red Herring of "pure" socialism with full collectivism? :lol

Capitalism and Capitalists have and are fucking America, is why America "can't have nice things"

[Winehole23]

1295635292838404097

[spurraider21]

I suspect that 20 years from now when your lawyer/doctor household is raking in the dough and raising a couple of kids, that you will have much more objection to the bolded than you do now.
Read the first paragraph of that post.

And unless one runs their own private practice, neither a lawyer nor doctor owns the means of production

[spurraider21]

Americans dont know what true socialism or capitalism is.

They claim DNC is socialist or even said Obama was socialist. Both completely false

They also claim US is capitalist economy when government bails US companies and banks with trillions on a yearly basis. Thats not capitalism.

Both have been bastardized to confuse and trick average american lemming.
Coming from the guy who thought the Kodak deal was communist :lmao

[DMC]

i'm not trying to get into a war of words here... trying to act in good faith.

what i meant is right now in the US we aren't seeing eminent domain being used to seize the means of production (ie government taking over a private business and saying "we own this now"). and if we ignore the means of production and just focus on property, generally, then that doesn't intrinsically have anything to do with socialism. socialism doesnt mean people cant own property... so i dont see why eminent domain relating to personal property (or residential real estate) is relevant to a discussion about socialism. that is something in place with or without socialism


well, i considered erosion to be the gradual destruction of something.

is eminent domain something you consider to be an erosion of property rights... even though eminent domain has been allowed since the constitution was ratified, with or without socialism?


so i guess this is where we have a disconnect.

there is nothing inherent to socialism that requires the erosion of free speech or a right to bear arms... and that was my point. you could have a "free society" with free speech, and heck, the entire US bill of rights under a socialist economic system.

now when you say that you have to remove the means of resist "because the US would not allow implementation of socialism"... i feel like you are conflating things. obviously if the american people dont want socialism, it's not going to happen, because in that case, candidates running on socialism would never get elected to implement it in the first place. but if there was a grassroots mass desire for it... they'd elect those people and you would no longer need to "remove the means to resist" to implement it just you wouldnt have to remove those means to implement any other policy.

So the riots in the streets in all these cities are because those rioting voted for Trump and just want to riot? People get elected based on majority electoral college, not popular vote. If the leadership pushed socialist agendas and legislation, there would be resistance. There's resistance now. You cannot get cops into some areas now and those people aren't even heavily armed.


the reason i dont think you can ever flip a "socialist" switch in the US is because the 4th amendment will protect the business/commercial property rights of the owners. so if i owned an automobile factory, the state can't just come and say "we are taking this, sorry you can no longer own it."

and if your point is that a despotic US regime would try to implement socialism by force against the desire of the people (thereby necessitating the erosion of the 1st/2nd amendments), i also dont really see how that happens given that all these officials would necessarily be democratically elected in the first place

Means of production doesn't mean factory. It could mean plot of land that you raise crops on, or plot of land you use for a bed and breakfast, somewhere you perhaps offer guided trips or do some farm to market gardening. Maybe you have a ranch, a game ranch or just a cattle ranch. Maybe you rent out a house on a lake. It's all profit making ventures. How do you produce your vegetables? Oh you have land? Well not now, now "we" have land.

Starting off as a socialist country is one thing, but morphing is a bloody process.

I am curious though, if socialism is what people want (any people) and they have the means to do it, why not go where socialism exists? If it's because of opportunity here that doesn't exist there, is it because capitalism creates that opportunity and socialism doesn't? Basically why stay in a system you don't like, if you aren't a patriot and don't particularly hold the country you're in in high regard?

[spurraider21]

So the riots in the streets in all these cities are because those rioting voted for Trump and just want to riot? People get elected based on majority electoral college, not popular vote. If the leadership pushed socialist agendas and legislation, there would be resistance. There's resistance now. You cannot get cops into some areas now and those people aren't even heavily armed.
civil unrest occurs when agitations of large groups of people boil over. i would agree that if there was going to be a flip of the switch and overnight all the means of production were going to be seized, it would be problematic. i dont know that that would be the method taken. for instance, i previously mentioned one of bernie's actually socialistic policies... having business commit to having 20% of their shares be allocated among the workers over a 10 year period of time. i dont think that would cause riots.


Means of production doesn't mean factory. It could mean plot of land that you raise crops on, or plot of land you use for a bed and breakfast, somewhere you perhaps offer guided trips or do some farm to market gardening. Maybe you have a ranch, a game ranch or just a cattle ranch. Maybe you rent out a house on a lake. It's all profit making ventures. How do you produce your vegetables? Oh you have land? Well not now, now "we" have land.
this is true... to the extent that some people use their homes as their profit-generators. about 1% of the population farms as their profession. and even that could be resolved if the workers were made to be part-owners of the venture. it doesnt have to be necessarily state owned, just worker owned (though historically this has been done through the state as a proxy for the people). worker cooperatives also fall under the socialist model and doesnt require the state to assume possession of anything. its more of a "liberal socialist" model... ie bottom left quadrant of the 2d political compass, as opposed to a state run, central planned economy (top left quadrant).

landlording can be a whole discussion on its own


Starting off as a socialist country is one thing, but morphing is a bloody process.
well nothing really "starts off" as socialist... but i generally agree with that morphing it is a difficult process. not sure about bloody. plenty of industries have been nationalized from country to country without starting civil wars. it's would essentially be an extrapolation of that, though i dont believe that a central government running everything (USSR) would be desirable

[ElNono]

this is what i'm fundamentally not understanding. why is socialism, even "full blown" socialism inherently a threat to democracy?

its not even a case of me advocating for it. i wouldnt be in favor of a full socialist system either... because we simply dont have data points to suggest that it can actually be implemented the way people envision, plus practically speaking there are constitutional issues re: property rights. earlier in the thread i suggested social democracy... capitalist system with robust safety net, is probably the best we can strive for to address the issues capitalism (an undoubtedly successful model, albeit with flaws that have emerged and grown)

but if socialism just means the people (or in a smaller scale, like in worker co-ops, workers) own the means of production as opposed to a capital investor/owner... its not inherently anti-democratic. you can still vote for people in government to decide on tax rates, social spending, etc.

its not to say that you cant have corruption in government under a socialist model... the disconnect i'm having is just that i dont see the logical connection between socialism and threatening democracy

Because history tells us that it rapidly degrades into unipersonal at some point. With ownership comes control and power. In order for that to work properly, you would need a strong system of checks and balances, which we only have on paper, tbh.

The promise is that people own it, but in practice is that whoever is the administration wields it, and once you have that kind of power, supposedly granted by the people, things get shady fast.

[DMC]

civil unrest occurs when agitations of large groups of people boil over. i would agree that if there was going to be a flip of the switch and overnight all the means of production were going to be seized, it would be problematic. i dont know that that would be the method taken. for instance, i previously mentioned one of bernie's actually socialistic policies... having business commit to having 20% of their shares be allocated among the workers over a 10 year period of time. i dont think that would cause riots.

Businesses would deduct that from salary. It's not rocket science. Would you want Eastman Kodak shares when they were 2 dollars a share for 15 years?

Without shareholder profit (i.e. diluting shares to give employees a stake) many businesses would cease to exist. No switch was flipped in our current situation. It's more of a slow boil that gets triggered one day and suddenly BLEVE.



this is true... to the extent that some people use their homes as their profit-generators. about 1% of the population farms as their profession. and even that could be resolved if the workers were made to be part-owners of the venture. it doesnt have to be necessarily state owned, just worker owned (though historically this has been done through the state as a proxy for the people). worker cooperatives also fall under the socialist model and doesnt require the state to assume possession of anything. its more of a "liberal socialist" model... ie bottom left quadrant of the 2d political compass, as opposed to a state run, central planned economy (top left quadrant).

So your ranch that's been in your family for hundreds of years, that your ancestors fought and some died for, where they are buried, where your fuckin' kids sleep (heh), that should be divvied up among the mostly job hopping employees? Who's going to oversee this equitable endeavor?


landlording can be a whole discussion on its own


well nothing really "starts off" as socialist... but i generally agree with that morphing it is a difficult process. not sure about bloody. plenty of industries have been nationalized from country to country without starting civil wars. it's would essentially be an extrapolation of that, though i dont believe that a central government running everything (USSR) would be desirableYou couldn't even get Amon Bundy's cows off federal land without a fight and you think all this would go off without a hitch?

[spurraider21]

I am curious though, if socialism is what people want (any people) and they have the means to do it, why not go where socialism exists? If it's because of opportunity here that doesn't exist there, is it because capitalism creates that opportunity and socialism doesn't? Basically why stay in a system you don't like, if you aren't a patriot and don't particularly hold the country you're in in high regard?
saw this added later.

there are lots of reasons people live where they might not be happy. liberals bitch and scream about trump (i complain plenty) but dont "just move" any more than conservatives who lost their shit at black president. trump campaigned on changing america... nobody said that he should just leave if he didnt like the way things are.

people live somewhere because thats where their entire social life is, family/friends. you share the culture of people around you. there's a degree of comfort with familiarity. there are huge burdens to immigration... finding work, cost associated with it, legal/paperwork, potential language barriers, culture barriers... leaving behind your life.

people might love america for a lot of reasons, not necessarily because they love our version of capitalism. i dont think being opposed to the economic systems makes you unpatriotic.

[spurraider21]

Businesses would deduct that from salary. It's not rocket science. Would you want Eastman Kodak shares when they were 2 dollars a share for 15 years?

Without shareholder profit (i.e. diluting shares to give employees a stake) many businesses would cease to exist. No switch was flipped in our current situation. It's more of a slow boil that gets triggered one day and suddenly BLEVE.

So your ranch that's been in your family for hundreds of years, that your ancestors fought and some died for, where they are buried, where your fuckin' kids sleep (heh), that should be divvied up among the mostly job hopping employees? Who's going to oversee this equitable endeavor?
You couldn't even get Amon Bundy's cows off federal land without a fight and you think all this would go off without a hitch?
i mean you could even look at it is a tax increase. as it is taxation eats away at your ownership of profits.

i also dont get why we are talking about the US deciding to confiscate all the means of production because i've already said i dont think it would be constitutional, nor do i think it will happen, nor do i even think it should.

what i'm saying is there is nothing inherent about socialism which requires a curbing of free speech or 2A rights.

[DMC]

saw this added later.

there are lots of reasons people live where they might not be happy. liberals bitch and scream about trump (i complain plenty) but dont "just move" any more than conservatives who lost their shit at black president. trump campaigned on changing america... nobody said that he should just leave if he didnt like the way things are.

people live somewhere because thats where their entire social life is, family/friends. you share the culture of people around you. there's a degree of comfort with familiarity. there are huge burdens to immigration... finding work, cost associated with it, legal/paperwork, potential language barriers, culture barriers... leaving behind your life.

people might love america for a lot of reasons, not necessarily because they love our version of capitalism. i dont think being opposed to the economic systems makes you unpatriotic.
Presidents change every few years. We won't become socialist soon. If you feel like this is your country, that's a form of patriotism. In that case it's incumbent on you to do what you can to make it work. If you feel like it's a country you happen to live in that doesn't meet your needs and wants while other countries do, it might be a good idea to at least investigate what is required to relocate to those countries. Eventually we have to retire. It would be nice to know you're set in a system that meets your needs when you do. It will suck to be forced to retire and not have any means to survive.

Many people leave after finding work elsewhere. In fact I don't think you can just relocate to some 1st world countries without having some form of income or X amount in the bank. Not completely sure, but I could not even get a work visa for Australia without showing I could pay my own way if shit hit the fan. I wouldn't mind living in Australia, but not dreaming of it either.

[spurraider21]

Because history tells us that it rapidly degrades into unipersonal at some point. With ownership comes control and power. In order for that to work properly, you would need a strong system of checks and balances, which we only have on paper, tbh.

The promise is that people own it, but in practice is that whoever is the administration wields it, and once you have that kind of power, supposedly granted by the people, things get shady fast.
i can see that. the more centrally planned the economy is the more problematic corruption would be. but as it stands our democratic process if pretty sound, though. i dont think we are comparable to cuba/venezuela as it relates to our political institutions.

socialism wouldn't necessarily require central planning on all levels, though. adopting the worker cooperative model, generally (with exemptions for businesses with less than x employees), would be another version. would still be market based with a profit incentive for each firm... just that the profit is shared amongst the firm.

there is somewhat limited data as to the efficacy of worker coops, but the limited results do trend positive. the largest example of this type of business upscaling internationally is mondragon

[DMC]

i can see that. the more centrally planned the economy is the more problematic corruption would be. but as it stands our democratic process if pretty sound, though. i dont think we are comparable to cuba/venezuela as it relates to our political institutions.

socialism wouldn't necessarily require central planning on all levels, though. adopting the worker cooperative model, generally (with exemptions for businesses with less than x employees), would be another version. would still be market based with a profit incentive for each firm... just that the profit is shared amongst the firm.

there is somewhat limited data as to the efficacy of worker coops, but the limited results do trend positive. the largest example of this type of business upscaling internationally is mondragon

Less individual profit = cost to the individual. That makes it unsavory for people who pull the strings ergo unlikely at best.

[spurraider21]

Presidents change every few years. We won't become socialist soon. If you feel like this is your country, that's a form of patriotism. In that case it's incumbent on you to do what you can to make it work. If you feel like it's a country you happen to live in that doesn't meet your needs and wants while other countries do, it might be a good idea to at least investigate what is required to relocate to those countries. Eventually we have to retire. It would be nice to know you're set in a system that meets your needs when you do. It will suck to be forced to retire and not have any means to survive.

Many people leave after finding work elsewhere. In fact I don't think you can just relocate to some 1st world countries without having some form of income or X amount in the bank. Not completely sure, but I could not even get a work visa for Australia without showing I could pay my own way if shit hit the fan. I wouldn't mind living in Australia, but not dreaming of it either.
right, there's a lot that goes into the decision beyond just not being a fan of the economic system.

i dont think the US even could become socialist without a constitutional amendment or convention or something like that. at least not within our lifetimes. nor am i even convinced that would be a good thing, particular if introduced in a sweeping manner with large scale property/business confiscations or forced redistribution of assets/means of production.

i think capitalism still works great to generate wealth, but we just dont do a good enough job of redistributing it, and it too easily consolidates. introducing a more robust social safety net, having health care subsidized, etc, are ways to mitigate those issues to the point where the antagonisms of it are addressed. another measure could be to temporarily incentivize banks to give favorable loans to applicants for the purpose of establishing worker cooperatives as something of a trail run for that model to test for its efficacy. the data for that type of enterprise is still fairly limited, and its entirely voluntary

[spurraider21]

Less individual profit = cost to the individual. That makes it unsavory for people who pull the strings ergo unlikely at best.
those ventures do exist though, and since the enterprise is collectively owned, the risk is collectively shared as well. there is no one person pulling the strings since its collectively owned. you still have some people in managerial roles and some people in labor roles, and there isnt going to be complete pay equity (not all work is equally valuable, of course), but that disparity is artificially constrained by the company charter, etc

[DMC]

those ventures do exist though, and since the enterprise is collectively owned, the risk is collectively shared as well. there is no one person pulling the strings since its collectively owned. you still have some people in managerial roles and some people in labor roles, and there isnt going to be complete pay equity (not all work is equally valuable, of course), but that disparity is artificially constrained by the company charter, etc

Your part is your part. What you get in return is either more, same or less than it would be under the system you're talking about. This collectively shared risk means nothing to people who are risk takers for big rewards. Risk averse people have 401Ks.

[spurraider21]

Your part is your part. What you get in return is either more, same or less than it would be under the system you're talking about. This collectively shared risk means nothing to people who are risk takers for big rewards. Risk averse people have 401Ks.
and you dont have to take part in a worker cooperative if you dont want to. i haven suggested making it mandatory here.

[Blake]

So the riots in the streets in all these cities are because those rioting voted for Trump and just want to riot? People get elected based on majority electoral college, not popular vote. If the leadership pushed socialist agendas and legislation, there would be resistance. There's resistance now. You cannot get cops into some areas now and those people aren't even heavily armed.


Means of production doesn't mean factory. It could mean plot of land that you raise crops on, or plot of land you use for a bed and breakfast, somewhere you perhaps offer guided trips or do some farm to market gardening. Maybe you have a ranch, a game ranch or just a cattle ranch. Maybe you rent out a house on a lake. It's all profit making ventures. How do you produce your vegetables? Oh you have land? Well not now, now "we" have land.

Starting off as a socialist country is one thing, but morphing is a bloody process.

I am curious though, if socialism is what people want (any people) and they have the means to do it, why not go where socialism exists? If it's because of opportunity here that doesn't exist there, is it because capitalism creates that opportunity and socialism doesn't? Basically why stay in a system you don't like, if you aren't a patriot and don't particularly hold the country you're in in high regard?

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT DUURR

[DMC]

and you dont have to take part in a worker cooperative if you dont want to. i haven suggested making it mandatory here.

If it wasn't mandatory it wouldn't be socialism.

[DMC]

LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT DUURR

Did you lose your lap to bark from? Chumpy will be around soon enough.

[spurraider21]

If it wasn't mandatory it wouldn't be socialism.
not really. socialism is just when the workers own the means of production. it can be on the scale of a single business enterprise, or it can be a national economic policy.

[Blake]

Did you lose your lap to bark from? Chumpy will be around soon enough.

The DMC fallacy rabbit hole is tired and boring to me. I prefer to just lol when I see you use a fallacy and move on.

[ElNono]

i can see that. the more centrally planned the economy is the more problematic corruption would be. but as it stands our democratic process if pretty sound, though. i dont think we are comparable to cuba/venezuela as it relates to our political institutions.

socialism wouldn't necessarily require central planning on all levels, though. adopting the worker cooperative model, generally (with exemptions for businesses with less than x employees), would be another version. would still be market based with a profit incentive for each firm... just that the profit is shared amongst the firm.

there is somewhat limited data as to the efficacy of worker coops, but the limited results do trend positive. the largest example of this type of business upscaling internationally is mondragon

I felt the same way until this administration came about. If Congress' hands are really tied up when it comes to do the job the Constitution mandated them to carry out, then I'm not so sure anymore about our system of checks and balances.

[spurraider21]

I felt the same way until this administration came about. If Congress' hands are really tied up when it comes to do the job the Constitution mandated them to carry out, then I'm not so sure anymore about our system of checks and balances.
gotta ditch cocaine mitch tbh... this guy knew what he was talkin about


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTl-Uk9hBOI

[Will Hunting]

gotta ditch cocaine mitch tbh... this guy knew what he was talkin about


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTl-Uk9hBOI
Don Blankenship will rise again!

[Will Hunting]

Not to take away from my hatred for Cocaine Mitch, him releasing this meme after Blankenship lost was hilarious

https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/mitch_cocaine_twitter.png?itok=dh6obvW5

[boutons_deux]

" not so sure anymore about our system of checks and balances."

... yep, a Pres like Trash and his Exec acting in bad faith, with mortal harm to Americans and America. has proven that Constitution's implicit assumption that the Pres, filtered through and elected by the supposedly trustworthy, reasonable EC (since the citizens actually horrified the FF oligarchy), would operate in good faith ,to be baseless

Will America act to prevent bad-faith Presidents? I doubt it since the Dems are as money-corrupted as the Repugs. I see no great statesperson rising to the occasion.

or will Repugs see Trash's successful, ignorant envelope pushing as how they could proceed in the future to turn American into a one-party oligarchy controlled by $Bs of the oligarchy?

One-party-ness is blatantly the Repug/oligarchy objective

[Winehole23]

Code Name Cain sketches out a brave libertarianian future, it sounds way more rad than "Anarchy, State and Utopia." Red lettered are direct quotes from Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed.


CNC: Since they will be no-tax free-trade haven[s], large numbers of investors and huge amounts of capital would begin to flow immediately. [132] It will therefore be possible to pay large multinational insurance companies to develop military forces capable of defending the free mini-states against government aggression. Keep in mind that, unlike the military forces of the democracy, these military units will be provided by private firms, and so will be much more efficient. If there were to be a conflict, these insurers would be prepared to target the aggressor (the state) for retaliation. That is, insurers would be ready to counterattack and kill, whether with long-range precision weapons or assassination commandos, state agents from the top of the government hierarchy [from the] president…. on downward… They would thereby encourage internal resistance against the aggressor government, promote its delegitimization, and possibly incite the liberation and transformation of the state territory into a free country.https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/08/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-ii-the-strategy.html

[spurraider21]

Ah, the fabled anarcho-capitalists.

[Winehole23]

Ah, the fabled anarcho-capitalists.The disrepute of government, market power of insurance, finance and the FAANGs, to say nothing of their access to personal data and policy makers, makes this a more and more plausible future for the USA.

(for the record, I think it's a terrible one)

[spurraider21]

The disrepute of government, market power of insurance, finance and the FAANGs, to say nothing of their access to personal data and policy makers, makes this a more and more plausible future for the USA.

(for the record, I think it's a terrible one)
Actual corporate overlords

[boutons_deux]

"history tells us that it rapidly degrades into unipersonal at some point."

which history is that?

Capitalism hates true democracy, is always trying to kill it, but socialism is ALWAYS bad?

[spurraider21]

:lol

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EqqbftpXEAI9Ccz?format=jpg&name=small

[Stan]

:lol

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EqqbftpXEAI9Ccz?format=jpg&name=small Chris is probably somewhere unironically Parlering about this with Charlie Kirk & Education4Libs :lol

[Winehole23]

:lol

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EqqbftpXEAI9Ccz?format=jpg&name=smallWhere does this come from?

[spurraider21]

Where does this come from?
"supercapitalism" was trending on twitter

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EqqbftpXEAI9Ccz?format=jpg&name=small

"Super capitalism" is marxist economics. They just say Marxism is totalitarian communism. The indictment of the rentkeepers which they term the elite few here is straight out of das kapital.

Semantics is fun I guess

[spurraider21]

"Super capitalism" is marxist economics. They just say Marxism is totalitarian communism. The indictment of the rentkeepers which they term the elite few here is straight out of das kapital.

Semantics is fun I guess
i think thats the joke

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i think thats the joke

Sorry I have no idea of the context from where it came.

[Winehole23]

the math isn't hard. the more public goodies, the more social good.

the 1986 study by the American Journal of Public Health; https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661

1528326658960375812

[SnakeBoy]

Socialist countries in the paper
Low income-China.
Lower-middle-income-Cuba, Mongolia, North Korea, Albania.
Upper-middle-income-Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, USSR, Czechoslovakia, East Germany

[Winehole23]

1986, rif

[SnakeBoy]

1986, rif

Which one's would you prefer to have lived in, given the benefit of hindsight?

[DMC]

the math isn't hard. the more public goodies, the more social good.

the 1986 study by the American Journal of Public Health; https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661

1528326658960375812

That's fine if you happen to be society. If you want good for you and your family, lowering your standards for the social good isn't attractive to about half the nation.

[Winehole23]

That's fine if you happen to be society. If you want good for you and your family, lowering your standards for the social good isn't attractive to about half the nation.Actually, pandering somewhat to the public good floats all boats. lowers the cost of doing business.


If you've been paying attention, you'd have noticed I advocate a mixed system, not one that's strictly capitalist or strictly socialist.

The profit motive sorts ill with public weal, consisting of only short term financial gains by people who control assets.

Robust public education, infrastructure and health care keep costs lower for business and promote productive vitality for everyone.

[Winehole23]

Forgot about this

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJkgHi7XoAY60u-?format=jpg&name=900x900

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/three-cheers-socialism

[Winehole23]

water lines

1567148371713875969