Capitalism vs Socialism

[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 cons ution 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 cons utional 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 in' 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 desirable

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?

[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 and scream about trump (i complain plenty) but dont "just move" any more than conservatives who lost their 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 in' 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 cons utional, 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 and scream about trump (i complain plenty) but dont "just move" any more than conservatives who lost their 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 in bent 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 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 ins utions.

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 ins utions.

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 in bent 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 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 cons utional 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 ins utions.

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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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

[Will Hunting]

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

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

[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 Cons ution'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...-strategy.html

[spurraider21]

Ah, the fabled anarcho-capitalists.