Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist

[struth]

Here is the definition of socialism:

{....
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
...}

In no way does socialism imply government ownership of all means of production.
Never has.

can you provided a link to your definition.

 

[elektra]

So what, Moron.
Markets existed long before capitalism as did government and money.
Does that mean markets, money, markets, and government have no bearing on capitalism today?
Why does anyone as ignorant and stupid as you are waste bandwidth on issues like this?

The Marxist Perspective on Crime

"Many Marxists see crime as a natural ‘outgrowth’ of the capitalist system. The Capitalist system can be said to be crimogenic in three major ways –

1. "Capitalism encourages individuals to pursue self-interest rather than public duty
2. Capitalism encourages individuals to be materialistic consumers, making us aspire to an unrealistic and often unattainable lifestyle.
3. Capitalism in its wake generates massive inequality and poverty, conditions which are correlated with higher crime rates."

Wrong again. Massive inequality and poverty exist, and existed, before capitalism. Crime existed before capitalism.

Capitalism did not create that which existed before. Capitalism is responsible for bringing more out of poverty than any other system.

Yes GeorgiePoridgie, you are thee most ignorant attention seeker on this message boards.
Your ideas have murdered and killed more people than any other system ever created.

Fuck you georgieboy

 

[bripat9643]

Here is the definition of socialism:

{....
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
...}

In no way does socialism imply government ownership of all means of production.
Never has.

That's how many socialists interpret it.

 

[dblack]

That's how many socialists interpret it.

Oh goodie, we're playing shell games with definition. "Only *I* know the true meaning of socialism - and I ain't tellin'!"

Socialism, communism, democratic socialism, social democracy - make up whatever euphemism you like, they're all about giving government more control over trade, more control over people. That alone vetoes them in my book.

 

[georgephillip]

ou won't support our current, society?

I don't support certain aspects of our current society like this one:

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible."

Do you?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly

 

[danielpalos]

That's how many socialists interpret it.

Not at all. That is only what the ignorant right-wing claims it is.

 

[georgephillip]

Yea, it is called the constitution of our republic.

You made the idiotic claim:

"Government is what destroys capitalism, and what man creates for himself. My work is my property, my labor is not the property of government, which is what you advocate."

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-108hdoc94/pdf/CDOC-108hdoc94.pdf

"The Constitution is the basic and supreme law of the US, providing the legal foundation on which all actions must rest and enumerates and guarantees the rights due all its citizens."

I showed you how corporations and capitalism don't exist without government, and how your precious property would be much more expensive to defend without government.

Are you saying the fundamental law of this Republic destroys capitalism or are you too fucking MAGA-stupid to know what you are trying to say?

 

[georgephillip]

Moron!

 

[task0778]

Here is the definition of socialism:

{....
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
...}

In no way does socialism imply government ownership of all means of production.
Never has.

Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be any asset, including an object, land or real estate, intellectual property, or until the nineteenth century, human beings. Property includes but is not limited to the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Is there any other way to do that other than through gov't? NO. Therefore, socialism implies gov't ownership and control.

 

[georgephillip]

agree, "neither USSR type socialism of US style capitalism is based on economic democracy", but I believe both the USSR and the US are oligarchies of the wealthy elite capitalists.

The USSR had its elites, but I don't think its oligarchs rivaled those that currently exist in Russia and the US. Michael Hudson has done the best job I've seen in documenting how creditors have ruled every government since the end of the Roman Republic:

The DNA of Western civilization is financially unstable | Michael Hudson

"By contrast, look where Antiquity ended up by the 2nd century BC. Rome physically devastated Athens, Sparta, Corinth and the rest of Greece.

"By the Mithridatic Wars (88-63 BC) their temples were looted and their cities driven into unpayably high debt to Roman tax collectors and Italian moneylenders.

"Subsequent Western civilization developed not from the democracy in Athens but from oligarchies supported by Rome.

"Democratic states were physically destroyed, blocking civic regulatory power and imposing pro-creditor legal principles making foreclosures and forced land sales irreversible."

 

[dblack]

I don't support certain aspects of our current society like this one:

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible."

Speak for yourself. That's not my worldview. And I don't really know anyone who would claim that as general premise. It's just more socialist propaganda. Strawman for the win!

 

[bripat9643]

I don't support certain aspects of our current society like this one:

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible."

Do you?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly

Stockbrokers are employees, nimrod.

 

[georgephillip]

Because it's a big fat commie lie, asshole.

Like this one?

 

[bripat9643]

Like this one?

What's the lie?

 

[elektra]

Moron, is the only response to your attention seeking

 

[task0778]

"Many Marxists see crime as a natural ‘outgrowth’ of the capitalist system. The Capitalist system can be said to be crimogenic in three major ways –

1. "Capitalism encourages individuals to pursue self-interest rather than public duty
2. Capitalism encourages individuals to be materialistic consumers, making us aspire to an unrealistic and often unattainable lifestyle.
3. Capitalism in its wake generates massive inequality and poverty, conditions which are correlated with higher crime rates."

This is total crap. I would say that that most people pursue self-interest rather than public duty no matter what gov't or economic system they live under. The difference is that in reality a capitalistic economy creates far more wealth than any other model or theory. You are in effect bitching about the fact that the benefits of capitalism far outweigh the alternatives. The fact that increased wealth creation also attracts greedy, unprincipled, and immoral people does not detract from it's net positives for everybody concerned. Capitalism creates wealth, but it does not regulate it; that is the function of gov't no matter what economic system is in play.

I would posit that any type of economic system that exists today, or ever existed, or ever will exist will attract greedy, unprincipled, and immoral people who will take any advantage they can to increase their own wealth, and the extent to which that economic system creates wealth correlates with the numbers of those people and the amount of their ill-gotten wealth. Our problem today is not that we create too much wealth, it's that we do a poor job of governing that creation and distribution.

 

[Rigby5]

NOpe. Pissing money down the toilet bowl is not investing. After investing you usually have an asset. What do you (the individual have after paying taxes? Answer: nothing.

Taxes are SUPPOSED to be an investment in infrastructure, schools, transportation, water, trees, parks, safety, etc.
In rural areas, shared investments are common, like coops for equipment, grain elevators, etc.
The employees collectively bought the Chicago Northwestern Railroad.
That is the way we should have dealt with our national fossil fuels, like coal and oil.
It should have been gathered and distributed by collective enterprise, to the benefit of all, not just sold for pennies on the dollar, to the wealthy elite.

It is true the government can be wasteful, but whose fault is that?
After all, most of our taxes are wasted on military spending, when we have not really been attacked since 1812.
We are the ones who are supposed to be watching over what government does and spends on.

 

[Rigby5]

When has this ever happened?

By "subsidized" you mean the government loots your money. That's a 100% loss, not an investment

The US government subsidized US agriculture, making food less expensive for all of us.
In Sweden, the government subsidized Volvo, so then they never have to lay off people during slow sales periods.
With a good democratic republic, then government should be much more honest, open, and reliable than private enterprise.
The only times private enterprise has some advantages are when you have people like Elon Musk, who is innovative, and faster than a bureacracy.

 

[Rigby5]

How do you have socialism without government ownership?

Easy.
For example, if cars are polluting to the point it becomes a health hazard, then you pass laws to regulate and restrict how much pollution they can emit.
You get the responsible result you want of safer products, without government actually owning the companies.
When the democratic republic regulates business, the same goals can be reached without actual public enterprise ownership.

But public ownership also can be much more efficient.
For example, in WI, there is a need for drivers for garbage trucks, school buses, mass transit buses, snow plows, etc.
So in WI these are all public.
That way, when it snow, then bus drivers report to garbage trucks that have had plows attached, and away they go.
Costs a lot less, and is very flexible.
School bus drivers are also regular bus drivers, so keep up their skills.
By being able to switch roles, then you can load balance much easier, without having to have so many extra people on the payroll, for reserve.

They also do very efficient things like use the garbage incinerators to produce steam that they then pipe to all the downtown businesses, for free heat.
Very useful in the cold WI winters.

 

[bripat9643]

Easy.
For example, if cars are polluting to the point it becomes a health hazard, then you pass laws to regulate and restrict how much pollution they can emit.
You get the responsible result you want of safer products, without government actually owning the companies.
When the democratic republic regulates business, the same goals can be reached without actual public enterprise ownership.

That isn't government ownership.

But public ownership also can be much more efficient.

What the fuck is a "public ownership law?'

For example, in WI, there is a need for drivers for garbage trucks, school buses, mass transit buses, snow plows, etc.
So in WI these are all public.

No they aren't. I lot of towns in WI have privately owned waste disposal. You're claiming that government regulation is the equivalent of socialism, and every prog in here will dispute that claim.

That way, when it snow, then bus drivers report to garbage trucks that have had plows attached, and away they go.
Costs a lot less, and is very flexible.
School bus drivers are also regular bus drivers, so keep up their skills.
By being able to switch roles, then you can load balance much easier, without having to have so many extra people on the payroll, for reserve.

They also do very efficient things like use the garbage incinerators to produce steam that they then pipe to all the downtown businesses, for free heat.
Very useful in the cold WI winters.

You're talking about private companies, but you're delusional if you believe government run enterprises are efficient.