For those that may prefer a Socialist country

[struth]

You're justifying that relationship due to the necessity of people to be under that condition. Your logic is twisted. The working class could free themselves from capitalist parasites, by taking ownership of the means of production, collectively. They could work at a workplace that is owned by the workers and run democratically. The banks will have to be nationalized by a government under the control of the working class, in order launch these worker-owned cooperatives.

All of this is going to happen soon.

um, the working class is free to take ownership...that's what capitalism is all about. They are free to start their own businesses, and own their own means of production.

That's the difference between capitalism and socialism...in capitalism, the individual is free, in socialism they are not, they aren't free to own the means of production...the state does

 

[Thinker101]

You're justifying that relationship due to the necessity of people to be under that condition. Your logic is twisted. The working class could free themselves from capitalist parasites, by taking ownership of the means of production, collectively. They could work at a workplace that is owned by the workers and run democratically. The banks will have to be nationalized by a government under the control of the working class, in order launch these worker-owned cooperatives.

All of this is going to happen soon.

Yep, there sure seem to be 1000's in San Francisco, 1000's in Portland, 1,000's in Los Angeles, and quite a few other cities that are already free.

 

[Thinker101]

You're justifying that relationship due to the necessity of people to be under that condition. Your logic is twisted. The working class could free themselves from capitalist parasites, by taking ownership of the means of production, collectively. They could work at a workplace that is owned by the workers and run democratically. The banks will have to be nationalized by a government under the control of the working class, in order launch these worker-owned cooperatives.

All of this is going to happen soon.

Have at it, Champ. Be free as a bird, a bird with a tent.

 

[Red Front]

um, the working class is free to take ownership...that's what capitalism is all about. They are free to start their own businesses, and own their own means of production.

That's the difference between capitalism and socialism...in capitalism, the individual is free, in socialism they are not, they aren't free to own the means of production...the state does

No, you're incorrect. Capitalism is based on the commodification and exploitation of human labor. Read Adam Smith's work, titled "The Wealth Of Nations", where he, the father of capitalism, admits that capitalists are masters who exploit the labor of other human beings. There's no democracy in the workplace. Employees are "wage slaves".

Saying that a worker can become a capitalist parasite or "master" too, exploiting others, isn't a solution to mass production.
In socialism, the working class owns both the state (government) and the means of production collectively, because mass production is a social endeavor, not a private one. It requires human labor, facilities, and machinery. etc, hence it should be organized collectively, without creating an exploitative socioeconomic class or reducing human beings to commodities in a "labor market". Both the government (politics) and the workplace, where people spend most of their waking hours, should be run democratically. The factories should be owned and run by the people who work in those facilities, not by a special, privileged, often unaccountable class of parasites.

 

[Red Front]

Yep, there sure seem to be 1000's in San Francisco, 1000's in Portland, 1,000's in Los Angeles, and quite a few other cities that are already free.

They're not free, because they're homeless under a capitalist system. In socialism, they would be housed, because every human being has a right to housing. They would also receive the substance abuse counseling and medical care that they need to get their life back in order. That's socialism, as opposed to capitalism, which abandons people out in the street.

 

[Red Front]

Have at it, Champ. Be free as a bird, a bird with a tent.

Parasites like you are going to be in a tent perhaps, but socialists are going to own the means of production.

 

[Thinker101]

They're not free, because they're homeless under a capitalist system. In socialism, they would be housed, because every human being has a right to housing. They would also receive the substance abuse counseling and medical care that they need to get their life back in order. That's socialism, as opposed to capitalism, which abandons people out in the street.

Right to housing? Where the hell does it say that? Lemme guess, they also have a "right" to substance abuse counseling and a "right" to medical care? How about a "right" to food and a "right" to transportation. Sounds like you ought to stay in your mom's basement.

 

[Red Front]

Right to housing? Where the hell does it say that? Lemme guess, they also have a "right" to substance abuse counseling and a "right" to medical care? How about a "right" to food and a "right" to transportation. Sounds like you ought to stay in your mom's basement.

That's correct, a right. Society determines the rights of its members and in socialism, every member of society has the right to food, housing, clothing, healthcare, an education, and employment. Parasites like you will be hiding in their mommy's basements. Guaranteed.

 

[struth]

No, you're incorrect. Capitalism is based on the commodification and exploitation of human labor. Read Adam Smith's work, titled "The Wealth Of Nations", where he, the father of capitalism, admits that capitalists are masters who exploit the labor of other human beings. There's no democracy in the workplace. Employees are "wage slaves".

Saying that a worker can become a capitalist parasite or "master" too, exploiting others, isn't a solution to mass production.
In socialism, the working class owns both the state (government) and the means of production collectively, because mass production is a social endeavor, not a private one. It requires human labor, facilities, and machinery. etc, hence it should be organized collectively, without creating an exploitative socioeconomic class or reducing human beings to commodities in a "labor market". Both the government (politics) and the workplace, where people spend most of their waking hours, should be run democratically. The factories should be owned and run by the people who work in those facilities, not by a special, privileged, often unaccountable class of parasites.

i’ve read it

in a vaporizer society individuals are free, they don’t have to work for someone they don’t want to, they get paid for their labor

that’s not what happens under slavery

try again

 

[Red Front]

i’ve read it

in a vaporizer society individuals are free, they don’t have to work for someone they don’t want to, they get paid for their labor

that’s not what happens under slavery

try again

They most likely have to rent their labor power (lives) to a capitalist parasite in a "labor market". There's no choice in the matter unless you have the resources to be self-employed. Even then, all of your clients and customers will rely on wage labor for their incomes, whether directly or indirectly. The whole capitalist system is built upon the exploitation of human labor. A non-democratic, totalitarian regime that pays people less than what they produce (surplus value) and always without fail, results in government cronyism/corruption/bribery and plenty of bailouts (socialism for the rich!).

Capitalism privatizes profits (gains) and makes public its losses. Socialism for the wealthiest, "too big to fail" corporations, and pick-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps capitalism for the working class. It's fiscal responsibility for the laborer and reckless decadence and expenditures for the capitalists. As I mentioned earlier, mass production is a social, societal endeavor, not a private one. All human labor should work in a non-exploitative, democratically run enterprise, whose "bottom line" is human need, not human greed. Otherwise, we have more pain and suffering, disease, destruction, and death. That's what capitalism creates, at a much higher scale than when socialists fight capitalists.

Capitalists always resort to "death toll" arguments when they're pushed into a corner, philosophically. They think they have the moral high-ground when it comes to violence and death, but they couldn't be more delusional.

 

[surada]

Nobody but you are talking about patriotism and nationalism in the same breath.

yes, Trump believed in Nationalism, much like some of those figures from the United States in your link....Hamilton, Madison, and Washington. Sadly, today's demafascsit finds that to be a bad thing....case in point...your post.

I posted a link for you. See the Nationalists of the 20th century.

List of figures in nationalism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[surada]

They most likely have to rent their labor power (lives) to a capitalist parasite in a "labor market". There's no choice in the matter unless you have the resources to be self-employed. Even then, all of your clients and customers will rely on wage labor for their incomes, whether directly or indirectly. The whole capitalist system is built upon the exploitation of human labor. A non-democratic, totalitarian regime that pays people less than what they produce (surplus value) and always without fail, results in government cronyism/corruption/bribery and plenty of bailouts (socialism for the rich!).

Capitalism privatizes profits (gains) and makes public its losses. Socialism for the wealthiest, "too big to fail" corporations, and pick-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps capitalism for the working class. It's fiscal responsibility for the laborer and reckless decadence and expenditures for the capitalists. As I mentioned earlier, mass production is a social, societal endeavor, not a private one. All human labor should work in a non-exploitative, democratically run enterprise, whose "bottom line" is human need, not human greed. Otherwise, we have more pain and suffering, disease, destruction, and death. That's what capitalism creates, at a much higher scale than when socialists fight capitalists.

Capitalists always resort to "death toll" arguments when they're pushed into a corner, philosophically. They think they have the moral high-ground when it comes to violence and death, but they couldn't be more delusional.

Labor comes first in capitalism.

 

[Red Front]

Labor comes first in capitalism.

What do you mean by "coming first"?

 

[surada]

What do you mean by "coming first"?

Labor gets paid first. Have you ever had a business?

 

[struth]

I posted a link for you. See the Nationalists of the 20th century.

List of figures in nationalism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

what about it? yes , i guess trump’s like the other american on the list

 

[struth]

That's correct, a right. Society determines the rights of its members and in socialism, every member of society has the right to food, housing, clothing, healthcare, an education, and employment. Parasites like you will be hiding in their mommy's basements. Guaranteed.

haha no they don’t.

 

[Red Front]

Labor gets paid first. Have you ever had a business?

That's irrelevant and it's not why capitalism is built upon the backs of human labor. First of all, the capitalists are still exploiting their "employees" (exploitees) by paying them less than what they produce. It's only through the surplus value of what workers produce that the capitalist parasite and master generates an income or "return". The capitalist is an unnecessary middle-man in the enterprise since the workers could very easily own and operate the productive enterprise themselves democratically, without exploitation. What is stopping them is a lack of capital or money.

The capitalist system needs wage-labor, without it, there is no market or paying consumers. So in that sense, yes, workers come first. Capitalism is a system based on human commodification and exploitation.

Under capitalism, the government is under the control of capitalists, serving their interests and since it's not in the financial interest of capitalists to compete in the marketplace with worker-owned cooperatives, they rig the system to refuse to loan money for the creation of worker-owned cooperatives. If you go to the SBA (Small Business Administration) or to a private bank with the business plans for a worker-owned cooperative, you will in the vast majority of cases, not get the loan. The system under capitalism is designed to serve the financial interests of capitalists, not the working class.

The state is always a dictatorship. It's either a plutocracy, serving the interests of the rich and powerful at the expense of the vast majority of people (of the public good), or the dictatorship of the populace (of the proletariat/working class). Either a small group of wealthy elites are ruling through the state apparatus or the working class is ruling (democracy = rule of the majority of people). I prefer the rule of the majority to the rule of a small minority.

 

[Red Front]

haha no they don’t.

hehe yes they do. If society determines that its members have a right to housing, then its members have a right to housing. Like duh.

 

[struth]

hehe yes they do. If society determines that its members have a right to housing, then its members have a right to housing. Like duh.

haha homes require material and labor to build…money. Rights are not something govt provides its people. Socialist govts can take away housing, food etc from their people and have and do

 

[Red Front]

haha homes require material and labor to build…money. Rights are not something govt provides its people. Socialist govts can take away housing, food etc from their people and have and do

haha homes require material and labor to build…money.

Yeah? We have millions of vacant homes and apartments in this country. We could very easily house everyone. If society determines that it wants its government to recognize everyone's right to, at least, basic housing, and to provide housing to everyone who needs it, then that's what would happen. If you already have a home, then even though you have a right to housing, you don't have to move into that housing. You just keep the home you already have. In a socialist society, no one would be homeless.

Homelessness is more costly for society than simply housing everyone who needs housing.

Rights are not something govt provides its people.

The people who create the government to enforce contracts and protect rights, are the ones who determine what everyone's rights are. In our society, we have rights, and those rights are determined by the people who live in this society. It's that simple, but unfortunately, you just don't get it.

Socialist govts can take away housing, food etc from their people and have and do..

It wouldn't be a socialist government if it did that, it would be a capitalist-run government hehehehe. Don't pay your property taxes this year and you'll find out quickly who actually owns your home. They'll kick you out of "your house". Any government can abuse its power, be it socialist or run by capitalists. So your point is moot. The fact is that, in socialism, people have the right to food, housing, healthcare, education, and employment. You're less likely to lose your house in a socialist society, that in a capitalist one, where you need to pay a landlord, a bank, or even the government money, to stay in your home. That doesn't happen in socialism.