Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[danielpalos]

Government is Socialism, not Capitalism.

It's neither one. System is.

Is that, by the way, why you want more government?

Government is socialism. You can't have socialism without Government. We even have a Constitution.

Slow down, spergy.

It's not. Socialism involves public ownership of businesses and property through government action.

Our constitution ensure that doesn't happen. In socialist countries, systems, the socialism itself IS the constitution.

Only in the right wing special pleading of dictionary definition not an encyclopedic definition.

Why don't you post it, spergy?

simply posting any encyclopedic definition means you are merely special pleading with political jargon invented for the Cold War.

 

[danielpalos]

Slow down, spergy.

It's not. Socialism involves public ownership of businesses and property through government action.

Our constitution ensure that doesn't happen. In socialist countries, systems, the socialism itself IS the constitution.

Don't try to reason with danpalos. He will just hit you up with a bunch of platitudes and misidentified fallacies that he never explains.

It's not just him, it's every single leftist here.

The Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Khmer Rouge, Fidelista's, Sandanista's ad nauseam... they all promised wealth, fraternity, abolition of ownership, freedom, utopia.

The workers mother fucking paradise.

They delivered poverty, pestilence, slavery and hundreds of millions dead.

So. Let's talk again about this Marxist universal basic income...

i am a federalist. understand the federal doctrine. unlike the right wing.

 

[dblack]

Slow down, spergy.

It's not. Socialism involves public ownership of businesses and property through government action.

Our constitution ensure that doesn't happen. In socialist countries, systems, the socialism itself IS the constitution.

Don't try to reason with danpalos. He will just hit you up with a bunch of platitudes and misidentified fallacies that he never explains.

It's not just him, it's every single leftist here.

The Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Khmer Rouge, Fidelista's, Sandanista's ad nauseam... they all promised wealth, fraternity, abolition of ownership, freedom, utopia.

The workers mother fucking paradise.

They delivered poverty, pestilence, slavery and hundreds of millions dead.

So. Let's talk again about this Marxist universal basic income...

i am a federalist. understand the federal doctrine. unlike the right wing.

You're a half-conscious troll.

 

[danielpalos]

Slow down, spergy.

It's not. Socialism involves public ownership of businesses and property through government action.

Our constitution ensure that doesn't happen. In socialist countries, systems, the socialism itself IS the constitution.

Don't try to reason with danpalos. He will just hit you up with a bunch of platitudes and misidentified fallacies that he never explains.

It's not just him, it's every single leftist here.

The Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, Khmer Rouge, Fidelista's, Sandanista's ad nauseam... they all promised wealth, fraternity, abolition of ownership, freedom, utopia.

The workers mother fucking paradise.

They delivered poverty, pestilence, slavery and hundreds of millions dead.

So. Let's talk again about this Marxist universal basic income...

i am a federalist. understand the federal doctrine. unlike the right wing.

You're a half-conscious troll.

only trolls, say that.

 

[danielpalos]

why does the right always seem to not know what they are protesting.

 

[the other mike]

.... so your bullshit post,..

I started to thank you, but then I saw this.

 

[the other mike]

only trolls, say that.

And disinformation agents.

 

[danielpalos]

only trolls, say that.

And disinformation agents.

View attachment 245671

i resort to the fewest fallacies; why should the left take the "biggest liars" seriously.

 

[the other mike]

Singapore.

Where socialism

and capitalism meet.

 

[danielpalos]

AAA credit rating from the "big three", and the only Asian country to achieve this rating.[206] Singapore attracts a large amount of foreign investment as a result of its location, skilled workforce, low tax rates, advanced infrastructure and zero-tolerance against corruption.[207] --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore#Economy

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're attempting to justify embracing Socialism TODAY by asking people to remember what 'Capitalism' was like IN 1929?
.

How about 2019 ?

Will the U.S. Dollar Collapse? How and When That Could Occur

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4203870-dollar-index-going-collapse

$22,000,000,000,000 U.S. National Debt

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Not before the ruble collapses.

 

[The Original Tree]

Singapore.
View attachment 245674
View attachment 245675 Where socialism
View attachment 245677
and capitalism meet.
View attachment 245676

As I said before, your post regarding the beauty of Socialism is BULLSHIT.

The economy of Singapore is a highly developed free-market economy.[15][16] Singapore's economy has been ranked as the most open in the world,[17] 7th least corrupt,[18] most pro-business,[19] with low tax rates (14.2% of Gross Domestic Product, GDP)[20] and has the third highest per-capita GDP in the world in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). APEC is headquartered in Singapore.

Economy of Singapore - Wikipedia

 

[danielpalos]

Singapore.
View attachment 245674
View attachment 245675 Where socialism
View attachment 245677
and capitalism meet.
View attachment 245676

As I said before, your post regarding the beauty of Socialism is BULLSHIT.

The economy of Singapore is a highly developed free-market economy.[15][16] Singapore's economy has been ranked as the most open in the world,[17] 7th least corrupt,[18] most pro-business,[19] with low tax rates (14.2% of Gross Domestic Product, GDP)[20] and has the third highest per-capita GDP in the world in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). APEC is headquartered in Singapore.

Economy of Singapore - Wikipedia

public policy commanded that economy.

walls are worthless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Careful, Todster gonna come in and tell you that's all fake news!

Toddster isn't even any fun to kick around anymore. I've been tinkering with the other Bolshevik in the economics threads lately. Toro, I think is the name? Man, he got triggereed nice and good last week, too.

If we remember right, it was the Bolshevik government in Russia that was the first example of the state planning of the economy. This was long before Keynes, but Keynsianism on its face.

It's always funny when the Keynesians (aka socialists) around here pretend to be conservatives, isn't it? They get by with it, too, because not many of us on here know enough about monetary policy and economic theory to call em out on it. The reality is that they're actually true reflections of the Bosheviks in the Russian government of those days. They're trustees and defenders of the same kind of central economic planning by a central bank. lol. They just don't know they're Bosheviks. Tee Hee Hee.

Wait, lemme find a link, so people know what I'm talking about.

Here's a good one - Influence of WW2 in the implementation of Keynesian Demand Management

Bless your heart!

 

[georgephillip]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Your link:

"We can get at this in other words.

"Markets were mechanisms of distribution in societies with very different production systems.

"For example, in economies based on the enslavement of people, resulting in a production system involving masters and slaves, 'inputs' and 'outputs' — including enslaved people — were often bought and sold in markets. We might then speak of slave markets: when a slave production system coexisted with a market distribution system.

"If productive enterprises remain structured around the employer-employee relationship, they remain capitalist with or without a coexisting market system."

Episode 10 – Worker Self-Directed Enterprises and Socialism (w/ Dr. Richard Wolff)

Markets that distribute goods and service based on the ability to pay insure the hierarchies of owner and (wage) slave remain unchallenged.

Until we bring democracy to the place where most adults spend a majority of their waking hours, socialism will remain an untested alternative to slavery of all kinds.

 

[iceberg]

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.
View attachment 245504 View attachment 245506 View attachment 245505

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises), etc. – stem in part from its production relationships, reforms focused exclusively on regulating or supplanting markets will not succeed in solving them. For example, Keynesian monetary policies (focused on raising or lowering the quantity of money in circulation and, correspondingly, interest rates) do not touch the employer-employee relationship, however much their variations redistribute wealth, regulate markets, or displace markets in favor of state-administered investment decisions. Likewise, Keynesian fiscal policies (raising or lowering taxes and government spending) do not address the employer-employee relationship.

Keynesian policies also never ended the cyclical instability of capitalism. The New Deal and European social democracy left capitalism in place in both state and private units (enterprises) of production notwithstanding their massive reform agendas and programs. They thereby left capitalist employers facing the incentives and receiving the resources (profits) to evade, weaken and eventually dissolve most of those programs.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality. For example, FDR proposed in 1944 that the government establish a maximum income alongside a minimum wage; that is one among the various ways inequality could be limited and thereby redistribution avoided. Efforts to redistribute encounter evasions, oppositions, and failures that compound the effects of unequal distribution itself. Social peace and cohesion are the victims of redistribution sooner or later. Reforming markets while leaving the relations/organization of capitalist production unchanged is like redistribution. Just as redistribution schemes fail to solve the problems rooted in distribution, market-focused reforms fail to solve the problems rooted in production.

Since 2008, capitalism has showed us all yet again its deep and unsolved problems of cyclical instability, deepening inequality and the injustices they both entail. Their persistence mirrors that of the capitalist organization of production. To successfully confront and solve the problems of economic cycles, income and wealth inequality, and so on, we need to go beyond the capitalist employer-employee system of production. The democratization of enterprises – transitioning from employer-employee hierarchies to worker cooperatives – is a key way available here and now to realize the change we need.

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members. No small group of owners and the boards of directors they choose would, as in capitalist corporations, make such decisions. Thus, for example, it would be far less likely that a few individuals in a worker coop would earn millions while most others could not afford to send children to college. A democratic worker coop decision on the distribution of enterprise income would be far less unequal than what typifies capitalist enterprises. A socialism for the 21st century could and should include the transition from a capitalist to a worker-coop-based economic system as central to its commitments to less inequality and less social conflict over redistribution.

Capitalism Is Not the “Market System”

don't really give a fuck. you want to live in a socialist country, move to one.

 

[the other mike]

don't really give a fuck. you want to live in a socialist country, move to one.

Like Florida ? Okay.

 

[iceberg]

don't really give a fuck. you want to live in a socialist country, move to one.

Like Florida ? Okay.

so florida is a country.

and we wonder why we're fucked.

 

[the other mike]

"We can get at this in other words.

"Markets were mechanisms of distribution in societies with very different production systems.

"For example, in economies based on the enslavement of people, resulting in a production system involving masters and slaves, 'inputs' and 'outputs' — including enslaved people — were often bought and sold in markets. We might then speak of slave markets: when a slave production system coexisted with a market distribution system.

"If productive enterprises remain structured around the employer-employee relationship, they remain capitalist with or without a coexisting market system."

Episode 10 – Worker Self-Directed Enterprises and Socialism (w/ Dr. Richard Wolff)

Markets that distribute goods and service based on the ability to pay insure the hierarchies of owner and (wage) slave remain unchallenged.

Until we bring democracy to the place where most adults spend a majority of their waking hours, socialism will remain an untested alternative to slavery of all kinds.

Here's a good example of a very successful worker-co op in northern Spain.
Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

 

[the other mike]

don't really give a fuck. you want to live in a socialist country, move to one.

Like Florida ? Okay.

so florida is a country.

and we wonder why we're fucked.

How old are you ?