Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[dblack]

Yes. And what DID you mean? I assume you meant, "controlled by a majority of the people via government". If you didn't, please elaborate (but kindly avoid all the marxist equivocation).

Yes, there would have to be a governing body. Not necessarily on a national scale.

The question is the scope of the governing body's power. The Democratic Socialists say that government should run society. (and the economy, but that seems to be encompassed by "society").

We have a Constitution, troll.

Piss off troll.

should I practice arguing with Ogres, just for fun and practice with trolls?

Piss off troll.

 

[Tehon]

The question is the scope of the governing body's power. The Democratic Socialists say that government should run society. (and the economy, but that seems to be encompassed by "society").

Again, that is not a fair characterization of their beliefs.

It's their own words. How is it not a fair characterization of their beliefs? Are you saying the are sabotaging themselves? Deliberately misleading???

They explain what they mean by social ownership, decentralization and maintaining markets. You are deliberately ignoring that.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, there would have to be a governing body. Not necessarily on a national scale.

The question is the scope of the governing body's power. The Democratic Socialists say that government should run society. (and the economy, but that seems to be encompassed by "society").

We have a Constitution, troll.

You mean that document you loons keep trying to shred?

not me; i am a federalist. our Constitution contains our "holy grail" and supreme law of the land.

Sure, I call BS.

darn; too bad you are not a not a hot chic.

i love it when hot chics call me a liar and make me Prove it.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I'm a big fan of capitalism, but think it has to be regulated. Guess that makes me a commie

 

[dblack]

The question is the scope of the governing body's power. The Democratic Socialists say that government should run society. (and the economy, but that seems to be encompassed by "society").

Again, that is not a fair characterization of their beliefs.

It's their own words. How is it not a fair characterization of their beliefs? Are you saying the are sabotaging themselves? Deliberately misleading???

They explain what they mean by social ownership, decentralization and maintaining markets. You are deliberately ignoring that.

No I'm not. I just don't give a shit what their rationalizations are. The fact is, they want government to run society. I don't.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, there would have to be a governing body. Not necessarily on a national scale.

The question is the scope of the governing body's power. The Democratic Socialists say that government should run society. (and the economy, but that seems to be encompassed by "society").

We have a Constitution, troll.

Piss off troll.

should I practice arguing with Ogres, just for fun and practice with trolls?

Piss off troll.

what have i ever done to You?

 

[Thinker101]

The question is the scope of the governing body's power. The Democratic Socialists say that government should run society. (and the economy, but that seems to be encompassed by "society").

We have a Constitution, troll.

You mean that document you loons keep trying to shred?

not me; i am a federalist. our Constitution contains our "holy grail" and supreme law of the land.

Sure, I call BS.

darn; too bad you are not a not a hot chic.

i love it when hot chics call me a liar and make me Prove it.

Yep, who doesn't enjoy a good laugh.

 

[danielpalos]

The question is the scope of the governing body's power. The Democratic Socialists say that government should run society. (and the economy, but that seems to be encompassed by "society").

Again, that is not a fair characterization of their beliefs.

It's their own words. How is it not a fair characterization of their beliefs? Are you saying the are sabotaging themselves? Deliberately misleading???

They explain what they mean by social ownership, decentralization and maintaining markets. You are deliberately ignoring that.

No I'm not. I just don't give a shit what they're rationalizations are. The fact is, they want government to run society. I don't.

Government does run society. We have a Constitution, for that reason.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

One of the biggest problems with this society is that it gave those wishing to destroy it equal access.

THAT needs to change or there is no future.

You don't arm and enable the armies of your sworn enemies, allow them to live in your house, then expect to live freely and safely.

 

[dblack]

I'm a big fan of capitalism, but think it has to be regulated. Guess that makes me a commie

It all depends on what you mean by regulated. The term is the target of relentless equivocations. The government has a responsibility to make sure no one, business owner, consumer, or otherwise, is lying, cheating or stealing with regard to business transactions. But some people want government dictating wages, prices, practices - in the name of the public good. That's the kind of regulation libertarians and conservatives oppose.

 

[dblack]

The question is the scope of the governing body's power. The Democratic Socialists say that government should run society. (and the economy, but that seems to be encompassed by "society").

Again, that is not a fair characterization of their beliefs.

It's their own words. How is it not a fair characterization of their beliefs? Are you saying the are sabotaging themselves? Deliberately misleading???

They explain what they mean by social ownership, decentralization and maintaining markets. You are deliberately ignoring that.

No I'm not. I just don't give a shit what they're rationalizations are. The fact is, they want government to run society. I don't.

Government does run society. We have a Constitution, for that reason.

Piss off troll.

 

[McRocket]

Do you mean "controlled by the people", or "controlled by the government"? They're not the same thing.

I said controlled by we the people. That is what I meant.

Yes. And what DID you mean? I assume you meant, "controlled by a majority of the people via government". If you didn't, please elaborate (but kindly avoid all the marxist equivocation).

Yes, there would have to be a governing body. Not necessarily on a national scale.

Are you for the Fed?

No.

I am a Marxist. I am for a system of production that is absent capital.

I see.

 

[danielpalos]

Again, that is not a fair characterization of their beliefs.

It's their own words. How is it not a fair characterization of their beliefs? Are you saying the are sabotaging themselves? Deliberately misleading???

They explain what they mean by social ownership, decentralization and maintaining markets. You are deliberately ignoring that.

No I'm not. I just don't give a shit what they're rationalizations are. The fact is, they want government to run society. I don't.

Government does run society. We have a Constitution, for that reason.

Piss off troll.

only Trolls have no arguments.

 

[dblack]

It's their own words. How is it not a fair characterization of their beliefs? Are you saying the are sabotaging themselves? Deliberately misleading???

They explain what they mean by social ownership, decentralization and maintaining markets. You are deliberately ignoring that.

No I'm not. I just don't give a shit what they're rationalizations are. The fact is, they want government to run society. I don't.

Government does run society. We have a Constitution, for that reason.

Piss off troll.

only Trolls have no arguments.

Piss off troll.

 

[danielpalos]

They explain what they mean by social ownership, decentralization and maintaining markets. You are deliberately ignoring that.

No I'm not. I just don't give a shit what they're rationalizations are. The fact is, they want government to run society. I don't.

Government does run society. We have a Constitution, for that reason.

Piss off troll.

only Trolls have no arguments.

Piss off troll.

even ogres argue better than trolls with no arguments like you.

 

[dblack]

No I'm not. I just don't give a shit what they're rationalizations are. The fact is, they want government to run society. I don't.

Government does run society. We have a Constitution, for that reason.

Piss off troll.

only Trolls have no arguments.

Piss off troll.

even ogres argue better than trolls with no arguments like you.

Piss off troll.

 

[danielpalos]

i am not the one with Only fallacy (of ad hominem) and claiming i am more serious than any troll.

 

[MisterBeale]

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”

That wasn't really Capitalism.

That banking system was socialized. That is what caused the entire system to fail.

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”

Capitalism, you say?

Um, no....

https://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf

Thank you.

You saved me a lot of work.

 

[MisterBeale]

. . . and incidentally, we will continue to have failures, recessions, depressions and corruption until we get rid of the FED.

 

[Markle]

I thought the democrats had a democrat platform not a platform for every district.

Ha! As you know well, Democrats have a different platform for every minority group. For Democrats, a platform is synonymous with pandering.