Next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...

[Cellblock2429]

Greed is the cancer killing this country.

• Nearly 40 million people are living in poverty in America.

This is what poverty looks like in the US right now

And? So?

1. That means there are 10 million imbeciles (such as yourself) who are too lazy, incompetent, etc. to take care of their business. They are so inept, they even had children when they were incapable of properly caring for them (hence the poverty and the additional 30 million).

2. 100% of people live in extreme poverty in Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, etc. 40 million in America is a paltry 12%. That means 88% are flourishing. Dumb ass.

/----/ And I'm sure 100% of Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, etc people would trade places with the American "poor" in a heartbeat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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”



An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link, content.
Angelo

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.

Better than communism. Much, much better.
Better before, better during, better after.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality.

Creators distribute wealth. Freely. Government can only confiscate and destroy wealth.
Inequality can't be undone. Sorry. Human nature.

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises),

No inequality, instability, cycles or crises under Wolff's Marxism?

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members.

Wolff is free to start up such an enterprise. If only he had any useful skills, beyond pushing his failed Marxist "ideas".

 

[the other mike]

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”



An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link, content.
Angelo

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.

Better than communism. Much, much better.
Better before, better during, better after.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality.

Creators distribute wealth. Freely. Government can only confiscate and destroy wealth.
Inequality can't be undone. Sorry. Human nature.

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises),

No inequality, instability, cycles or crises under Wolff's Marxism?

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members.

Wolff is free to start up such an enterprise. If only he had any useful skills, beyond pushing his failed Marxist "ideas".

School's out. I'm not the one who
brought this up again.

 

[the other mike]

You can tell the silver spoon ones like patriot who get their feathers all ruffled at the mention of the word. All they care about is daddy's estate .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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”



An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link, content.
Angelo

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.

Better than communism. Much, much better.
Better before, better during, better after.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality.

Creators distribute wealth. Freely. Government can only confiscate and destroy wealth.
Inequality can't be undone. Sorry. Human nature.

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises),

No inequality, instability, cycles or crises under Wolff's Marxism?

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members.

Wolff is free to start up such an enterprise. If only he had any useful skills, beyond pushing his failed Marxist "ideas".

School's out. I'm not the one who
brought this up again.

Marxism works so well, every country that tried it collapsed into their own black hole of shit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can tell the silver spoon ones like patriot who get their feathers all ruffled at the mention of the word. All they care about is daddy's estate .

LOL!

 

[the other mike]

 

[the other mike]

 

[Cellblock2429]

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”



An OP should be 3-4 paragraphs, link, content.
Angelo

Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.

USMB Rules and Guidelines

Ask them how well capitalism was doing in 1929.

Better than communism. Much, much better.
Better before, better during, better after.

It is far better not to distribute wealth unequally in the first place than to re-distribute it after to undo the inequality.

Creators distribute wealth. Freely. Government can only confiscate and destroy wealth.
Inequality can't be undone. Sorry. Human nature.

To the extent that capitalism’s problems – inequality, instability (cycles/crises),

No inequality, instability, cycles or crises under Wolff's Marxism?

Worker coops democratically decide the distribution of income (wages, bonuses, benefits, profit shares, etc.) among their members.

Wolff is free to start up such an enterprise. If only he had any useful skills, beyond pushing his failed Marxist "ideas".

School's out. I'm not the one who
brought this up again.

Marxism works so well, every country that tried it collapsed into their own black hole of shit.

/——/ Marxism works so well, they shoot you if you disagree.

 

[the other mike]

/——/ Marxism works so well, they shoot you if you disagree.

Is that why Edward Snowden had to run to Russia ?

What good is capitalism if it means spending a trillion a year
on security ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

/——/ Marxism works so well, they shoot you if you disagree.

Is that why Edward Snowden had to run to Russia ?

What good is capitalism if it means spending a trillion a year
on security ?

Is that why Edward Snowden had to run to Russia ?

Because.....capitalism?

 

[P@triot]

Mods please move to the Flame Zone where
I can more appropriately deal with the trolls. .

Bwahahaha! He's begging for his own thread to be hijacked and moved to the Flame Zone because he's been so throughly defeated, that he has nothing left but to rant, scream, and cry.

 

[P@triot]

What good is capitalism if it means spending a trillion a year on security ?

What good is socialism if the rabbit can't shovel when the manufacturing billows?

(Psst...my question made as much sense as your nonsensical, unrelated, idiotic question)

What the fuck does the price tag for national security in the current geopolitical climate have to do with capitalism?!? They are two completely unrelated items. National security threats are not even remotely driven by a chosen economic system.

 

[P@triot]

The next time you hear someone criticizing socialism...congratulate them for not being ignorant/uneducated/uninformed about the horrors of socialism like Angelo.

The Chinese communists, like all communists, hide societal problems. There is no crime, disease, or addiction in the collectivist state. This kind of secrecy and dishonesty can be disastrous, especially in a highly interconnected world.

People like Angelo advocate for this kind of horrific totalitarian state in exchange for a few pitiful government table scraps. Imagine trading freedom someone else delivered so you can live like an obedient dog, just because you're too fuck'n lazy to support yourself.

Coronavirus Is the Chinese Government's Curse Upon the World

 

[the other mike]

Troll alert.

 

[the other mike]

To much of a pussy to respond to my PM I see.

 

[the other mike]

/——/ Marxism works so well, they shoot you if you disagree.

Is that why Edward Snowden had to run to Russia ?

What good is capitalism if it means spending a trillion a year
on security ?

Is that why Edward Snowden had to run to Russia ?

Because.....capitalism?

Yes sir.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

/——/ Marxism works so well, they shoot you if you disagree.

Is that why Edward Snowden had to run to Russia ?

What good is capitalism if it means spending a trillion a year
on security ?

Is that why Edward Snowden had to run to Russia ?

Because.....capitalism?

Yes sir.

Snowden take down the WTC?

 

[the other mike]

Snowden take down the WTC?

Your amusing little trick questions don't impress anyone.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Snowden take down the WTC?

Your amusing little trick questions don't impress anyone.

Neither does your ignorance of economics.