What would a socialist America look like?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

George Will nails it again. George F. Will: Would Socialist America Be Much Different?

tl;dr - A: About like it does now.

...

What is socialism? And what might a socialist American government do?

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

After World War II, Britain’s Labour Party diluted socialist doctrine to mean state ownership of the economy’s “commanding heights” (Lenin's phrase from 1922) — heavy industry (e.g., steel), mining, railroads, telecommunications, etc. Since then, in Britain and elsewhere, further dilution has produced socialism as comprehensive economic regulation by the administrative state (obviating the need for nationalization of economic sectors) and government energetically redistributing wealth. So, if America had a socialist government today, what would it be like?

Socialism favors the thorough permeation of economic life by “social” (aka political) considerations, so it embraces protectionism — government telling consumers what they can buy, in what quantities and at what prices. (A socialist American government might even set quotas and prices for foreign washing machines.)

Socialism favors maximizing government’s role supplementing, even largely supplanting, the market — voluntary private transactions — in the allocation of wealth by implementing redistributionist programs. (Today America's sky is dark with dollars flying hither and yon at government's direction: Transfer payments distribute 14 percent of GDP, two-thirds of the federal budget, up from a little more than one-quarter in 1960. In the half-century 1963-2013, transfer payments were the fastest-growing category of personal income. By 2010, American governments were transferring $2.2 trillion in government money, goods and services.)

Socialism favors vigorous government interventions in the allocation of capital, directing it to uses that farsighted government knows, and the slow-witted market does not realize, constitute the wave of the future. So, an American socialist government might tell, say, Carrier Corp. and Harley-Davidson that the government knows better than they do where they should invest shareholders' assets.

Mike Lee's office displays two piles of paper. One, a few inches high, contains the laws Congress passed in a recent year. The other, about 8 feet tall, contains regulations churned out that year by the administrative state's agencies.)

Socialism favors vast scope for ad hoc executive actions unbound by constraining laws that stifle executive nimbleness and creativity. (Imagine an aggrieved president telling, say, Harley-Davidson: “I've” — first-person singular pronoun — “done so much for you.”)

Will is wrong again.

Obviously most conservatives are ignorant as to what constitutes "socialism."

 

[WinterBorn]

Why is it selfish to want to keep the money you earn, but choosing to not work while taking money from workers is somehow being magnanimous?

only Stories, story teller; you need to come up with New arguments.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.[

How does increasing the amount of money paid to people who do not work lower the tax burden? Details please.

A positive multiplier effect. Capital must work, not fools or horses.

But the majority of the population must work or the system fails.

Why do you think you get to be one who lives well without working?

And how long would you live off others before you went to work to give others a chance to enjoy the spoils of the system you espouse?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Full employment of resources is what produces the efficiency gain for our economy.

I understand that the taxes come from those who work. So more people must work so that they can support themselves and you.

Or do you intend that some will work their entire lives so that others can refuse to work and still have a decent life?

 

[dblack]

Will is wrong again.

Obviously most conservatives are ignorant as to what constitutes "socialism."

Did you even read it? That's what he's saying.

 

[danielpalos]

only Stories, story teller; you need to come up with New arguments.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.[

How does increasing the amount of money paid to people who do not work lower the tax burden? Details please.

A positive multiplier effect. Capital must work, not fools or horses.

But the majority of the population must work or the system fails.

Why do you think you get to be one who lives well without working?

And how long would you live off others before you went to work to give others a chance to enjoy the spoils of the system you espouse?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Full employment of resources is what produces the efficiency gain for our economy.

I understand that the taxes come from those who work. So more people must work so that they can support themselves and you.

Or do you intend that some will work their entire lives so that others can refuse to work and still have a decent life?

Taxes are paid by simply circulating capital; only Capital must work under Capitalism. We have covered this, several times.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Do yourselves a favor and don’t try to understand danielpalos...then thank God that you can’t understand him or level with him.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Still pushing for unemployment compensation even if you quit a job? Why should other people work to earn money just to have to give it to you? Especially if you are able to work and just quit because you don’t want to work?

And FYI, increasing industrial automation will increase unemployment.

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

It seems that paying people not to work would encourage them to keep not working.

Not hiring everyone who asks, also encourages people to not work. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

Not at all. When I left the Marine Corps I applied for probably more than 100 positions that told me no, and that happening did not make me want to just quit working, it lead me to try harder and make the choice to expand my skill set and education.

A natural rate of unemployment is a good thing, there needs to be a certain amount of people ready to fill new positions. A natural rate of unemployment is the churning of the work force and is a good thing. People that choose to be "long time unemployed" are the problem

anecdotes; story tellers rely on them.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment, even if everyone is required to obtain a doctorate, to enter the work force.

As I said...A natural rate of unemployment is a good thing, there needs to be a certain amount of people ready to fill new positions. A natural rate of unemployment is the churning of the work force and is a good thing.

 

[WinterBorn]

How does increasing the amount of money paid to people who do not work lower the tax burden? Details please.

A positive multiplier effect. Capital must work, not fools or horses.

But the majority of the population must work or the system fails.

Why do you think you get to be one who lives well without working?

And how long would you live off others before you went to work to give others a chance to enjoy the spoils of the system you espouse?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Full employment of resources is what produces the efficiency gain for our economy.

I understand that the taxes come from those who work. So more people must work so that they can support themselves and you.

Or do you intend that some will work their entire lives so that others can refuse to work and still have a decent life?

Taxes are paid by simply circulating capital; only Capital must work under Capitalism. We have covered this, several times.

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

 

[WinterBorn]

Daniel, have you ever been tested for autism? Based on our extensive conversations, I believe you are on the spectrum.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The corrupt Democratic Party's version of socialism would look like Venezuela, not Denmark.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The corrupt Democratic Party's version of socialism would look like Venezuela, not Denmark.

This thread is about the corrupt Republican party version of socialism.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[danielpalos]

Do yourselves a favor and don’t try to understand danielpalos...then thank God that you can’t understand him or level with him.

spammer.

 

[danielpalos]

It is about economics, not selfish points of view.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, solves simple poverty and is more cost effective than any form of means testing for welfare.

We could be lowering our tax burden by increasing the efficiency of our economy.

It seems that paying people not to work would encourage them to keep not working.

Not hiring everyone who asks, also encourages people to not work. Capitalism has a Natural rate of unemployment.

Not at all. When I left the Marine Corps I applied for probably more than 100 positions that told me no, and that happening did not make me want to just quit working, it lead me to try harder and make the choice to expand my skill set and education.

A natural rate of unemployment is a good thing, there needs to be a certain amount of people ready to fill new positions. A natural rate of unemployment is the churning of the work force and is a good thing. People that choose to be "long time unemployed" are the problem

anecdotes; story tellers rely on them.

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment, even if everyone is required to obtain a doctorate, to enter the work force.

As I said...A natural rate of unemployment is a good thing, there needs to be a certain amount of people ready to fill new positions. A natural rate of unemployment is the churning of the work force and is a good thing.

Why does the right wing, Whine about the cost of social services, when it is for the Good of Capitalists, not Labor?

 

[danielpalos]

A positive multiplier effect. Capital must work, not fools or horses.

But the majority of the population must work or the system fails.

Why do you think you get to be one who lives well without working?

And how long would you live off others before you went to work to give others a chance to enjoy the spoils of the system you espouse?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Full employment of resources is what produces the efficiency gain for our economy.

I understand that the taxes come from those who work. So more people must work so that they can support themselves and you.

Or do you intend that some will work their entire lives so that others can refuse to work and still have a decent life?

Taxes are paid by simply circulating capital; only Capital must work under Capitalism. We have covered this, several times.

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

Capitalism is about Voluntary social transactions; Socialism requires "force".

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel, have you ever been tested for autism? Based on our extensive conversations, I believe you are on the spectrum.

I resort to the least amount of fallacies, story tellers.

 

[Tehon]

Will starts from a false premise, which naturally leads to faulty conclusions. State ownership of the means of production is not the starting point of the social revolution, nor does it much factor into the socialist equation at any time. And government can never be fully dispensed with. The state and government are not synonymous in socialist parlance. Will is using them here interchangeably.

In its 19th-century infancy, socialist theory was at least admirable in its clarity: It meant state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange. Until, of course, the state “withers away” (Friedrich Engels’ phrase), when a classless, and hence harmonious, society can dispense with government.

 

[WinterBorn]

But the majority of the population must work or the system fails.

Why do you think you get to be one who lives well without working?

And how long would you live off others before you went to work to give others a chance to enjoy the spoils of the system you espouse?

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Full employment of resources is what produces the efficiency gain for our economy.

I understand that the taxes come from those who work. So more people must work so that they can support themselves and you.

Or do you intend that some will work their entire lives so that others can refuse to work and still have a decent life?

Taxes are paid by simply circulating capital; only Capital must work under Capitalism. We have covered this, several times.

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

Capitalism is about Voluntary social transactions; Socialism requires "force".

Not just voluntary transactions.

But you ignored my questions, as usual.

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

 

[danielpalos]

You simply don't understand the concepts.

Full employment of resources is what produces the efficiency gain for our economy.

I understand that the taxes come from those who work. So more people must work so that they can support themselves and you.

Or do you intend that some will work their entire lives so that others can refuse to work and still have a decent life?

Taxes are paid by simply circulating capital; only Capital must work under Capitalism. We have covered this, several times.

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

Capitalism is about Voluntary social transactions; Socialism requires "force".

Not just voluntary transactions.

But you ignored my questions, as usual.

And it is not just capital. There is work that must be performed. Why do you get to decide you don't want to work, but expect for your expenses to be covered by others who do work?

Also, do you expect a standard of living above subsistence? If you choose not to work, society can provide you with food & shelter. But if you want your own transportation, entertainment, vacations ect, you have to work.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

That solves simple poverty.

 

[dblack]

Will starts from a false premise, which naturally leads to faulty conclusions. State ownership of the means of production is not the starting point of the social revolution, nor does it much factor into the socialist equation at any time. And government can never be fully dispensed with. The state and government are not synonymous in socialist parlance. Will is using them here interchangeably.

Which is completely irrelevant to his point. But thank you for sharing.

 

[Tehon]

Will starts from a false premise, which naturally leads to faulty conclusions. State ownership of the means of production is not the starting point of the social revolution, nor does it much factor into the socialist equation at any time. And government can never be fully dispensed with. The state and government are not synonymous in socialist parlance. Will is using them here interchangeably.

Which is completely irrelevant to his point. But thank you for sharing.

It is completely relevant to his point. Will is not describing a socialist society at all. He is describing an American society that is at an advanced stage of capitalism. If you think Trump is working for the betterment of society and not the betterment of the specific property owners who helped get him elected and who own your government, you're delusional.

Consider Marx's words from The German Ideology.


In the case of the nations which grew out of the Middle Ages, tribal property evolved through various stages — feudal landed property, corporative movable property, capital invested in manufacture — to modern capital, determined by big industry and universal competition, i.e. pure private property, which has cast off all semblance of a communal institution and has shut out the State from any influence on the development of property. To this modern private property corresponds the modern State, which, purchased gradually by the owners of property by means of taxation, has fallen entirely into their hands through the national debt, and its existence has become wholly dependent on the commercial credit which the owners of property, the bourgeois, extend to it, as reflected in the rise and fall of State funds on the stock exchange. By the mere fact that it is a class and no longer an estate, the bourgeoisie is forced to organise itself no longer locally, but nationally, and to give a general form to its mean average interest. Through the emancipation of private property from the community, the State has become a separate entity, beside and outside civil society; but it is nothing more than the form of organisation which the bourgeois necessarily adopt both for internal and external purposes, for the mutual guarantee of their property and interests.

 

[dblack]

Will starts from a false premise, which naturally leads to faulty conclusions. State ownership of the means of production is not the starting point of the social revolution, nor does it much factor into the socialist equation at any time. And government can never be fully dispensed with. The state and government are not synonymous in socialist parlance. Will is using them here interchangeably.

Which is completely irrelevant to his point. But thank you for sharing.

It is completely relevant to his point. Will is not describing a socialist society at all. He is describing an American society that is at an advanced stage of capitalism. If you think Trump is working for the betterment of society and not the betterment of the specific property owners who helped get him elected and who own your government, you're delusional.

Heh, yeah. You missed the point entirely. He's showing that many of Trump's policies would be considered socialist if a Democrat were behind them. It doesn't matter whether their definitions align with yours. The point is that they are being conned.

Consider Marx's words from The German Ideology.

Speaking of cons ...

Sorry, I've spent too much time slogging through Marx as it is. Better things to think about.