Who's Afraid of Socialism?

[Tehon]

And advanced industrial economy without money is as unthinkable is an honest politician.

I have to agree with you that any advanced economy that could function without money is hard to imagine, but there are many things I can't imagine that will possibly become reality one day.

We would use labor credits as a medium of exchange in a socialist economy first before we would transition into a moneyless communist society.

Using labor credits as a medium of exchange seems similar in some ways to the notion debt and credit appeared historically before money?

Debt: The First 5000 Years - Wikipedia

"Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011...."

"The author claims that debt and credit historically appeared before money, which itself appeared before barter. This is the opposite of the narrative given in standard economics texts dating back to Adam Smith.

"To support this, he cites numerous historical, ethnographic and archaeological studies. He also claims that the standard economics texts cite no evidence for suggesting that barter came before money, credit and debt, and he has seen no credible reports suggesting such.

"The primary theme of the book is that excessive popular indebtedness has sometimes led to unrest, insurrection, and revolt.

"He argues that credit systems originally developed as means of account long before the advent of coinage, which appeared around 600 BC.

"Credit can still be seen operating in non-monetary economies.

"Barter, on the other hand, seems primarily to have been used for limited exchanges between different societies that had infrequent contact and often were in a context of ritualized warfare."

I'm assuming the transition into a moneyless communist society would eliminate the existence of private fortunes and ritualized warfare?

Yes, socialism would eliminate the existence of private fortunes. And there would be no one to be indebted to. Capital would be no more.

Capital would still be the there. It would just be controlled by government instead of the people.

Mkay - so if socialism is just capitalism only spelled different, why do we need two words? Why does anything need to change?

Why would there be capital if we call it socialism?

 

[dblack]

And they call it Democratic socialism just because the GOP has brainwashed so many people into believing that socialism is communism, the Cold War dinosaur brainwashed functional morons...

They call it Democratic Socialism because so many people have been brainwashed to think that democracy is inherently good. They'd probably be just as excited to see Democratic Fascism - which is what we're going to get.

Some speculate, and I agree with them, that we already have it.

Inverted totalitarianism - Wikipedia

Inverted

I have to agree with you that any advanced economy that could function without money is hard to imagine, but there are many things I can't imagine that will possibly become reality one day.

We would use labor credits as a medium of exchange in a socialist economy first before we would transition into a moneyless communist society.

Using labor credits as a medium of exchange seems similar in some ways to the notion debt and credit appeared historically before money?

Debt: The First 5000 Years - Wikipedia

"Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011...."

"The author claims that debt and credit historically appeared before money, which itself appeared before barter. This is the opposite of the narrative given in standard economics texts dating back to Adam Smith.

"To support this, he cites numerous historical, ethnographic and archaeological studies. He also claims that the standard economics texts cite no evidence for suggesting that barter came before money, credit and debt, and he has seen no credible reports suggesting such.

"The primary theme of the book is that excessive popular indebtedness has sometimes led to unrest, insurrection, and revolt.

"He argues that credit systems originally developed as means of account long before the advent of coinage, which appeared around 600 BC.

"Credit can still be seen operating in non-monetary economies.

"Barter, on the other hand, seems primarily to have been used for limited exchanges between different societies that had infrequent contact and often were in a context of ritualized warfare."

I'm assuming the transition into a moneyless communist society would eliminate the existence of private fortunes and ritualized warfare?

Yes, socialism would eliminate the existence of private fortunes. And there would be no one to be indebted to. Capital would be no more.

Capital would still be the there. It would just be controlled by government instead of the people.

Mkay - so if socialism is just capitalism only spelled different, why do we need two words? Why does anything need to change?

Why would there be capital if we call it socialism?

Because words are just labels? Seriously?

Under socialism, government controls capital rather than private investors. You really don't get that? That's the whole point.

 

[Tehon]

Some critics of capitalism think of socialism as its shadow; although, I'm not sure how that relates to the notion that US politics is the shadow cast on society by big business:

...

Do you have any opinions of your own? Seriously, ninety percent of your posts are just c-n-p and links to barely-related articles. I dunno about anyone else here, but I never bother reading them.

I have to believe that they are submitted to further one's understanding. If the intent is not to advance an understanding or challenge one's beliefs then the appropriate thing to do would be to ignore them.

 

[22lcidw]

Lol
Who sold the slaves to the plantation owners… other Africans the dumbass fucker

How many of the "other Africans" became millionaires from the transatlantic slave trade?

The Clear Connection Between Slavery And American Capitalism

"In the decades between the American Revolution and the Civil War, slavery—as a source of the cotton that fed Rhode Island’s mills, as a source of the wealth that filled New York’s banks, as a source of the markets that inspired Massachusetts manufacturers—proved indispensable to national economic development,' Beckert and Rockman write in the introduction to the book. '… Cotton offered a reason for entrepreneurs and inventors to build manufactories in such places as Lowell, Pawtucket, and Paterson, thereby connecting New England’s Industrial Revolution to the advancing plantation frontier of the Deep South. And financing cotton growing, as well as marketing and transporting the crop, was a source of great wealth for the nation’s merchants and banks.'"

Lol
Africans were selling other Africans long before the United States was formed so shut the fuck up

The parasitic life style that you and I and all other Americans enjoy today was made possible by chattel slavery; sorry if you find reality upsetting.

Slavery Made America - The Atlantic

"by 1860, there were more millionaires (slaveholders all) living in the lower Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the United States.

"In the same year, the nearly 4 million American slaves were worth some $3.5 billion, making them the largest single financial asset in the entire U.S. economy, worth more than all manufacturing and railroads combined.

"So, of course, the war was rooted in these two expanding and competing economies—but competing over what? What eventually tore asunder America's political culture was slavery's expansion into the Western territories."

Lol
The original slaveowners on this continent were American Indians… My ancestors

How many American Indians became millionaires from the transatlantic slave trade?

The Transatlantic Slave Trade Database

"Some 12.5 million Africans were taken from their homes and forced aboard slave ships that were destined for the New World. About 10.7 million people survived the horrors of the Middle Passage between 1526 and 1866, only to end up in bondage on sugar, rice, cotton, and tobacco plantations throughout the Americas and the Caribbean."

Stop the bullcrap. Slavery is bad. The endless crying and begging is baby pussy to the max. Violence is the answer even after 25 trillion dollars has been spent on the war on poverty and the wrongs of the past. Endless resources has been spent. Believe it or not other people have problems also. If lies were not spread we woud be a better nation. For years there was bull spread that 200 million Africans came to the new world. Tell me if I stay married to raise kids even with issues and Whoopie Goldberg has 7 abortions that she is the angelic one. That she can can do what she wants because of protections but those who take any responsibility are demeaned, destroyed and called the worst names in this modern world. We saw it again yesterday in the women march. The dumb azz skanks do not even realize that they are the harbingers of western destruction.When people are poor enough they will learn. And Asia will rise as the new power.

 

[Tehon]

And they call it Democratic socialism just because the GOP has brainwashed so many people into believing that socialism is communism, the Cold War dinosaur brainwashed functional morons...

They call it Democratic Socialism because so many people have been brainwashed to think that democracy is inherently good. They'd probably be just as excited to see Democratic Fascism - which is what we're going to get.

Some speculate, and I agree with them, that we already have it.

Inverted totalitarianism - Wikipedia

Inverted

We would use labor credits as a medium of exchange in a socialist economy first before we would transition into a moneyless communist society.

Using labor credits as a medium of exchange seems similar in some ways to the notion debt and credit appeared historically before money?

Debt: The First 5000 Years - Wikipedia

"Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011...."

"The author claims that debt and credit historically appeared before money, which itself appeared before barter. This is the opposite of the narrative given in standard economics texts dating back to Adam Smith.

"To support this, he cites numerous historical, ethnographic and archaeological studies. He also claims that the standard economics texts cite no evidence for suggesting that barter came before money, credit and debt, and he has seen no credible reports suggesting such.

"The primary theme of the book is that excessive popular indebtedness has sometimes led to unrest, insurrection, and revolt.

"He argues that credit systems originally developed as means of account long before the advent of coinage, which appeared around 600 BC.

"Credit can still be seen operating in non-monetary economies.

"Barter, on the other hand, seems primarily to have been used for limited exchanges between different societies that had infrequent contact and often were in a context of ritualized warfare."

I'm assuming the transition into a moneyless communist society would eliminate the existence of private fortunes and ritualized warfare?

Yes, socialism would eliminate the existence of private fortunes. And there would be no one to be indebted to. Capital would be no more.

Capital would still be the there. It would just be controlled by government instead of the people.

Mkay - so if socialism is just capitalism only spelled different, why do we need two words? Why does anything need to change?

Why would there be capital if we call it socialism?

Because words are just labels? Seriously?

Under socialism, government controls capital rather than private investors. You really don't get that? That's the whole point.

That is doomed to failure. We know that. Therefore it cannot be the point. The point is to eliminate capital and it is called Socialism.

 

[dblack]

Some critics of capitalism think of socialism as its shadow; although, I'm not sure how that relates to the notion that US politics is the shadow cast on society by big business:

...

Do you have any opinions of your own? Seriously, ninety percent of your posts are just c-n-p and links to barely-related articles. I dunno about anyone else here, but I never bother reading them.

I have to believe that they are submitted to further one's understanding. If the intent is not to advance an understanding or challenge one's beliefs then the appropriate thing to do would be to ignore them.

The intent is to exchange ideas with others, to debate and discuss politics. I'm not here for tips for my winter reading list.

 

[dblack]

Under socialism, government controls capital rather than private investors. You really don't get that? That's the whole point.

That is doomed to failure. We know that. Therefore it cannot be the point. The point is to eliminate capital and it is called Socialism.

By magic? Maybe you don't understand what capital is. Capital is how we divvy up the responsibility of making economic decisions. It's how we decide which projects to do, and which to abandon. Under capitalism, that power and responsibility is distributed to private investors. Under socialism, all such power rests with the state. It doesn't disappear, it just gets assigned to agents of government rather than individual investors

 

[Uncensored2008]

"'Cracker,' the old standby of Anglo insults was first noted in the mid 18th century, making it older than the United States itself. It was used to refer to poor whites, particularly those inhabiting the frontier regions of Maryland, Virginia and Georgia.

"It is suspected that it was a shortened version of 'whip-cracker,' since the manual labor they did involved driving livestock with a whip (not to mention the other brutal arenas where those skills were employed.)

"Over the course of time it came to represent a person of lower caste or criminal disposition, (in some instances, was used in reference to bandits and other lawless folk.)"

The Secret History Of The Word 'Cracker'

You're racist, but you're really fucking stupid.

Are you Iranian? I mean, you lack the basic understanding of American culture, and you're a fucking Nazi, so you could be Iranian...

What are you waiting for?

Why would I follow your leader, Nazi fuck.

After all, I fully support Israel - you fully support ISIS and Hezbollah. Everyone here knows who the Nazi is, George you jOOOO hating pile of shit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It thinks it is, but you Republican Foxbots know better than everyone LOL...

Japan thinks it is Socialist?

You get dumber as the dementia progresses..

I think Japan has faire capitalism with a good safety net and is very democratic. Sir everywhere outside the GO garbage propaganda bin, yes it is. Socialist no longer means communist and the rest of the world, super duper cold war dinosaur GOP dingbat.
Socialist International - Wikipedia

Mkay - so if socialism is just capitalism only spelled different, why do we need two words? Why does anything need to change?

Some critics of capitalism think of socialism as its shadow; although, I'm not sure how that relates to the notion that US politics is the shadow cast on society by big business:

What is Socialism? | International Socialist Review

"IN A matter of months, the global financial crisis has dramatically reshaped the economic and political landscape around the world.

"The high priests of global capitalism have scrapped decades of neoliberal orthodoxy, replacing their denunciations of government spending as harmful interference in the free market with calls for trillions in bailout bills and stimulus packages.

"'The goal is to get the engine of capitalism going as productively as possible,' Nancy Koehn, a historian at the Harvard Business School, told the New York Times. 'Ideology is a luxury good in times of crisis.'"

Still pushing the Communist mantra, huh? Fuck You!



Excess labor value my ass, motherfucker!


Get a job!

George is like 90.

I think he corrupted and perverted young minds as a mal-educator.

 

[danielpalos]

Why would anyone be afraid of something that has failed everytime it has been used?

Socialism "fails" because capitalists control world reserve currencies, the IMF and World Bank, and the most powerful military in history.

Andrew Neil on Twitter

"Democratic socialism has succeeded in many more places than it has failed"
Democratic socialism has succeeded in many more places than it has failed

Lol
Socialism is unacceptable, it’s been tried countless times in countless forms and has a 100% failure rate so shut the fuck up

Democratic socialism has succeeded in many more places than it has failed

"Why do people so often cite the failures of democratic socialism by cherry picking their examples? Why not cite Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Italy, Canada, Norway, Spain, Finland, Ireland, Belgium, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland or the Netherlands — all countries that have successfully achieved a balance between capitalism and socialism?"

None of that’s a long term, long-term it has one hundred percent failure rate...

lol. unlike, boom and bust capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

And they call it Democratic socialism just because the GOP has brainwashed so many people into believing that socialism is communism, the Cold War dinosaur brainwashed functional morons...

There's also a lingering mythology that says socialism requires government control of the economy:

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy,"

Socialism works when a majority of workers control the means of production through a social ownership mechanism.

Start With Worker Self-Directed Enterprises

Socialism never works, period. Yugoslavia had exactly the system you refer to, and it was an utter failure.

Where does capitalism work?

 

[danielpalos]

200 million butchered by Socialism in the 20th century, but georgephillip doesn't think there are enough dead yet.

He wants another 100 million dead by the end of the decade.

how many die under capitalism simply because they have no capital?

 

[bripat9643]

Why would anyone be afraid of something that has failed everytime it has been used?

Socialism "fails" because capitalists control world reserve currencies, the IMF and World Bank, and the most powerful military in history.

Andrew Neil on Twitter

"Democratic socialism has succeeded in many more places than it has failed"
Democratic socialism has succeeded in many more places than it has failed

Lol
Socialism is unacceptable, it’s been tried countless times in countless forms and has a 100% failure rate so shut the fuck up

Democratic socialism has succeeded in many more places than it has failed

"Why do people so often cite the failures of democratic socialism by cherry picking their examples? Why not cite Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Italy, Canada, Norway, Spain, Finland, Ireland, Belgium, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland or the Netherlands — all countries that have successfully achieved a balance between capitalism and socialism?"

Because they aren't anymore socialist than the United States. Production in all these countries is still almost entirely in the hands of private companies.

In most of those countries mentioned in my link, production may be in private hands, but the workers of those countries pay far less for health care, education, and "defense spending" than those of us in the US.

Socialists recognize government can serve as a fourth factor of production designed to lower the cost of living and doing business.

Simon Patten on Public Infrastructure and Economic Rent Capture | Michael Hudson

Socialism "recognizes" pure horseshit. Government doesn't produce anything. All it does is control people who do produce, and it does a very bad job of it.

Those countries pay far less for defense because they are deadbeats who rely on the United States to provide their defense. Our education system is just as socialist as theirs. And their healthcare sucks when it comes to getting treatment on a timely basis and when it comes to developing new drugs and new technology. Survival rates for cancer are much better in the United States than any of your welfare paradises.

 

[bripat9643]

And they call it Democratic socialism just because the GOP has brainwashed so many people into believing that socialism is communism, the Cold War dinosaur brainwashed functional morons...

There's also a lingering mythology that says socialism requires government control of the economy:

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy,"

Socialism works when a majority of workers control the means of production through a social ownership mechanism.

Start With Worker Self-Directed Enterprises

Socialism never works, period. Yugoslavia had exactly the system you refer to, and it was an utter failure.

Where does capitalism work?

Everywhere it's tried.

 

[danielpalos]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

Socialism is a failed economic and political notion, actual liberty and freedom ought to be tried next.

Ten simple Commandments from a God, not the Expense of Government.

 

[Tehon]

Under socialism, government controls capital rather than private investors. You really don't get that? That's the whole point.

That is doomed to failure. We know that. Therefore it cannot be the point. The point is to eliminate capital and it is called Socialism.

By magic? Maybe you don't understand what capital is. Capital is how we divvy up the responsibility of making economic decisions. It's how we decide which projects to do, and which to abandon. Under capitalism, that power and responsibility is distributed to private investors. Under socialism, all such power rests with the state. It doesn't disappear, it just gets assigned to agents of government rather than individual investors

Capital is an accumulation of money that is used to purchase something with the express intent of selling it again at a profit and it is quite unnecessary in the process of transforming nature into something useful to humans.

We do not need to rely on the market, speaking of magic, to make decisions that we are fully capable of making using our own intellect.

In a socialist system, a system without capital, the state would look entirely different. It was capital that built the state that we have now. It was built to protect capital.

 

[danielpalos]

And they call it Democratic socialism just because the GOP has brainwashed so many people into believing that socialism is communism, the Cold War dinosaur brainwashed functional morons...

There's also a lingering mythology that says socialism requires government control of the economy:

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy,"

Socialism works when a majority of workers control the means of production through a social ownership mechanism.

Start With Worker Self-Directed Enterprises

Socialism never works, period. Yugoslavia had exactly the system you refer to, and it was an utter failure.

Where does capitalism work?

Everywhere it's tried.

Where? AnCap is still economic fiction not economic fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And they call it Democratic socialism just because the GOP has brainwashed so many people into believing that socialism is communism, the Cold War dinosaur brainwashed functional morons...

There's also a lingering mythology that says socialism requires government control of the economy:

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy,"

Socialism works when a majority of workers control the means of production through a social ownership mechanism.

Start With Worker Self-Directed Enterprises

Socialism never works, period. Yugoslavia had exactly the system you refer to, and it was an utter failure.

Where does capitalism work?

Check out Korea, you dumb motherfucker.

One side is Communist, the other Capitalist.

See the difference, stupid?

 

[danielpalos]

And they call it Democratic socialism just because the GOP has brainwashed so many people into believing that socialism is communism, the Cold War dinosaur brainwashed functional morons...

There's also a lingering mythology that says socialism requires government control of the economy:

Democratic socialism - Wikipedia

"Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy,"

Socialism works when a majority of workers control the means of production through a social ownership mechanism.

Start With Worker Self-Directed Enterprises

Socialism never works, period. Yugoslavia had exactly the system you refer to, and it was an utter failure.

Where does capitalism work?

Check out Korea, you dumb motherfucker.

One side is Communist, the other Capitalist.

See the difference, stupid?

Lousy management does that. Firms fail all the time under Capitalism.

In right wing fantasy, all things are possible.

 

[dblack]

Under socialism, government controls capital rather than private investors. You really don't get that? That's the whole point.

That is doomed to failure. We know that. Therefore it cannot be the point. The point is to eliminate capital and it is called Socialism.

By magic? Maybe you don't understand what capital is. Capital is how we divvy up the responsibility of making economic decisions. It's how we decide which projects to do, and which to abandon. Under capitalism, that power and responsibility is distributed to private investors. Under socialism, all such power rests with the state. It doesn't disappear, it just gets assigned to agents of government rather than individual investors

Capital is an accumulation of money that is used to purchase something with the express intent of selling it again at a profit and it is quite unnecessary in the process of transforming nature into something useful to humans.

We do not need to rely on the market, speaking of magic, to make decisions that we are fully capable of making using our own intellect.

In a socialist system, a system without capital, the state would look entirely different. It was capital that built the state that we have now. It was built to protect capital.

This is why people say that a couple of simple economics lessons would "cure" most socialists.

I'm not going to wrestle with you over definitions. Whatever you call it, the job of capitalists in a free market is to organize labor and resources. That job still needs to get done in a socialist economy. It's just done by politicians and bureaucrats, rather than private investors.