Who's Afraid of Socialism?

[Tehon]

I don't know about that. I'm thinking that companies like Amazon have inventory tracking software that they use.

What if the market is demanding something the current regime doesn't like?

What regime? We live in a first world liberal democracy.

Would you care to NOT dodge the question? What if people have a strong desire for goods or services the government doesn't want them to have?

The same thing that happens now.

No it doesn't. Government is not currently responsible for making these kinds of decisions. That's up to individuals in the free market. You're suggesting that government take over that responsibility.

So, getting back to the example, under your version of socialism, how would government bookstores respond to consumer demand for anti-socialist "propaganda"?

You're suggesting that government take over that responsibility.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that a free association of people decide what to produce and let the market decide if it is something worth producing. You keep inserting government into it. But since you insist on that tack, I'm saying that in our liberal democracy, the people and or their representatives decide what should be off limits. We have decided that the government can't deny us our free speech. There is no reason why this should change in a cooperative society.

 

[francoHFW]

Thank you scumbag GOP and brainwashed silly dupes like you... 35 years of giveaway to the rich and ridiculous BS brainwash for the chumps.

Do you think your continuous stream of childish insults causes people to you more seriously, or less?

I don't think it matters, I think you are brainwashed ignorant fools. However I enjoy speaking the truth and screaming at you brainwashed functional stupid assholes. LOL.

 

[francoHFW]

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

No system does, it’s called the Pareto distribution, and it’s universal. Not just in human economics but also other things like human productivity (e.g. a small number of workers do 90% of the work), music production, scientific papers, etc. It’s also universal in nature, (e.g. a small portion of celestial bodies have 90% of the mass). You want the system that does it the best, and a system that fairly rewards the most productive, so they can continue to be productive. Now if someone is getting rich by providing a service or product at a price people are willing to pay, and doing so without cheating or gaming the system...what is wrong with that? You seem to have a problem with the fact that there are super rich people out there. In the past those people were just the ones in power. Now it’s mainly the people making lives better humanity somehow.

Another factor you may be overlooking is that in America, ones level of wealth is rarely static. You can look at a screen shot stat showing the haves and the have nots, but it isn’t the full story. Some 70% of Americans wind up in the top 10% at some point in their life (if I remember correctly). Sounds like a damn good system of distribution to me despite that stubborn Pareto distribution.

No system does, it’s called the Pareto distribution, and it’s universal. Not just in human economics but also other things like human productivity (e.g. a small number of workers do 90% of the work), music production, scientific papers, etc. It’s also universal in nature, (e.g. a small portion of celestial bodies have 90% of the mass). You want the system that does it the best, and a system that fairly rewards the most productive, so they can continue to be productive

Vilfredo Pareto revolutionized the study of economics and income distribution.

Vilfredo Pareto - Wikipedia

"He introduced the concept of Pareto efficiency and helped develop the field of microeconomics. He was also the first to discover that income follows a Pareto distribution, which is a power law probability distribution.

"The Pareto principle was named after him, and it was built on observations of his such as that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by about 20% of the population."

It seems to me like the richest 20% of Italians relied on "cheating or gaming the system" (if not worse) in order to amass their wealth?

Extending this principle to its logical end, you end up with the richest one percent owning most of the wealth, which seems inconsistent with a democratic/republic form of government.

But it’s not just power that determines wealth in capitalism. Power has little to do with wealth if the more economic freedom a nation has, it becomes more about merit. This is because capitalism is a system that rewards service to humanity at a price they are willing to pay. And in a healthy free market, old money doesn’t last all that long, 3 generations. That may sound long, but again someone was so successful at providing something to the masses that they were able to take care of their grandkids with the money. People who have a problem with that are the same who’d trade places with that person in a heartbeat. It’s one of the strongest natural instincts to provide for the coming generations.

There are those who get to the top and want to pull the ladder up from below them, and yes this needs to be guarded against. The best way for one to pull the ladder up is to get government to change the rules in your favor (which decreases market freedom). In a healthy free market (one that says away from cementing into place the powers that be) the big fall all the time, in fact it’s a necessity. Unless they adapt well to the changing landscape, which is rare.

Economic freedom gives the citizens more freedom overall since they can vote with their dollars what works for them, and have a wide array of options. For socialism to work, one needs to build a government with a lot of power. The more power they have, the more choices they are making on the behalf of the citizens. When government builds that sword to reign in the markets, citizens need to be wary of who wields the sword. Take Venezuela for example. Let’s pretend Chavez was a true believer and competent practitioner of socialism. The very next guy, Maduro, grabbed a hold of that sword and brutally turned it against the citizens. Even if (this is a huge if) the government was created and implemented with the best of intentions in a competent manner, it then becomes a powerful and tempting tool for the next guy. Operating in a competent manner is also a big if, since the only ideas for implementation are going to come from a small group of people, with their own agendas. And once a “solution” is implemented, it’s basically the only available to the citizens. What happens if that solution doesn’t work well? The answer isn’t usually go back to the drawing board, it’s throw more money at it. What happens if that solution doesn’t work for some a minority of citizens, but still works for the majority? Sorry minority, you’re SOL. With socialism, no matter what, you’re creating a false restriction of resources since the government only has a limited amount of resources, what it gathers in taxes. Socialism is a rigid, less adaptive, and dangerous system in the wrong hands. At the very best, it’s utilitarian, only if every thing is going right.

Everything you know about Venezuela is garbage propaganda. Their economy has been wrecked by sanctions and covert action and a Great Depression caused by the corrupt GOP. Maduro was elected. At any rate they are not a first world country and never have been, and have no lessons for country like the United States the richest country in the world. More garbage GOP propaganda, we have a mountain of it.

Yea I guess election is pretty easy when you ban all opposition candidates, and use the national guard to gun down over 100 protesting citizens. I guess a guy capable of that didn’t reign Hell on his country because of corruption, it must have been because of sanctions, of course. But wanting Maduro to remain in power puts you in company with China and Russia. Birds of a feather huh Franco

I didn't say that, I just said Trump and the scumbag GOP should keep their noses out of Venezuela's business, unlike the last 15 years...and please try to remember that everything you know about Venezuela is garbage GOP propaganda. A disgrace, just like you now...

 

[georgephillip]

First of all, large companies create billions in wealth, but they don't distribute that wealth to the whole country. They distribute the vast bulk of those billions to a fraction of the richest one percent of the whole country.

Obama's health care initiatives failed because he once again turned to capitalist whores like Liz Fowler to design his for-profit business interests.
"Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
Glenn Greenwald...

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job | Glenn Greenwald

This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

No system does, it’s called the Pareto distribution, and it’s universal. Not just in human economics but also other things like human productivity (e.g. a small number of workers do 90% of the work), music production, scientific papers, etc. It’s also universal in nature, (e.g. a small portion of celestial bodies have 90% of the mass). You want the system that does it the best, and a system that fairly rewards the most productive, so they can continue to be productive. Now if someone is getting rich by providing a service or product at a price people are willing to pay, and doing so without cheating or gaming the system...what is wrong with that? You seem to have a problem with the fact that there are super rich people out there. In the past those people were just the ones in power. Now it’s mainly the people making lives better humanity somehow.

Another factor you may be overlooking is that in America, ones level of wealth is rarely static. You can look at a screen shot stat showing the haves and the have nots, but it isn’t the full story. Some 70% of Americans wind up in the top 10% at some point in their life (if I remember correctly). Sounds like a damn good system of distribution to me despite that stubborn Pareto distribution.

No system does, it’s called the Pareto distribution, and it’s universal. Not just in human economics but also other things like human productivity (e.g. a small number of workers do 90% of the work), music production, scientific papers, etc. It’s also universal in nature, (e.g. a small portion of celestial bodies have 90% of the mass). You want the system that does it the best, and a system that fairly rewards the most productive, so they can continue to be productive

Vilfredo Pareto revolutionized the study of economics and income distribution.

Vilfredo Pareto - Wikipedia

"He introduced the concept of Pareto efficiency and helped develop the field of microeconomics. He was also the first to discover that income follows a Pareto distribution, which is a power law probability distribution.

"The Pareto principle was named after him, and it was built on observations of his such as that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by about 20% of the population."

It seems to me like the richest 20% of Italians relied on "cheating or gaming the system" (if not worse) in order to amass their wealth?

Extending this principle to its logical end, you end up with the richest one percent owning most of the wealth, which seems inconsistent with a democratic/republic form of government.

"It seems to me" is not an evidence based conclusion.

The richest 1% owning most of the wealth, has nothing to do with democracy or a republic form of government. The two things are not connected.

The richest 1% owning most of the wealth, has nothing to do with democracy or a republic form of government. The two things are not connected.

In a society where money is "free speech" there is an obvious connection between concentrated private wealth and democracy. Do you really believe your US Senator is as likely to take your phone call as one of your state's billionaire's or even the call of a foreign billionaire?

As inequality grows, so does the political influence of the rich

 

[georgephillip]

Do you want a large company creating billions in wealth for the whole country? Or a non-profit producing millions?

Why did all of Obamas health care co-ops all fail? Because in general for-profit companies do better.

First of all, large companies create billions in wealth, but they don't distribute that wealth to the whole country. They distribute the vast bulk of those billions to a fraction of the richest one percent of the whole country.

Obama's health care initiatives failed because he once again turned to capitalist whores like Liz Fowler to design his for-profit business interests.
"Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
Glenn Greenwald...

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job | Glenn Greenwald

This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

First, that is actually not true. Europe is only more equal, because they have many wealthy countries, that have exceptionally low immigration. Fewer low-skill workers, naturally means more equal wealth.

Second, equality in distributing the 'spoils' of wealth generation is inherently immoral. Why should I have to share my $25K a year income, with someone who doesn't work? That is entirely immoral.

The moral position is that people should get to keep the income they earn. That means I have no problem with Warren Buffet keeping his millions, as long as I keep my $25K.

Second, equality in distributing the 'spoils' of wealth generation is inherently immoral. Why should I have to share my $25K a year income, with someone who doesn't work? That is entirely immoral.

The moral position is that people should get to keep the income they earn. That means I have no problem with Warren Buffet keeping his millions, as long as I keep my $25K.

I don't see any reason why someone earning $25,000 a year in the richest country in history should be required to pay state or federal income taxes. Do you?

I see many good reasons why someone "earning" $25,000 a month or week or a day should be taxed at levels sufficient to provide you and millions of other productive citizens with free health care and education?

 

[georgephillip]

Teapot Dome scandal - Wikipedia

The Teapot Dome scandal was a bribery scandal involving the administration of United States President Warren G. Harding from 1921 to 1923.

"Secretary of the Interior Albert Bacon Fall had leased Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming, and two locations in California, to private oil companies at low rates without competitive bidding."

Crony capitalists meddle in government by bribing politicians for favorable tax and investment policies. Virtually any example of "government corruption" you can find stems from capitalists providing bribes to politicians, and you blame government?

No looting of state owned property under Communism, eh comrade?
What is Putin's net worth lately?

Considerably more than Trump's net worth.
Why would you criticize one corrupt gangster and support the other?

Considerably more than Trump's net worth.

Neat trick!

Why would you criticize one corrupt gangster and support the other?

I don't support Putin or the Clintons.

They are all the same rich, white trash, Kulak.

And they all deserve to die in prison.

This is actually one of my favorite left-wing memes.

A: I've been saying since before Trump got in office, that he is more of a left-winger, than a right-winger.
B: You hate him... and he stands for what you generally believe in.
C: Bill and Hillary, are as much wrapped up in the ultra-rich, if not more so, than the right-wing.

This picture, that lefties think is a big rip on the right-wing, is actually a complete slam against themselves.

This picture, that lefties think is a big rip on the right-wing, is actually a complete slam against themselves.

This picture

isn't about left or right, it is about class warfare. Clinton, Trump, Obama, Bush, Romney, etc, etc, are on the same side of that eternal conflict and until your side gets it, they will continue winning.

 

[Andylusion]

No looting of state owned property under Communism, eh comrade?
What is Putin's net worth lately?

Considerably more than Trump's net worth.
Why would you criticize one corrupt gangster and support the other?

Considerably more than Trump's net worth.

Neat trick!

Why would you criticize one corrupt gangster and support the other?

I don't support Putin or the Clintons.

They are all the same rich, white trash, Kulak.

And they all deserve to die in prison.

This is actually one of my favorite left-wing memes.

A: I've been saying since before Trump got in office, that he is more of a left-winger, than a right-winger.
B: You hate him... and he stands for what you generally believe in.
C: Bill and Hillary, are as much wrapped up in the ultra-rich, if not more so, than the right-wing.

This picture, that lefties think is a big rip on the right-wing, is actually a complete slam against themselves.

This picture, that lefties think is a big rip on the right-wing, is actually a complete slam against themselves.

This picture

isn't about left or right, it is about class warfare. Clinton, Trump, Obama, Bush, Romney, etc, etc, are on the same side of that eternal conflict and until your side gets it, they will continue winning.

But see, you are talking to a right-winger. I don't even believe in "class". 80% of the millionaires in this country, are first generation rich. My parents are millionaires, and they grew up middle class, possibly even lower-middle class. My fathers father, was a self taught electrician with a stay at home wife. Never went to college. My mothers father died when she was in her young teens, and her mother raised her alone.

Now my parents are millionaires with 3 properties, and a lake house on Lake Erie.

Further, I don't have a problem with other people being rich. My problem with Bill and Hillary, or Trump for that matter, has nothing to with any of them being rich.

Them being rich or poor, has zero effect on me. If all three of those people lost all their money tomorrow, it wouldn't change my life in any way. If all three doubled their net worth tomorrow, it wouldn't change any aspect of my life.

Other people being rich or poor, doesn't change my life.

Left-wingers seem to live in this mythical fairy land, where if only the top 1% lost all their money, that magically their own lives would be better. That class-warfare crap, is all built on greed and envy.

 

[Andylusion]

Do you want a large company creating billions in wealth for the whole country? Or a non-profit producing millions?

Why did all of Obamas health care co-ops all fail? Because in general for-profit companies do better.

First of all, large companies create billions in wealth, but they don't distribute that wealth to the whole country. They distribute the vast bulk of those billions to a fraction of the richest one percent of the whole country.

Obama's health care initiatives failed because he once again turned to capitalist whores like Liz Fowler to design his for-profit business interests.
"Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job
Glenn Greenwald...

Obamacare architect leaves White House for pharmaceutical industry job | Glenn Greenwald

This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

First, that is actually not true. Europe is only more equal, because they have many wealthy countries, that have exceptionally low immigration. Fewer low-skill workers, naturally means more equal wealth.

Second, equality in distributing the 'spoils' of wealth generation is inherently immoral. Why should I have to share my $25K a year income, with someone who doesn't work? That is entirely immoral.

The moral position is that people should get to keep the income they earn. That means I have no problem with Warren Buffet keeping his millions, as long as I keep my $25K.

Second, equality in distributing the 'spoils' of wealth generation is inherently immoral. Why should I have to share my $25K a year income, with someone who doesn't work? That is entirely immoral.

The moral position is that people should get to keep the income they earn. That means I have no problem with Warren Buffet keeping his millions, as long as I keep my $25K.

I don't see any reason why someone earning $25,000 a year in the richest country in history should be required to pay state or federal income taxes. Do you?

I see many good reasons why someone "earning" $25,000 a month or week or a day should be taxed at levels sufficient to provide you and millions of other productive citizens with free health care and education?

You don't see any reason?

How about the fact I benefit from police protection just as much as any other American? How about the fact I benefit from national defense, as much as anyone else?
How about the fact I benefit from the court system, as much as anyone else?
Of course I should pay some tax.

Where I have problem is when you confiscate my money to pay for someone else. I don't think I should pay for food stamps, nor anyone else should pay for food stamps. If I can work for my own food, so can you.

Same with health care, and education.

I'm sorry but the argument of "They earned more, so we should take more" is an argument based on greed and envy. That is evil, to a Christian like myself. I won't use 'envy' as an argument.

 

[Yarddog]

It is not well regulated socialist capitalism, it is garbage GOP capitalism since 1982. A disgrace.

This isn’t a correct characterization of large companies. They do distribute wealth. They do so to their many employees. To the contractors they hire. To the builders they hire. To the other companies and people they invest in. And to the thousands of shareholders that invest in them. That money doesn’t just stop there either, the secondary recipients just listed go on and spread wealth elsewhere. And yes even the few who do get rich in this scenario do pay taxes, the company pays taxes, and further they are hands down the largest contributors to charity.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

I see it as more of a bipartisan betrayal of working class interests, but the overriding problem is the degree of influence the US investor class (richest 10%) has over elected government.

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"A socialist response involves not just state control of the economy, but working-class control of the state.

"Since the working class is the majority, this means democratic control, but democracy can only be implemented if the majority is organized.

"We are not there yet, but we would be getting there if some of the specific demands of the majority were incorporated into the rescue package – such as environmental conversion, universal healthcare, and (as a necessary precondition to such good things) an end to imperial overreach."

Every brutal socialists, has always said they represent the working people. And yet every socialist has brutalized the working people.

It doesn't matter what you claim you stand for. What matters is the results. The results of socialism are always devastating to the the working people. Always. Never seen one example where it was not.

For the deeply brainwashed like you,

It is not well regulated socialist capitalism, it is garbage GOP capitalism since 1982. A disgrace.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

I see it as more of a bipartisan betrayal of working class interests, but the overriding problem is the degree of influence the US investor class (richest 10%) has over elected government.

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"A socialist response involves not just state control of the economy, but working-class control of the state.

"Since the working class is the majority, this means democratic control, but democracy can only be implemented if the majority is organized.

"We are not there yet, but we would be getting there if some of the specific demands of the majority were incorporated into the rescue package – such as environmental conversion, universal healthcare, and (as a necessary precondition to such good things) an end to imperial overreach."

Every brutal socialists, has always said they represent the working people. And yet every socialist has brutalized the working people.

It doesn't matter what you claim you stand for. What matters is the results. The results of socialism are always devastating to the the working people. Always. Never seen one example where it was not.

Yep, and take India and China for example. It's taken capitalism to pull millions of their own people from the edge of starvation. Not socialism! and though China remains Communist, if it wasn't for capitalism, they wouldn't have a market to sell their goods, they wouldnt have a place to steal their technology from.

So socialism is communism and communism is socialism oh, and by the way Nazism is also socialism and communism. You are a brainwashed functional moron. The rest of the world who have not been touched by your gigantic GOP BS propaganda machine, believe Nazism is right wing fascism duh, communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry, and socialism is fair capitalism with a good safety net and always democratic. You are terminally misinformed and confused, along with the rest of the people who get their news and alternate facts from Fox Rush etc etc etc. A disgrace.

"We are all socialists now!" --- Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed... Of course he did not realize all the ways the GOP could obstruct and sabotage...

Of course you miss the point. People in India and China have had their lives improve vastly because Capitalism exists .... no thanks to either socialism or communism.

 

[francoHFW]

It is not well regulated socialist capitalism, it is garbage GOP capitalism since 1982. A disgrace.

Capitalism generates income and wealth more efficiently than any economic system before its arrival. However. it doesn't seem to do an equitable job of distributing the spoils:

What changes do you believe capitalism could make to change its natural tendency of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation?

One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe

"One chart that shows how much worse income inequality is in America than Europe
The income share of the poorest half of Americans is declining while the richest have grabbed more. In Europe, it’s not happening.
By Emily Stewart Jul 29, 2018, 11:43am EDT"

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

I see it as more of a bipartisan betrayal of working class interests, but the overriding problem is the degree of influence the US investor class (richest 10%) has over elected government.

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"A socialist response involves not just state control of the economy, but working-class control of the state.

"Since the working class is the majority, this means democratic control, but democracy can only be implemented if the majority is organized.

"We are not there yet, but we would be getting there if some of the specific demands of the majority were incorporated into the rescue package – such as environmental conversion, universal healthcare, and (as a necessary precondition to such good things) an end to imperial overreach."

Every brutal socialists, has always said they represent the working people. And yet every socialist has brutalized the working people.

It doesn't matter what you claim you stand for. What matters is the results. The results of socialism are always devastating to the the working people. Always. Never seen one example where it was not.

For the deeply brainwashed like you,

It is not well regulated socialist capitalism, it is garbage GOP capitalism since 1982. A disgrace.
It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

It is not well regulated Fair socialist capitalism, it is garbage giveaway to the rich GOP capitalism since 1982.

I see it as more of a bipartisan betrayal of working class interests, but the overriding problem is the degree of influence the US investor class (richest 10%) has over elected government.

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"A socialist response involves not just state control of the economy, but working-class control of the state.

"Since the working class is the majority, this means democratic control, but democracy can only be implemented if the majority is organized.

"We are not there yet, but we would be getting there if some of the specific demands of the majority were incorporated into the rescue package – such as environmental conversion, universal healthcare, and (as a necessary precondition to such good things) an end to imperial overreach."

Every brutal socialists, has always said they represent the working people. And yet every socialist has brutalized the working people.

It doesn't matter what you claim you stand for. What matters is the results. The results of socialism are always devastating to the the working people. Always. Never seen one example where it was not.

Yep, and take India and China for example. It's taken capitalism to pull millions of their own people from the edge of starvation. Not socialism! and though China remains Communist, if it wasn't for capitalism, they wouldn't have a market to sell their goods, they wouldnt have a place to steal their technology from.

So socialism is communism and communism is socialism oh, and by the way Nazism is also socialism and communism. You are a brainwashed functional moron. The rest of the world who have not been touched by your gigantic GOP BS propaganda machine, believe Nazism is right wing fascism duh, communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry, and socialism is fair capitalism with a good safety net and always democratic. You are terminally misinformed and confused, along with the rest of the people who get their news and alternate facts from Fox Rush etc etc etc. A disgrace.

"We are all socialists now!" --- Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed... Of course he did not realize all the ways the GOP could obstruct and sabotage...

Of course you miss the point. People in India and China have had their lives improve vastly because Capitalism exists .... no thanks to either socialism or communism.

India is still a mess.... At any rate irrelevant.

 

[dblack]

What if the market is demanding something the current regime doesn't like?

What regime? We live in a first world liberal democracy.

Would you care to NOT dodge the question? What if people have a strong desire for goods or services the government doesn't want them to have?

The same thing that happens now.

No it doesn't. Government is not currently responsible for making these kinds of decisions. That's up to individuals in the free market. You're suggesting that government take over that responsibility.

So, getting back to the example, under your version of socialism, how would government bookstores respond to consumer demand for anti-socialist "propaganda"?

You're suggesting that government take over that responsibility.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that a free association of people decide what to produce and let the market decide if it is something worth producing. You keep inserting government into it.

Alright. I'm not going to chase you around trying to discover the secret truth about your very special version of socialism. I don't care that much. I am opposed to government controlling "the means of production".

 

[francoHFW]

What regime? We live in a first world liberal democracy.

Would you care to NOT dodge the question? What if people have a strong desire for goods or services the government doesn't want them to have?

The same thing that happens now.

No it doesn't. Government is not currently responsible for making these kinds of decisions. That's up to individuals in the free market. You're suggesting that government take over that responsibility.

So, getting back to the example, under your version of socialism, how would government bookstores respond to consumer demand for anti-socialist "propaganda"?

You're suggesting that government take over that responsibility.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that a free association of people decide what to produce and let the market decide if it is something worth producing. You keep inserting government into it.

Alright. I'm not going to chase you around trying to discover the secret truth about your very special version of socialism. I don't care that much. I am opposed to government controlling "the means of production".

They've tried capitalism without regulation, it's a mess where the workers and non Rich get screwed over. We're going back to that now. worst inequality and upward Mobility ever and in the modern world.

 

[Tehon]

What regime? We live in a first world liberal democracy.

Would you care to NOT dodge the question? What if people have a strong desire for goods or services the government doesn't want them to have?

The same thing that happens now.

No it doesn't. Government is not currently responsible for making these kinds of decisions. That's up to individuals in the free market. You're suggesting that government take over that responsibility.

So, getting back to the example, under your version of socialism, how would government bookstores respond to consumer demand for anti-socialist "propaganda"?

You're suggesting that government take over that responsibility.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that a free association of people decide what to produce and let the market decide if it is something worth producing. You keep inserting government into it.

Alright. I'm not going to chase you around trying to discover the secret truth about your very special version of socialism. I don't care that much. I am opposed to government controlling "the means of production".

You are not really looking to discover any truth about socialism. You can't even open your mind enough to get past useless bumper sticker definitions of the social system of production. But if you were interested, I would say the best way to go about it is to first get a better understanding of how the capitalist social system operates.

The acquisition of truth and understanding is a personal journey.

 

[Tehon]

I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?

Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?

Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?

The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism.

 

[georgephillip]

I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?

Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?

Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?

The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism.

Bringing democracy to the workplace would solve many of our problems:

Most adults spend at least half their waking lives in the workplace, yet capitalism requires them to suspend their democratic ideals in return for a regular paycheck.

There Is An Alternative.
Democratizing the Workplace through “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises”

 

[georgephillip]

Considerably more than Trump's net worth.
Why would you criticize one corrupt gangster and support the other?

Considerably more than Trump's net worth.

Neat trick!

Why would you criticize one corrupt gangster and support the other?

I don't support Putin or the Clintons.

They are all the same rich, white trash, Kulak.

And they all deserve to die in prison.

This is actually one of my favorite left-wing memes.

A: I've been saying since before Trump got in office, that he is more of a left-winger, than a right-winger.
B: You hate him... and he stands for what you generally believe in.
C: Bill and Hillary, are as much wrapped up in the ultra-rich, if not more so, than the right-wing.

This picture, that lefties think is a big rip on the right-wing, is actually a complete slam against themselves.

This picture, that lefties think is a big rip on the right-wing, is actually a complete slam against themselves.

This picture

isn't about left or right, it is about class warfare. Clinton, Trump, Obama, Bush, Romney, etc, etc, are on the same side of that eternal conflict and until your side gets it, they will continue winning.

But see, you are talking to a right-winger. I don't even believe in "class". 80% of the millionaires in this country, are first generation rich. My parents are millionaires, and they grew up middle class, possibly even lower-middle class. My fathers father, was a self taught electrician with a stay at home wife. Never went to college. My mothers father died when she was in her young teens, and her mother raised her alone.

Now my parents are millionaires with 3 properties, and a lake house on Lake Erie.

Further, I don't have a problem with other people being rich. My problem with Bill and Hillary, or Trump for that matter, has nothing to with any of them being rich.

Them being rich or poor, has zero effect on me. If all three of those people lost all their money tomorrow, it wouldn't change my life in any way. If all three doubled their net worth tomorrow, it wouldn't change any aspect of my life.

Other people being rich or poor, doesn't change my life.

Left-wingers seem to live in this mythical fairy land, where if only the top 1% lost all their money, that magically their own lives would be better. That class-warfare crap, is all built on greed and envy.

But see, you are talking to a right-winger. I don't even believe in "class". 80% of the millionaires in this country, are first generation rich. My parents are millionaires, and they grew up middle class, possibly even lower-middle class

How are you defining "millionaire?"

If someone owns a business turning $100,000 in profits every month a millionaire by business valuation standards? Does a Facebook employee's vested, but unsold, stock option mean she's a millionaire? If your parents have a $1 million dollar house they never intend to sell, are they millionaires?

These people are millionaires who have "earned" their private million$ by socializing costs onto the backs of productive Americans whose ideology blinds them to their role as "useful idiots."

 

[Tehon]

I guess it depends on how you define capital. Regardless, someone has to decide how we organize labor and allocate resources. In a free market the people do this collaboratively and voluntarily. How would it happen under socialism?

Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources? In capitalism a few very rich people make these decisions that affect millions of stakeholders.

Socialism expands the pool of decision makers far beyond the boardroom; do you actually believe the richest members of society are entitled to decide what to produce, who to produce for, and where to produce?

Which institution do "the people" use to organize labor and allocate resources?

The market informs the capitalists how to use their resources. In essence we are all part of the decision in a capitalist system. That really wouldn't change under a socialist system of production.

Democracy at work is a wonderful step forward and should help to alleviate some of the social issues caused by capitalism.

Bringing democracy to the workplace would solve many of our problems:

Most adults spend at least half their waking lives in the workplace, yet capitalism requires them to suspend their democratic ideals in return for a regular paycheck.

There Is An Alternative.
Democratizing the Workplace through “Worker Self-Directed Enterprises”

I do enjoy Wolff's regular Economic Updates on youtube.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Read a history book, you have no idea what you're talking about. I was a teacher stupid. Lenin was the most democratic ever? This is totally ridiculous.

You really are the most historically illiterate person on the planet.

You promote Marxism and Leninism but literally don't know even the first thing about them. Do you know what a "Soviet" is you fucking illiterate? A soviet is a council to govern. The early USSR established soviets all the way to the neighborhood level. One had to be a proletarian to serve on a soviet, the middle class was forbidden, But beyond that the soviets had all power, including having people shot or sent to Gulags. The soviets assigned housing, and as I already state, but you're too fucking stupid and dishonest to grasp, they also refused housing to middle class people. The soviets assigned what work one would do. Doctors and lawyers were sent to work in mines and farm labor placed in charge of factories, all a system of revenge for the middle class doing better.

{Socialism has to be democratic and cannot exist until the overwhelming majority of the worlds workers understands the concept and wants to organise for its inception . Democracy is nothing more than government of the people , by the people , for the people this in effect would mean and end to government as every individual the world over would be able to take part in the control of social arrangements if they so wish .} - Vladimir Lenin

https://www.quora.com/Lenin-said-th...-Sanders-and-his-goal-of-democratic-socialism

Learn some history, you ignorant moron

 

[Uncensored2008]

As in the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example?

Fascist franco doesn't know what that means.

 

[Tehon]

As in the dictatorship of the proletariat, for example?

Fascist franco doesn't know what that means.

Neither does dblack.