Bitcoin Forum

I past this question to you guys because I and my friends have this debate yesterday over a beer.  I was for yes and no it is a healthy mixture of capitalism and socialism.

What are your thoughts? I would like to see what the bitcoin fams are thinking?

   

Bitcoin is an authoritarians nightmare!!!

Bitcoin is a POWERFUL tool of liberty against "socialists" and their like..
Bitcoin is about as free market as it gets.. Basically anarchism..

But with a sate run cryptocurrency, completely centralized, blockchain could be a socialists dream come true to track everyone.
But that is not bitcoin..

But anarchism = chaos. But socialism doesn't mean tracking everyone.

Once again the typical case of conflating socialism with authoritarian.  Socialism can be authoritarian or libertarian and every modern socialist movement is democratic and libertarian.  Its the result of capitalist propoganda designed to make workers think the very thing that would provide liberty is the opposite of liberty. 

Its literally Orwelian "war is peace" double speak. 

Bitcoin might have connections with libertarians and anarchism but clearly doesnt have any with socialism. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/03/forget-the-1-percent-in-the-bitcoin-world-half-the-wealth-belongs-to-the-0-1-percent/
Things havent change since 2014. A tiny minority controls half of the bitcoins. Inequality at its best.

Yeah but conceptually decentralized control and mining is supposed to be socialist.  If you had such thing as "proof of work" in a literal sense, that itself is socialism. 

There can be no socialist island in a capitalist world and so any cryptocurrency that brings socialist theory to life will be be eroded by the global reality of capitalism. Not even on the internet.

The socialist Satoshi created Bitcoin to improve the function of money and finally define the world global currency.

Bitcoin is a tool. It has equivalent ability to be used for good or evil like any tool. That being said, Bitcoin is Capitalist at its core, and Socialism is but a parasite upon Capitalism. Socialism can NOT exist independent of Capitalism (at any usable scale).

What generally makes people think that Bitcoin has a socialist component in it? The means of production do not belong to everyone. Bitcoin as a product is freely traded on the market and bought for fiat money. Bitcoin is absolutely capitalistic. It seems to me that many here have a prejudice about capitalism as an absolute evil, and socialism as a good. Perhaps because of the shortcomings of the modern banking system. But i am not surprised if it turns out that Bitcoin was created by a helicopter Ben and a team of IT specialists from the Federal Reserve for a pragmatic or quasi-pragmatic reasons.

then tell me who controls the means of production for bitcoin.  who "owns" bitcoin?

Communism is a failure responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions. Furthermore it was specifically designed and cultivated by the banking elite as controlled opposition to Capitalism. Give it up.

--

Overall, BTC can be utilized as a currency for any community. The issue is that it's tied to fiat currency rather than actual resources.

TECSHARE: I'm nearly certain communism is responsible for zero deaths as it has never been implemented but this just demonstrates your lack of understanding of what communism actually is.  I would love to see you write out your definition of communism and explain how you think it has killed people.

 "True Communism has never existed" HAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Thanks for exposing yourself so completely and so easily. Regarding your question, try opening any history book not printed in China.

The one who has computational capabilities (i even may say significant capabilities).  They are not guaranteed to anyone. And bought on the market with a probability of more than 90%. Also luckers and architects. Besides, Satoshi had a stabilization fund (or i wrong?). Decentralized emission does not guarantee equality.

Bitcoin functions on proof of work, so the workers technically own bitcoin ;)

So the people who have the skills and do the work control the products of their work.  That sounds a lot like the socialism to me. 

Socialism doesn't produce anything. It is capable only via parasitic attachment to Capitalism. Socialism can not exist independent of Capitalism. Bitcoin is based on mutual self interest an is about as Capitalist as you can get. Please do tell me about how Bitcoin fits within the 10 planks of Communism, it should be entertaining.

well, all the glitters is not gold


Socialism is based on equality and social ownership. What economic equality (the one Engels wrote about in Anti-Dühring) can we say when significant production powers are in one wealthy hand, when the creator has such power, and capitalist banks accumulate funds through unfair income redistribution and playing on volatilities. When we talk about social order, we must take into account the question of power. the usual average worker (who somehow accumulated funds for an entrance ticket) cant exerting economic influence on bitcoin, while super large players have such an opportunity.
All that Bitcoin takes from socialism that is Marx parfume for libertarian core.

Are you trying to stretch the word socialism to include non-governmental forms of economic sharing?

I don't think that is possible.

Of course its not possible, because voluntary sharing is called charity. Socialism requires the confiscation of private property by force, hence they require the government monopoly on violence to do so.

Which part of the dictionary and encyclopedia words/terms socialism and capitalism are you asking about? After all, a family is socialistic just to be a family. But it has to be capitalistic in some of its nature as the kids become independent as they grow up. And the parents need to keep both of these things, socialism and capitalism, in mind to grow mentally healthy kids.

So, both are different, both overlap, and at times, both are the same.

8)

Socialism is fail movement all over the world. So called socialist empires are burried under the earth.  Communists are the originator of the word socialism.  No country except China could save this ideology.
 
But Bitcoin is succeeding day by day.  It is liberty which socialists (communists) will never allow others to enjoy.  Liberty can be enjoyed  under democracy only not under any other school of thought.

Damn it feels good to get merits from Theymos..

That's what they want you to think ;)

Then how is the central authority supposed to "give everyone their fair share" and take from those who have "too much" without tracking them and knowing what they have and don't have?

They WON, you lost, get over it.. You don't deserve it just because someone else has it.. They had the skill and the right timing..

Why? Because it can't compete? Does that mean you must destroy all capitalism in the world in order to achieve "true" communism?

Is that why you believe that...
???

Please do continue telling us all about how dangerous the slippery slope of Leftism actually is..

When you see people define socialism and communism everything bad that has been done by "communist" parties throughout history, then it starts to make sense why people hate it and are afraid of it.  

If you actually use the real definitions and vast amounts of economic theory to properly define socialism and communism, you would end up with something most ethically operating humans agree with.  

This widespread misconception isn't an accident though.  In order to perpetuate an archaic system of capitalism, its necessary to muddy the water around the systems designed as an evolution of capitalism.  

Lets start to sort things out so people can see that they have the definitions all wrong.

Socialism-  a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Socialists are simply trying to put the means of production into the hands of the people and asserting that it should be democratically controlled.  "State socialists" such as the USSR perverted the ideology because they simply replaced capitalists with government officials instead of the actual workers. Soviet officials didn't bring workers to the table to make decisions.  It was top down and authoritarian.  State capitalism would be the best way to describe most of the societies you think were socialist. Worker cooperatives such as mondragon are the best examples of actual socialism.  

Communism: A term describing a stateless, classless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production
If the entire economy was socialist, over time, you would not need a state as all production is democratically controled by the workers, people live in complete liberty, and there is no class struggle.   Equality does not mean that everyone makes the same amount of money or gets the same amount of goods, it simply means equality in a democratic sense.  No one person has power over the masses.  In terms of company decisions, 1 person=1 vote.  


Kind of strange how anyone could associate an authoritarian state with communism when statelessness one of the key characteristics communism.


One of the driving factors is that political parties have identified themselves as communist and ran totalitarian regimes.  These authoritarian regimes of the past do not represent hundreds of years of economic theory in the same way that someone who calls themselves muslim or christian committing an act of terror does not mean their actions represent the ideology as a whole.  

A company agrees on what everyones fair share is by a democratic vote.  No one takes anything from anyone. There is no central authority as the elected board of directors is held accountable by the majority vote of the community (workers).

Perfect example of a socialist who doesn't know they are socialist because they don't know it literally means democratic control of the economy.
Perfect example of someone who thinks stalinist authoritarianism is socialism (its not).  Socialism requires distribution of resources agreed upon democratically, with no outside interference or force.  It is capitalism that requires the threat of force to protect capital from the workers.  (IE if foxconn workers walk out with all of the iphones, the state has to ensure the capitalists take the goods and surplus from the workers by force and give them to the capitalists)  
Of course its possible.  Look at any worker cooperative.  
No economic system produces anything.  It is always labor that produces goods and services.  The economic system just describes who makes the decisions and keeps the surplus.  Socialists believe democracy should be applied here while capitalists believe in a feudalistic approach.
Show me an example of a stateless, classless society. It probably has happened in some small commune of a few dozen people but I'm not sure.

It is never true Communism is it? I guess because your ideal of true Communism "never existed" then we can ignore the repeated failures that inevitably resulted in hell on Earth and the direct deaths of hundreds of millions of people. What is important is we keep trying!

The "True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Fascinating that someone posting pro communism doesn't even know what it is.

Well it is pretty clear in the literature that a communist society is stateless and classless.  I could pretend to be a surgeon, botch a surgery and it wouldn't be a "not a true scotsman" fallacy for someone to deny a claim that "surgeons have no idea what they are doing".

So, I think you actually don't really understand how bitcoin operates as a technical level. While this is off-topic, it could be brought on-topic about actually using the implementation of Bitcoin as an example. However, I'm going to argue the merits because it's literally the thread, and you probably actually believe what you say is true from an socialist-economics standpoint rather than the actual technical implementation of bitcoin.

---

So, mining *bitcoin* is resource based, so economics can play a role into it, but at the technical core the concept was "proof-of-work".

Proof-of-work for Bitcoin is the sha256 hash. Which back when it came out, was pretty standard (and still good today).

In a large distributed system, the majority of the workers would control the the rules. This is done by all the workers sharing and collaborating, and distributing new rules.

From an ideological standpoint, that seems very socialist. However, in recent years, the sha256 hash really has been attacked. ASICs are literally purposely built devices to mine BTC. It's kinda crazy that people make chips to be the "best worker". The problem is because they're the overwhelming majority that has invested into this very specific purpose, they're going to continue this production.

In reality, the same could be said about socialism.

It is also pretty clear in the Curious George literature that the man in the yellow hat is nice to Curious George. Tell me please what this has to do with real monkeys?

P.S. Nice job showing everyone you have no clue what "no true Scotsman fallacy" is. Maybe look it up instead of just pretending like you usually do, k?

Also comparing Communism to a surgeon.... bwAHAHAHA! More like a bookie with a sledge hammer to the knees than a surgeon.



What does the work? Oh right the capital.



I love how you just operate from the assumed premise that Bitcoin is Socialist then just arrange your arguments from that point, and of course the evil Capitalists are overwhelming the poor Socialist victims. I forgot what that's called... something about confirmation bias is it?

What you are describing is the fact that owning capital (miners) means you have more control, and make more profit, and yes, do more work. There is nothing Socialist about this, in fact I am fairly certain you know very little about Communism/Marxism/Socialism and its origins, because Marx himself heavily promoted central banking.

lol bitcoin is the absolute opposite of "socialism" it is a competition of installed computation power, i wonder why people still think bitcoin is valuable

I don't think you really understand bitcoin.

If it were just about capital, it'd be switched to proof-of-stake instead of proof-of-work.

Rather than being trolling in your comments, why not argue logically? I was playing as a victim, I was explaining what BTC actually is.

If you have arguments with proof-of-work or proof-of-capacity or have problems following the abstraction logic, be clear in the articulation of that instead of just posting trollish responses.

Indeed, I am not a technical specialist, but I understand what you described to me now, regarding the technical part of Bitcoin. However, I also have some ideas about how the economy and social systems, sociotechnical systems work. So I will tell you that I have no surprise about how Bitcoin is developing, because as I wrote earlier, I am convinced that BC was thought right the way he is now. I do not believe in Nibiru, a conspiracy of reptiloids, but I believe in Occam’s razor and logic. Bitcoin does not have barriers against uneven income, so it was conceived as such or this question was not raised


You are right that blockchain technologies can be used in socialistic projects, but please do not be offended, your ideas about Bitcoin as it is are utopian, since the economic model of Bitcoin does not comply with the principles of socialism and is purely capitalist. Proof of work in such a system does not make Bitcoin socialist. When I talk about the influence of major players on Bitcoin, I mean not only workers, because I view Bitcoin as an open system that interacts with the external environment. And this is right because in the world there are other types of currencies and uneven distribution of capital. Please abstract from non-conflict administration models in social and related systems. They do not work or work poorly.


Thank you sir, I was already scared to have to start over again.
So bad that propaganda makes people believe that fair pay for work is the merit and attribute of socialism exclusively but not the result of people free will.

Re: Is Bitcoin a capitalist dream come true? A libertarian dream come true? Yes.

I wouldn't go this far in the least, and if the governments of countries wanted to kill cryptocurrencies, it wouldn't take them that much. And if you don't want to believe me, you'll probably believe the internet -- https://www.crypto51.app/

It isn't much money to a rich person, and a government OBVIOUSLY could 51 percent attack bitcoin with the right equipment stockpiled and ready to move on us.

Bitcoin has made a lot of capitalists a lot of money though, as it has opened up many new investment facilitation companies (exchange) companies such as Bitfinex, Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini, etc. Other companies in the mixing space, bitcoin ATM'S , etc.

People are making a lot of money here, and the banks aren't being hurt due to it -- we'rein a bit of an independent bubble which keeps the capitalist happy and the bankers happy.

Oh is that so? How long have you been around? What kind of coin development work have you participated in? PLEASE try me and let me spank you in public like the child you are.



Well clearly you have all the solutions and we should just do what you say right? I am certain there are absolutely no dynamics in the PoW system that you don't understand now are there?




I have been arguing logically, you just don't like the fact that I totally dismantled your premise, therefore your only option in the lack of any argument is to claim I am trolling and ignoring logic.

blah-blah-blah.

Here is the essence of your problem.

What makes YOU more capable of deciding how my money should be spent that ME?

I'm not but if a community votes to spend the community's money a certain way that is counter to your views  then that is democracy.  You could leave the community if you felt so strongly against its decision and no one is suggesting any limit to the freedom you have with your personal money.


In cryptocurrency, an update may include lower fees and less block reward.  If a bunch of people don't like it, they are free to operate a fork.  If no one likes it except the person who came up with, then it is not adopted and the developer is left operating a 1-person network.  That is a democratic 51 percent community decision.

Bitcoin is not Democratic. It is meritocratic. The one who does the most work has the most control. In this case the one who has the most capital does the most work. Individuals don't really get to vote on shit. Sure they can sell, but that is not the same as having a vote, it is a reaction not pro-action.

Good point.  The one who holds the most capital is still not free to make decisions for everyone without doing a 51% attack and even then, whatever percentage of the people who hold 49%, can still fork away.

You shouldnt get personal. I wasnt writing about myself. I have no personal complaints against inequality. I was writing about equality and justice as general goals.

Bitcoin is a socialist nightmare ..

Bitcoin is only good for rich or people with spare cash that are not afraid to loose it ..No good for governments to run monies off  NO CHANCE..

Spank me daddy ;)

I've actually been around nearly as long as your account by the looks of it (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;user=bluefirecorp). A matter of weeks difference on registration dates.

I've never contributed to a shitcoin. A buddy did create a shitcoin before and I mined a few thousand of them for lawlz. It doesn't take much technical knowledge to compile the tens of dozens of shitcoin sources out there today.

I've minted several block myself historically ;)

I remember at one point in time, I was 0.3% of the whole mining network.
 (https://imgur.com/a/jEFcD)

Nope. There are multiple problems that remain unsolved. Even by me. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5049222.msg46803272#msg46803272)


You have no technical merit and you don't back up your logic with reasoning or technical details. Your obvious misunderstandings of the implementation of bitcoin have become pretty apparent. Perhaps you should give the whitepaper one more read over before commenting further in the relationship to socialism.

It's rather short; https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Particularly this section:

Wow. You were a miner. Impressive. Too bad you didn't learn anything that whole time. Oh what happened to your old account? I am sure you didn't lose it as a result of anything unsavory right? Sure making coins is easy, but managing them is not. Neither is taking a low cap coin and bringing its market cap up to 10 million dollars. Also the coin protocol I managed, Infinitecoin, was literally cloned and re-branded as Doge, later they added inflation. So just maybe I know a tad about how blockchain works, the protocols, and how mining works considering I was responsible for balancing the network. It was also the #3 most popular coin in China for a while BTW, but that's easy right?

However please do tell me more about how mining made you an expert in blockchain technology.



I never mentioned anything about flaws in the PoW system, I was pointing out the gaps in your understanding if you think capital is the only reason to use PoS over PoW. This also shows a fundamental ignorance of basic economic principals such as inflation.



Uh huh. So far you have demonstrated you don't really understand PoW or PoS systems, or even basic economics, but I have no merit. Ya. Ok.

BTW reading that excerpt over and over... not seeing even the slightest hint of Socialism in there. As I explained before the capital does the work in the blockchain (the miners), and the more capital you have the more votes you have. Bitcoin is a system of mutually beneficial greed, AKA Capitalism. Satoshi goes over this in great detail. The only way you get Socialism out of that is if you live in a delusional fantasy land where everything just is what you say it is because you believe it, facts be damned.

You forked and ran a shitcoin! Nice! Much professional. You must understand everything about PoW, PoC, PoS, and pretty much every other work type out there, right?

Proof of work seems a lot like socialism once you abstract the meanings. But nah, you just confuse proof-of-work with proof-of-stake.


So far you've demonstrated the inability to understand the implementation of bitcoin (which is a pretty straight forward pow implementation). You try to conflate the argument with tedious unrelated societal points rather than arguing at the abstracted technical layer. I think your primary purpose is to gaslight other individuals rather than contribute to this conversation. The fact that you haven't been banned is quite a sentiment to the libertarian nature of this forum.

As I've explained before, proof-of-work is not proof-of-stake. Proof-of-stake is pretty pro-capitalist in which the individuals holding the most capital makes the rules. Proof of work is pretty socialist in which the workers choose the rules.

If you're too dense to make the connection between "proof-of-work" and workers, then that's on you buddy.

I'm pretty sure arguing with you is akin to arguing with a flat earther, no amount of evidence or proof would change your opinion on the subject. I'm pretty sure I could sign a message as if I were Satoshi, and you'd still deny that as evidence.

Also, I like how you say "Satoshi goes over this in great detail" in which you don't even provide proof. Later, you go onto say "out of that is if you live in a delusional fantasy land where everything just is what you say it is because you believe it, facts be damned" which is pretty ironic in that instance ;)

Actually I didn't fork anything. I spent several years fixing security and network issues for the protocol. It sucked so much Dogecoin decided to jack the protocol and re-brand it. We were also one of the first, if not THE first to demonstrate proof of concept of a transaction fee only run network with a hard cap. What did you do again? Run a handful of miners? Cool story bro. BTW, do you ever stop and listen to yourself and realize how much you sound like a parrot?






"abstract the meanings" AKA redefine the words completely to fit within your confirmation bias.






You have demonstrated the ability to rephrase my statements and repeat them back to me as a result of your inability to form original thoughts. Oh I am like a "flat Earther" now am I? Interesting. Quite a lot of projecting you do. It almost like you need to compare me to these fringe groups because you can't think of anything else within my argument to criticize. It only seems ironic because it serves your little echo chamber bubble of confirmation bias, and it is less work than re-evaluating your own belief systems and doing a little reading. Also, last I checked this forum doesn't ban for butthurt resulting from being exposed to information you would prefer did not exist.

I am talking exactly about the technical layers of Bitcoin.

MINERS = CAPITAL
BLOCKCHAIN = CONSENSUS OF MINERS
MORE MINERS = MORE INFLUENCE IN CONSENSUS
MINERS DO THE WORK
MINERS PRODUCE CAPITAL
MINERS DETERMINE CONSENSUS
CAPITAL = CONSENSUS

Sounds a lot like Capitalism to me, but again feel free to redefine any words that upset you.



Re: Satoshi-
 
"6. Incentive

By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.

The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.

The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth." -Satoshi (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)

"It's based on open market competition, and there will probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free." -Satoshi (https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/16/)


More substantiation:

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/3/

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/65/

As you see Bitcoin was carefully and purposely designed as a mechanism of using mutual greed to run the network and thus produce capital. You see Satoshi very clearly uses the analogy of gold and miners, to represent hash power and electricity costs. The consensus is designed around CAPITAL and the fact that RESOURCES are limited. He also even explicitly states a system of simply voting by IP would be totally exploitable, as would any other form of voting by pure head count.


I don't need to gaslight you, you gaslight yourself. I know you aren't used to people taking the time to form a rational logic based debate to counter your flimsy pop-culture arguments, but that doesn't make anyone who challenges your opinions a troll. I am simply not satisfied to sit on the sidelines and let your ideologies go unchallenged.

miners = capital?

You drew that conclusion, not satoshi.

You never made an argument here until now. You simply stated refuted opinion.

Your evidences of 'capitalism' are pretty weak support by satoshi. Let's actually start going through them.


Initial distribution. Woo! Proof of work is also consensus my friend... but let's ignore that fact.


That's capitalist because honest people should stay honest? I don't really see the connection to capitalism.

Attacking the network and making your worth valueless seems silly if you're invested in the network. Pretty standard stuff.

Protections against the network and against a 51% attack, right right. Not really linked to capitalism, but just good nodes vs bad nodes.

Huh, out of all the links you linked, this statement is about the only thing that backs up your claim;


which is still rather ambiguous in terms of capitalism vs socialism.


Fun counter-example:
Drawing the same pop-culture reference to worker's vote being final.

Worker's working together rather than against each other due to malicious competition being outpaced.

Frankly your arguments are degrading into word salad, but I will try to reply to them. Yes, lets. I don't have to draw any conclusions. Miners are property. Property is Capital. It is a simple fact, or do you claim to have your own reality now too? This isn't complicated stuff.





Once again, how is consensus reached? The longest chain. Who determines the longest chain? Those who control the most hash power. Who has the most hash power? The ones with the most capital (miners). I am not ignoring anything.




It is Capitalist because it is a system that rewards mutual cooperation and creation of capital via a protocol of competition and mutual greed. This is how Capitalism works. I have item A, I want Item B, you want Item A, so we make a mutually beneficial EXCHANGE OF CAPITAL. In this case the risk is the investment in miners and electricity cost and the reward is the block rewards and transaction fees. The system expects selfishness and uses it in a productive way.




Yes, pretty standard stuff... under the rubric of Capitalism & a mutually beneficial protocol based upon it.




Once again, my premise was that Bitcoin uses mutual greed or selfishness to create rewards within the protocol. This is yet another example of why it is more profitable to cooperate than to fight the network, again demonstrating using mutual greed to drive this protocol.




Actually, they all do. That is why I linked them.




Yep, everyone knows Socialists are all about letting the market determine prices.




Consensus = proof of work = hash rate = miners = money = electricity = CAPITAL

There you go parroting again... really this is a bad look. Try to come up with your own thoughts instead of just repeating my own words back to me. I don't even know what the fuck that last sentence is even supposed to mean.




Yes, because those potential malicious actors are rewarded for their mutual greed rather than overthrowing the system, they are paid to support the protocol, once again supporting my premise.

The main problem with socialism is the centralization, and I my opinion socialism can work on a decentralized system like (blockchain). Now the question is how?

Ok look at miners, let put in perspective and say they work like the gold miners, but still they are a lot different. Gold miners are mining gold a natural resource, where bitcoin miners are just there for security, that is why they get the rewards for every transaction and new btc. For mining Gold, you need human resources, machinery, transport, storage, on another side for bitcoin you need computers and electricity, no transport, and no storage ( 185 gigabytes for September 2018, this is still nothing).

Gold is used mainly for jewelry! The gold standard was once used by many nations, but it eventually became too cumbersome and is no longer used by any nation. Now gold is used for investment, people on the stock market guessing when the price goes up and down, that is it (same as Bitcoin ). Gold is used in manufacturing but not in huge masses.

Ok, now when people say


It is all the perspective how you look at it, what if a small city around (40.000) people, make they own mining farm, everybody invest and everybody gets the returns from the mining firm through their app, now you look at miners like a perspective of a socialist, the more trades happening, the more rewards are giving out. And you have some basic universal income, now it isn't much (it can be in 10 years) but with bitcoin, let not forget, you can access the global market (trading for other coins, tokens). There are cloud mining options but those are trying to make a profit from you, option above is less risky and when executed right can be better than the cloud mining options. Now everyone gets a cut of the global trade. You killed the need for banks, savings billions of dollars, and let us be honest, banks are doing nothing productive for the society. This is way ICO is great, you can access the global economy with few clicks, if you need a credit to start a business, buy a house, etc. Crowdfunding is the future (and crowdfunding in the core of socialism and a little bit of capitalism). Capitalism is not bad, but capitalism and globalism is a recipe for disaster. You can see it by looking at income inequality, lobbying, climate change, wars.

In the end, it is how you see the world, nothing more or less.

No its not, and stop encouraging this maroon. Why is it that Soclialists love nothing better than just redefining Capitalism until it serves their ideas to justify Socialism?

MINERS = CAPITAL

THERE IS NO DEBATE. A miner is property. Property is capital. There is no "other way" of looking at it. It is a fact.

Clearly you are not with the Newspeak program.

Hahaha... I am reading the 1984 book right now :)

It's not uncommon for wannabe Communist idiots to (A) call themselves socialists (B) say that "people own property." This really means that "people in the aggregate" own property, but if they said that, people would realize the state owned everything. That's not nice, right?

What's nice is to make everything LOOK COOL, then fool people into giving everything away and getting little or nothing back. The system does not work without the lying.

This would've been clever if statelessness wasn't key characteristic of communism, which soclialism is a stride towards.  Poor logic to suggest a system of state ownership would transition to statelessness.

Or you could just look at the definition of socialism "Workers own the means of production".

Capitalism would be where I am mining through software owned by a capitalist and a huge developer fee goes to them.  I guess nicehash would be a lite example.  Socialism would mean allowing all miners a chance to set the developer fee to zero.

Ah, the utopian ideal!

So you would lecture people about a fantasy. Your fantasy, not of how things were or are but how they would be in that ideal, perfect place.

You are wasting peoples' time.

Well that is why I currently advocate for socialism instead of communism.  I'm a realist.  Yes the end goal should be to someday reach a utopian goal, but socialism is the realistic alternative that allows for a slow transition towards communism.  I'm not even saying its possible today.  I think  sometime in the far future when everyone alive has only lived in a completely socialist society for their entire lives would communism even become feasible.  At that point, the state and money would no longer have a purpose.  

This is a difficult concept for people to wrap their heads around so I like to point to a real life example of post-scarcity.  Think about a public transportation system.  Most require, drivers, ticket people, and police to catch fare-theft.  Well, today, there are automated public transit systems that run for free.  In that system, there is no longer a need for money to ride the train, workers to collect that money, or a state to catch people stealing a ride.  There are plenty of trains for everyones needs so there is no scarcity involved.  If you can wrap your head around this, communism is simply a society where everything is like this.

If you believe in technology and innovation, you should believe there is a point in the future where essential work is obsolete, all managed by ai/automation, and that scarcity has been eliminated for basic goods.  Under capitalism, this moment represents certain death for most of humanity.  Under communism, it represents the feasibility of a utopian society where people are free to pursue their passion.

I'm obsessed with microtransactions and smart contracts because they represent a mental leap for people realizing money isn't real or necessary.  We used to have gold that people held dearly, the next logical leap was to cash which represented gold or some sort of value.  Now we have digital money which still can be exchanged for cash, and I think the next step is pure crypto.  Before long, transactions will all be running in the background like the code for the programs on your computer and people will live life without thinking about money.  Crypto represents a huge leap towards a society without money even if we are still 5 or 6 more leaps (very far) away from not having it all.

I couldn't agree more and I share the same view, people new to wake up.

Okay, just to be clear. I do agree that the shared work in building the Bitcoin software is very close to what you refer to as "communist ideal".

The actual outcome may be quite different, but there are similarities.

Now let's go to the "socialist now, communist sometime in the future..."

This is where I think it's exactly right to say something like...

It's not uncommon for wannabe Communist idiots to (A) call themselves socialists (B) say that "people own property." This really means that "people in the aggregate" own property, but if they said that, people would realize the state owned everything. That's not nice, right?

What's nice is to make everything LOOK COOL, then fool people into giving everything away and getting little or nothing back. The system does not work without the lying.

Further, where do things like Bitcoin arise? Not in Russia. Not in Venezuela, or North Korea, or Cuba, or China.

They arise in relatively free societies. What does that tell you?

State socialism isn't socialism.  All of those places have simply replaced capitalists with government officials.  Its not worker ownership.  Socialism is government ownership and capitalists want you to think it means an authoritarian government controlling everything but its not.  No socialist advocates for the systems you would find in the countries listed.  Also, Russia is a capitalist oligarchy so I'm guessing you meant the former USSR instead of Russia.

A society with economic democracy would be much more free than what we have.  Imagine how many cool inventions we would have if we empowered more than 5% of the population with opportunity.

The problem is that you are thinking in one dimension politically and equating everything on the left.  The countries you mentioned are on the left but they are all authoritarian and can never be communist (stateless).
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-448525f4254741264be0d6c3eba67053-c
When I say "state socialism" its important to recognize the examples you mentioned are all in the top left (red) quadrant.

Classical marxism and socialism as defined in the dictionary and by any real socialist party today fall into the green quadrant (bottom left) and we believe in small government, local authority with workers having control over their own lives.  A transition towards actual communism cannot happen unless you are moving down on the spectrum.  That means less and less state authority until the state eventually disappears.  The countries you mentioned are literally the opposite of communism in that sense.    

Draw a line from neoconservatism to anarcho communism and that represents the true socilaist transition.

Key Points
1. Just because a party is named "communist" doesn't mean that their governance is consistent with their name.  

2. There are two political dimensions and not everything on the left can be conflated.  Just like fascists and libertarians cannot be conflated, communists and "maoists, leninists or whatever poor example you want to cite" cannot be conflated with us.

I covered this matter in my initial post as follows ....

Ah, the utopian ideal!

So you would lecture people about a fantasy. Your fantasy, not of how things were or are but how they would be in that ideal, perfect place.

You are wasting peoples' time.

Any idea or new invention comes from a fantasy.  Without imagination, the world just stays the same and nothing ever gets better.  Socialism is a result of imagining a system that improves upon the cruelty of capitalism.   Capitalism was once an improvement.

If you think things that haven't been done yet are a waste of time then you aren't just against socialism, you're against innovation in general. 

This post of yours is illustrative of the very essence of wrong.

Every new fantasy or invention in capitalism is tested out in the market.

Socialism is the result of a micromanaged, stifled, poverty of intellect and creativity. Hence in socialism nothing matters what you fantasize or imagine, you are in a bread line waiting for scraps from the table of your betters.

You continue to contribute things with socialism that have nothing to do with socialism.  All that "bread lines" statement does is show your lack of understanding for what socialism is. Its almost as if you haven't read Marx and have gotten all of your information from capitalist outlets.   Maybe you should listen to what socialists are actually advocating.

I have never come across a socialist who thinks the government should control everything yet every bootlicker defines socialism as government ownership.  Its almost as if someone has a vested interest in people being misinformed. 

Anarchism isn't always chaos but a cumulation of choices made in liberty from the individuals. It's true it can result in chaos sometimes, but anarchism will bring up a solution if chaos result in a matter of an issue  ;D

That is all positive, I think why not?

Communism/Socialism/Marxism CAN NOT exist without the state. If people were contributing to the community voluntarily it would be called charity. For Communism/Socialism/Marxism to work, resources have to be taken BY FORCE, and this of course requires the state. Now certainly roving gangs of people could also do this, but then that would be the state, because they are in charge.

Disagree? Explain to me then how resources are collected politely by force under your stateless Communism.

I think what you mean to say is that we cannot transition to communism without government and that would be true.  Communism itself cannot exist with a state Any system with a state is not a communist system.  Socialism is the transition towards communism and that transition period sees the government get smaller and smaller until it is no longer needed.  Once resources are in the hands of communities, the means of production i in the hand of workers, and everything is completely democratic, there is no longer a need for government. 

Communism is idealistic and you are having trouble grasping it with a mindset that is operating within the context of the current system.

Don't speak for me, I will do that myself thanks. Why don't you try answering my question instead of telling me what I mean and what I should think instead.

So far your attempt at a response, if I can call it that, is to say oh yeah Communism is stateless, but we need the state to get there. EXPLAIN IN DETAIL how funds are collected for the common good without the state and without the use of force.

I have no idea where you are getting an idea that resources need to be "collected" by the government for the common good and you said communism/socialism/marxism which confused me even further.  It sounds like you are talking about state socialism again. or maybe you are talking about a welfare state?  A welfare state can exist independent of the economic system.  We have a welfare state in a capitalist system and it would work the same way with socialism.  

In socialism, people collect resources by working.  The only force government uses in socialism would be to protect each individual's economic freedom and certainly not to force anyone to do anything.  Once you have economic freedom embedded into society, everyone will have opportunity to determine their own life.

In communism, there are no funds, or collection of anything.  People just use what they need kind of like an all-inclusive resort.  Communism is hard for most people to fathom because it only exists in a world post-scarcity.  We can't really comprehend that because we only think about the world in terms of scarcity.  It doesn't happen overnight and requires a long period of socialism to eliminate class, increase efficiency, and reduce scarcity.

Oh believe me I have no trouble visualizing your fantasy, the problem is you have ZERO methods for reaching that goal. You are telling me a lot about what you think Socialism is not, but very little of what it actually is (in your mind). I keep asking how it is implemented and how we get there but all you have are nebulous buzzwords and some scoffing like I am just too obtuse to understand your advanced ideology. Get over yourself.

If this is a real thing, that can really be done like you imagine it, then you should have no problem explaining exactly how we get there. Then there is the minor fact that every time this was ever attempted at scale millions died. I am sure this time though will be all cupcakes and fireflies.

I've given you examples already but you were only interested in how state capitalism/ state socialism could be implemented and never bothered to ask about how the economy could be converted to socialism democratically.  Your questions were about how things could be taken by force which is absolutely what socialism is against.  Workers have never controlled the means of production at scale.  Sweden's 82% union participation is the closest example. 

I see, so YOU feel you have proven your argument, therefore you have no need to support your premise with facts. I don't give a FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU BELIEVE, stop telling me what you believe. Tell me how you plan, using facts, not feelings, not beliefs, not ideological buzz words, to voluntarily implement Socialism. I argue it can not be done as the nature of Socialism requires a state and requires force to acquire resources for that state. You have done nothing so far to counter this argument but tell me what you BELIEVE.

You know, I always wondered why Communists were so hostile to religion in general, then one day I figured it out. Communism wants to be God. Under secular life, without God, the state is the default to take that place in peoples minds. Communism is your God, and Socialism is your religion. It is all about having faith and beliefs, and you have completely reinforced this premise time after time.

I simply want to give people the opportunity to control their own destiny.  You never really seemed interested in talking about socialism and only talked about authoritarianism.  Many of the seeds of socialism already exist in our government.  No new power grabs would be necessary.  We already have a modern monetary system and a public education system.   The only new thing involves is encouraging worker cooperatives (workers owning the means of production).  These are currently illegal in many cases, or extremely difficult to start because liability laws and ownership laws do not address worker cooperatives.  There also are no lawyers who are capable of worker cooperative litigation.

We talked about Marcora law, but other moves such as grants, subsidies, and nonprofit classification for new worker cooperatives (tax-free) would give people more of an opportunity to chose to have control over their labor.

In addition to that, more practical training in high school and college would help prepare people to work in a trade and join a cooperative at a young age.  Its all about empowering people to start their own businesses and do work that is needed in their community.

Within current business structures, some simple band-aids would be to strengthen unions by getting rid of "right to work", and empowering  labor unions to have more control over the workplace.  

It is a lot like religion.  Socialists have faith in the individual and believe if individuals are free to self-determination, good things will happen.  God is in each one of us, so we must take care of the Earth, and all of its inhabitants.

What you want is largely irrelevant to this conversation. I believe you probably do have good intent, but again this is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is facts. I "never seem interested" because you aren't discussing anything of substance. I keep asking you to fill out your ideas with specific strategies and methodologies, but you just keep telling me what you feel and how great your ideas are, and I just need to learn a little bit more to "get it".

Since when have power grabs been required to be "necessary" in order for them to happen? You are advocating for taking a large collective of resources and allow them to be managed by people who, by their nature are fallible, and will exploit this authority.

I keep bringing up authoritarianism, because there is NO WAY for Socialism/Communism/Marxism to operate long term WITHOUT authoritarianism. The two concepts are INEXORABLY LINKED. You can imagine it away, but the laws of physics, economics, and human psychology are going to operate in spite of your belief systems.

Yes, we already do have a modern monetary system. A system built by Capitalism. A system which will inevitably collapse under Socialism because in a system where everyone gets what they need for free, there is no incentive to work. If people aren't working they aren't producing. If they aren't producing, there is nothing to buy. If there is nothing to buy what is the point of money? This may seem abstract to you but it is a very well established fact of economics.

Tell me, how do you "encourage" these cooperatives? "The means of production" is an extremely nebulous term that could mean quite literally anything. So workers should just be GIVEN the means of production (ie capital)? The means of production fairy flies by and grants them 3 productive wishes? How does this work? If they are working anyway to do this why can't they just do this within Capitalism? Other than motivating people with warm fuzzy feelings of equality and abundance what does Socialism have to offer ACTUALLY?


"...grants, subsidies, and nonprofit classification for new worker cooperatives (tax-free) would give people more of an opportunity to chose to have control over their labor."

So what you are saying is cooperatives should be funded by grants, subsidies, and tax breaks... by taking money ... from workers ... to pay for these programs ... is giving workers "control over their labor?" OOOOk.

The contradiction is pretty clear here but you keep just hinting that I need to have some kind of paradigm shift to even understand your advanced humanitarian progressive concepts. All these things you are suggesting require the taking of funds by force. If it was not with force it would just be called charity. Also, forcing a worker to associate with a union they do not wish to associate with is a violation of freedom of association under the 1st amendment of The Bill of Rights. it is little more than an extortion scheme. If the union was so valuable people would fund it regardless.

Yes, it is exactly like religion. Socialism/Communism/Marxism are the gods of the secular world. I didn't ask about your faith or what you believe in. I asked you to explain EXACTLY how you expect to manifest this reality. So far you aren't advocating anything that hasn't been already tried over and over again and failed resulting in a holocaust.

I gave you specific examples of the methodology in practice.  I pointed you to the Bologna region to show the effectiveness of laws that promote cooperatives.  That is specific and successful implementation of my ideas.  

The key is that socialism doesn't concentrate power over many into the hands of the few.  It is unique a system that decentralizes power by attaching it to individual workers.  Yes, some individuals will exploit their authority over themselves but that is the risk of individual liberty.   This economic democracy makes power grabs more difficult than they would be in any other system.  

The examples and ideas I have put forth are far less authoritarian than any other economic system. Cooperatives are literally workplace democracies while capitalism is authoritarian by nature.

One of the purposes of socialism is to reduce unemployment to zero.  If people are empowered to work with people in their community to start their own businesses, they will not only be able to produce what the community needs, but alienation, the thing that makes people hate work, would be reduced.  

Again, in your continued disinterest to discuss socialism, you have shifted to discussing welfare. At no point did I say anything about everyone getting what they need for free or people not working. Its almost like you have to throw bad suggestions into the discussion, just to have something to tear apart since the things being suggested are so difficult to disagree with.  

This is the specific place where reading about Marcora law would completely answer your questions.  They can just work within capitalism if they choose, but in a free economy, they would have the choice to sell their labor or own their labor.  Think about a petty bourgeoisie profession like doctors under capitalism.  They have the freedom to sell their labor to a large scale, private or public hospital or company like Kaiser, but they also have the FREEDOM to open their own practice and collaborate with other doctors to split the cost.  Under socialism, that kind of option is not only available to the bourgeoisie class, but to every worker. 

Under capitalism, there is an alienation of labor.  A worker works, and gets paid for their work and that is the end.  Socialism eliminates that alienation by making every worker a business owner who has say over the direction of the company and a share of the surplus value that is extracted from their work.  

In addition to eliminating alienation, socilaism also increases standard of living as income inequality is reduced, companies controled by workers are less likely to lay off workers during times of hardship, more likely to pay those workers (themselves) a fair salary to begin with, and less likely to do things that might harm the local environment or community (that they live in). An owner living on the other side of the planet but making authoritative decisions about production might not think twice about something like toxic pollution.


I love how you just casually throw in something that was never included as part of the idea (taking money from workers).  A worker cooperative is literally a nonprofit organization so why shouldn't it be legally treated the same way?  We give subsidies to all sorts of businesses already and massive bailouts for capitalists auto industry and finance.  There isn't anything new here.  

No it is called monetary policy and does not involve taking anything by force.  You just don't have an understanding of monetary theory and think the government has to tax before it can spend (its actually the other way around).  You also probably think spending before taxing causes runaway inflation because you haven't thought about the economic activity that this particular spending will generate (taxable production).

Unions are just a band-aid for capitalism. They aren't really what I want and do involve a bit of force because all capitalism involves force but that is what they do in scandanavia.    they have sectoral bargaining to mix socialism and capitalism and a union agreement applies to the entire sector.  Sweden doesn't even have a minimum wage.  The government isn't telling people what to to be paid, but people are negotiating what they must be paid.    The government is telling everyone to abide by that agreement though.

I'd love to hear about examples of it being tried but all you can probably come up with is state capitalism where the government dictates what and how is produced throughout the economy.  

Where is the holocaust at Mondragon in Spain?  Where was the holocaust in the Bologna region?

Yes worker cooperatives can fail but you can't have a free, innovative economy without some failure.

You really should look into the examples of worker cooperatives to see how beneficial they are.  There are plenty of videos on Mondragon.  I already shared a few with you.  Understanding these examples will give you more insight into what socailism has to offer.

No, you gave me examples of what you described as Socialism. I addressed your examples, and responded that nothing they were doing was being excluded under the rubric of Capitalism, and furthermore they REQUIRE Capitalism for this to even function. Even if this was an example (which it is not) it would still be a very tiny and regional implementation.



Oh it doesn't concentrate power? I feel much better now that I have your assurances. Is that the key, or is that something you just believe? It is a "unique" system that "decentralizes" power by "attaching it to individual workers". Really? How?

How is it decentralized? What keeps these people operating for the common good and not for self interest? Exploit authority over themselves? What? What does that even mean? Does it really make power grabs more difficult? What evidence do you have to support this? I have about 100 years of history showing that it is in fact EXTREMELY VULNERABLE to power grabs.



It all starts out as buttercups and rainbows, then reality catches up with the fantasy and resources have to be acquired. SOCIALISM IS INHERENTLY AUTHORITARIAN. You can't have collective resources without TAKING them from people by FORCE under Socialism. If they CHOSE to contribute it would just be a donation. Also are we talking about Socialism or cooperatives here, you seem to be shifting between the two as it serves your argument.



So the subsidies and grants you suggested earlier are not forms of hand outs? Could have fooled me. They still have to be paid for by some one, call it whatever you like. Are your suggestions really that difficult to disagree with? So far really you have told me over and over again what you believe, what you feel, and what you imagine Socialism to be, and very little of how you intent to implement this system in reality.




For the fourth time, I already reviewed Marcora laws and responded to this suggestion SEVERAL times and refuted your premise of it being an example of a successful implementation of Socialism. Once again you make the arrogant assumption that I just need to read a little bit more to "get it". After all your ideas are quite advanced, progressive, and evolved, they might be very hard for a mere mortal such as myself to grasp. You on the other hand understand completely. Do doctors really have that freedom? I am not so sure. Socialized medical programs have kind of screwed that one up. HOW is it available? Again you jump to a conclusion with zero explanation of the methods to arrive there.



Oh it increases the standard of living does it? Based on what data? Oh right, more assumptions. Is it not convenient at every corner everything just works out exactly as you had hoped under this hypothetical system? It is almost as if it is unrealistic and not based the real world.




So what you are saying is cooperatives should be funded by grants, subsidies, and tax breaks... by taking money ... from workers ... to pay for these programs ... is giving workers "control over their labor?" OOOOk.




Yet you did include it, and I explained in exact detail how this happens under YOUR ideas. THE TAX MONEY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE TO FUND YOUR SUGGESTED PROGRAMS. Simply designating everyone nonprofit does not magically make the resources appear. This is completely circular logic on your part. I don't support bail outs, they are not Capitalist, and it is irrelevant to the topic because it is independent of your concepts of what Socialism is. It is nothing more than a red herring to distract from your obvious circular logic on funding.




Calling it "monetary policy" doesn't magically make it not a tax. Furthermore I have more knowledge of monetary policy, economics, and banking in general than the vast majority of the population having spent thousands of hours educating myself on the subjects. You tell me I lack understanding though so it must be true! You just got done telling me that the taxes generated by inflation will cover these expenses. Please, take a basic economics course, then maybe remedial math.

I believe you are insinuating that the monetary policy that you support under Socialism is one of printing more money correct? That is called inflation. It is a very basic and simple law of economics no one is disputing (but you of course). If you have a currency, and you print more of it, the buying power of the currency degrades. This results in everything costing more money to buy, and again we are back at square one with the haves and the have nots, only now the currency system is destroyed. This isn't some fringe theory, it is simple math and history that has been demonstrated pretty much since money has existed. Inflation is a tax on the currency holders because it robs the whole of buying power in order to create the new money.

So you see, the resources must still come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the workers. Your premise fails under your own rubric.



Oh just A BIT of force? Oh well, in that case the ends justify the means right? I thought no force was required for Socialism! Oh I see, it is only because evil Capitalism is here, but once that bad ideology is gone the force will be out right? The government doesn't "tell" people what to do, they make laws and enforce them with penalties (ie force). You didn't address my point that it is a violation of the first amendment right to free association.



Yes, all the countless examples of Communism/Marxism/Socialism that resulted in the losses of hundreds of millions of lives in some of the most horrible ways possible don't count because they don't align with your imagination of what Socialism SHOULD BE. What Socialism is is an ideology that starts out with lots of great sounding concepts that have no substance and inevitably result in authoritarianism, because there is no other way for such a system to function long term. You deciding you would like to re-brand Socialism doe not change one iota of what this ideology has resulted in in the past, and nothing you are advocating is different than all the failures before you. Please, tell me some more about your super evolved, humanitarian, progressive ideas I simply just haven't looked into enough to "get it".

As for your holocaust, try Holodomor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjcO4tcobc0

Well of course a system that was designed as a fix to capitalism requires capitalism.  You can't fix something that isn't there.  Socialism is simply the next step in the evolution of human society.

Weather or not you call it an example of socialism or not (semantics), its the heart of what we are asking for.  

That is the entire point.  A company isn't owned by a single person but owned by each worker democratically.  Each worker has equal say in the runnings of the company and large company elect representatives who are accountable to them.  You understand democracy so it shouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine that being extended to the workplace.  "Democratic socialism" is just democracy in the economy.  

In a democracy, self-interest and common good are the same thing (assuming you think freedom is good). If the majority of the workers want to take the company in a certain direction, then the desires of the majority represent the common good.  Those who don't like it are free to leave and start their own cooperative or pool their votes to form a coalition like a political party within the company.    
Well if the system is functioning as intended, a power centralization cannot occur unless people voluntarily give away their power.  In that situation a people should be able to take the power back through elections and as long as there are fair elections, functioning democracy can't lead to a power grab.  Therefore, for a power grab to occur, it would have to happen outside of the rules of the democratic system.  It wouldn't mean that the system created the power grab. This type of power grab can happen in any system and is really just a distraction from the main topic.

I never mentioned collective resources and am completely against anything authoritarian.  There you go again bringing things in from other places that have not been suggested.   The soviets had collective resources and took them by force? cool.  I'm not interested in a system that was on the opposite side of the political spectrum from what I am suggesting.  

The only thing that should be collective is worker ownership over the means of production. We don't need force to give people ownership over themselves and their own time.  Giving each individual power over themselves is literally the polar opposite of authoritarianism.
Its because you are using a loose version of the word and I am using a very specific version of the word.  When I say socialism I simply mean "worker ownership of the means of the production" or "economic democracy" and a worker cooperative is what a large socialist company looks like. Its really the only difference in the economy.   Encouraging worker cooperatives is simply a democratic way to create a socialist economy.

I think your confusion is because we often claim an economy that is structured this way will distribute things more evenly and you interpret that as actively taking resources away from people and redistributing them which is wrong.

This is why I wish you would read about the examples I have given you.  They are completely based on reality.  As a scientist, I don't suggest a solution unless it has been tested successfully.  The government already gives the handouts in the form of unemployment.  Marcora laws simply gave groups of people all of their unemployment money up front to start a cooperative.  


You say that you read them but then you say things like they aren't based on reality which makes it sound like you don't think they actually ever happened.  That is why I feel like you didn't really review their outcomes.  Please tell me what was unsuccessful about them?  I mean, obviously, some cooperatives are going to fail but that was a very small percentage and an economy with innovation has to have some business failure.  What is unsuccessful about Mondragon? We must have different definitions of success because I have never seen anyone claim that company is not successful.

Its statements like this that make it hard for me to believe your animated post about reading about Macrora laws and Mondragon.  Anyone who had read about them, would not think they are fantasy and not based on reality.  Are you saying that all of the information about companies like Mondragon is a hoax? just socialist propaganda?

As a scientist, thats not how I operate.  I found out about worker cooperatives, Marcora laws, and several examples of how they increased standard of living before ever thinking "maybe this is something we should do".  I let the data and reality of what has worked drive my desires.  
I didn't say anything about creating taxes or inflation.  What I said is that the businesses which are created add to the economy by producing things and those things are bought and sold generating more tax revenue.    Perhaps the problem is that what I am talking about is not covered in a "basic" economics course because it is a more advanced, modern way of thinking.  

It should be easy to understand that it is better to have people creating businesses with the same money they would otherwise just be collecting as unemployment.  

Here is the problem.  Using logic that has worked since money has existed gets you in trouble when money fundamentally changes.  Your understanding of money is outdated.  Everything you have learned is still accurate in certain contexts, but it only applies to fixed-value currencies.  Of course if all US currency was worth some amount of gold, more money simply divides the value further.  This used to be 100% true but we don't have that anymore.  That means, your basic understanding of buying power does not apply to US fiat.  Once the US dumped the gold standard, we went to a fiat system of currency with no intrinsic value.   Printing money isn't robbing gold from anyone because they had no gold in the first place.  

The value our currency comes from markets and that market value is based on the ability of the IRS to collect tax and thus the strength of the US economy.  The government has to spend money to get it out into the economy so it can be taxed.  This doesn't mean that the US can spend money forever without inflation but it does mean that spending which stimulates the economy does not create inflation.  The general rule of thumb is that, spending past the level of which we have reached maximum employment and the economy is running at 100% capacity creates inflation.

This is why we have deficits in the first place.  You are distracted though because I never said anything about new spending (which could be done) but my suggestions were all fiscally neutral (even though they didn't need to be). I'm simply suggesting we restructure the way we spend the money we already hand out.  

I mentioned this because it is the way the most successful nations in the history of the world handle labor.  Also, just a bit of force is still a lot less than what we have in the US right now under capitalism.  Keep in mind that countries like Sweden and Switzerland are among the world leaders in economic freedom despite the "bit of force" in the form of sectoral labor laws.  We're talking about the same type of force that keeps people from being free to own slaves.  The supreme court ruling you are referring to when you mention right to work and 1st ammendment is Janus v AFSCME.  That ruling only applies to public sector unions.  

Its only anarchy and true communism where there is no state thus no force.  No one is asking for that in today's world.  


This is the same line of thinking that justifies bigotry.  

men who said they were muslim blew something up= islam kills people
men who said they were communist murdered people= communism kills people
priests raped little boys= catholicism rapes little boys

I have no answer for this because I am beyond stumped by how people can overgeneralize this badly.  If one (or even many) people who claim to subscribe to an ideology, do bad things that are outside of, (and usually in opposition to) the ideology, those actions in no way represent said ideology.

I cannot wrap my head around how people jump to these sorts of conclusions and this has ended up being entirely responsible for your mental block surrounding socialism. It would be like taking you to Church and the whole time you think I am trying to take you to a meeting about raping little boys.  Theres no way I could convince you to come in and listen. Even for a little while.  

It does not matter socialism or capitalism. Any government first of all wants maximum control over its citizens. Very soon, all our life decisions will be recorded on the blockchain, and this recording will determine our whole life. This is a leash for which the government will keep us, if you stumbled - crossed the road to a red signal, predicted a loan payment - you will become a second rate man.
The social credit system is now being introduced in China. But not because of socialism, but because of Confucianism. In China, subordination to the government is unconditional.

Is it going to be run by the national governmetn? I heard it was going to be all local and privately run and basically like an extension of the credit system we have in the us but not just based on money.  I don't like any credit rating system but this  sounds better to me than what we have. more equitable.  

Yep, that's exactly how the rest of the world describes that Communist dictatorship... "equitable"

but why didn't you respond to the previous post?  My theory that capitalists won't discuss socialism unless they can frame it as authoritarian government capitalism seems to be holding true.

You believe whatever suits you, and you make shit up to confirm your biases. Thanks for the demo on that. You are incapable of having a debate any way. Your brain is a pile of postmodernist mash sloshing around with no form or definition ready to fill any bias you present to it.

However if you happen to be able to form a premise I would be glad to dismantle it again making you look like the simple person you are... again...

I am very disappointed in you because I typed up all of those real-world examples and clarifications only for you to disregard all of them and resort to name-calling.  You didn't even communicate what you had a problem with other than semantics.  You're really going to call someone names over a semantic disagreement?

Why would any of this fit my bias? I grew up in the most capitalist country with capitalist parents and have inherited rental property.  I am an academic, a scientist who seeks to find examples of solutions to the world's social, economic and environmental problems.   I've noticed patterns in my studies and formed my opinions from those.

I am going to put this link here

https://bigthink.com/videos/eric-weinstein-capitalism-is-in-trouble-socialist-principles-can-save-it

and who doesn't know who this guy is, here more info https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/experts/eweinstein

I hope everybody takes time to listen.

Because you don't offer reality. All you offer is theories and desires, yet you offer ZERO information regarding HOW you claim we can get there. Also all of your arguments require we just simply ignore the endless history of failures of your ideology and the millions of lives it costs to try it over and over and over again. Socialism INEVITABLY results in a totalitarian state. How am I supposed to argue against a fantasy?

But there are is so much power and wealth to be gotten on the way to the utopian fantasy state. And if you have the right psychology, you too could have a piece of it.

:)

On the previous page, I gave a pretty detailed explanation of how to achieve an economy of workplace democracies where people are free to start their own businesses or join cooperatives and explained how we can get there through Marcora laws, tax reform and education.  I gave examples of cooperatives as well. Any questions?  

On the contrary, I haven't seen one example or explanation of how my ideology of workplace democracy/worker owned means of production has cost millions of lives.  

No, it was not at all detailed. Also I already responded to each and every one of those points. If you are just going to go around and round in circles I will just start quoting the replies I already made. All you said was about your desires and goals. You described little to nothing about how to get there, and what little was there was poked full of holes. Your argument relies completely upon redefining words as it serves you.

The Ideology of Socialism and Communism has lead to the loss of millions of lives. You don't just get to exclude all the horrible failures of your ideology because "oh it wasn't REAL Communism/Socialism" This is a logical fallacy known as "no true Scotsman".

What about all the lives lost in Holodomor? The Kulaks? Stalin? Lenin? What about under Mao? Pol Pot? Mugabe? Hitler? (he pushed national Socialism)

I guess none of them count right?