Bitcoin Forum

A couple of recent threads saw us going off topic and we found ourselves arguing the merits of capitalism vs. pitfalls of socialism.   ;D

Can you guess where I stand on the issue?  If not I'll tell you.  Freedom is not compatible with socialism, and I'm more inclined to remain free and provide for myself than I am to accept handouts and be enslaved.

What about you?

Stealing from people is wrong, regardless of what you call it or how many people vote for it.

there is no argument to be made for either, capitalism hinders the lower classes, meanwhile, socialism fails due to lack of organization at the "top", truly what you really want is a Patriarchal Kingdom.

Apart from all the ideological deficiencies of socialism; practically speaking, it means endless waiting in queues, petty bribery, and perpetual corruption. Socialism also fosters a culture of corruption that saps the moral character of the youth. Most importantly, socialism breeds the "welfare queen" temperament, where everyone feels the government is taking care, so nobody does any work; and there is inefficiency and breakdown everywhere. Finally, the "guaranteed job" feature of socialism prevents individual initiative and fosters mediocrity. The mass of indolent socialists rudely suppress the few sparks of efficiency in their midst that seek to excel, driven by their inner spirit.

Some people point out the success of Scandinavian countries in running an efficient socialist polity, and also Great Britain and Canada for their National Health Service (NHS). But, the Scandinavian countries are all founded in an ancient Christian culture that is conducive to fostering socialism, they all have a homogenous ethnicity, and are small states that can be easily governed. Likewise, Britain and Canada too have an ancient Christian culture, and a more or less homogenous majoritarian ethnicity.

In states with a non-Christian culture, socialism has uniformly proven disastrous. Even in countries with a Christian culture, there are sore spots like Venezuela, that expose socialism's true evil face.

The solution then is to have capitalism with a Christian conscience: universal health care, free education even upto college level, and the government strengthening infrastructure and taking care of the environment. Without the core seed of Christian conscience in their character, establishments, whether socialist or capitalist, are doomed to self-destruct like the Former Soviet Union (FSU).

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.  ALL of the criticism thus far is criticism of state capitalism.

State Capitalism- a form of capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources, etc.

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 wonderful set of Utopian ideals that are completely in conflict with human nature.  And fortunately so.  Your argument will eventually lead us to discuss greed, and you will argue that it brings out the worst of human aggression.  While that's true, one can also argue that we only have the quality of life we enjoy today due to the greed of others.

Casualties of socialism include entrepreneurship, innovation, motivation, and education.  It's just a matter of time before laziness takes hold, and a scammer assumes all power through deception.
  

It's not strange at all if you've studied history.  Just because the definition you prefer includes the word statelessness that doesn't make communism or socialism any more practical.  Really, how would that work?

Even in a small community there will always be somebody more attractive than you, more charming than you, stronger, smarter, or simply more convincing than you.  Willingly or unwilling that person will have more influence on your neighbors than you, and their ideals will become more valuable to the community than yours.  It's human nature.  It's MOB RULE.

No thank you.  I prefer freedom.

They both have their good and bad qualities. I think that capitalism represents man's true desire, which is to strive for power at all costs, whereas socialism represents idealistic (and unrealistic) values. In an ideal world, we could feel as though we had power while at the same time having equality and opportunity for all. This, I think, is the ultimate aim of technology and will become our reality as life becomes increasingly digitized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OutDikuUBs

Socialism is akin to democracy in the work place, in my eyes.

The major flaw of socialism in the past, was the requirement for it to be centralized. Capitalism has always been decentralized (except for the entity issuing the monetary currency).

Overall, I think in the future, socialism can come back as we enter the information era. To track a shirt from sheep to sale would have been impossible 100 years ago. Now, it's just a few cameras, a few algorithms, and a beefy distributed database.

That's a good one. :)


I have one thing to ask those who support socialism or communism. Name one country that managed to be ruled in true socialism or communism for at least 50 years and came to prosper under it. I can name at least 20 that turned into poor shitholes where people were struggling to buy food. Socialist states operate so much worse than capitalist ones that after some time they're always forced to stop people from moving money abroad, working abroad, and so on.

I think you bring up a good point here. The only way to bring about total equality is to take everyone's finances, beauty, intelligence, etc. and bring them down to the lowest common denominator.

there is no vs. if you do too much capitalism, people will be forced to live like robots and decentralise the capitalist system, if you do to much socialism the socialist system gets abused by capitalists,

there is always a balance between both

Baseless claims that are simply being regurgitated by bootlickers.  At no point, have you even attempted to draw a connection between socialism and these claims.  I can address each to support the claim that socialism enhances all of them.

Entrepreneurship
Capitalism limits business ownership to the capitalist class that makes up a small percentage of the population while socialism provides all workers the opportunity to be entrepreneurs.  For example, Marcora law In Italy allows for unemployment to be used as a lump sum of capital to start a business and now over 30% of the population in the Bologna region work in cooperatives.  

Innovation
Mondragon corporation is a worker cooperative in Spain.  They are a very innovative company with their own R&D program.  Microsoft and GM have leased space in their R&D labs because the socialist culture of the company is so incredibly productive and innovative.

Motivation
It is absurd to suggest workers would be more motivated to take orders in poor working conditions just  to fill the pockets of someone they don’t even know.  Of course motivation would be much higher in a democratic work environment where the worker benefits directly from the fruit of their labor.  It should be obvious that people take much more pride in working for a company they own.  

Education
Do you really think for-profit education is the way to go?  Capitalist schools are in the minority, but Pheonix strayer Capella and Devry all have poor reputations while publicly owned and non-profit schools are well-respected.

Its the definition I prefer because its the definition.  You can't just change the definition because some bad people long ago called themselves communists. We are talking about economic theory not a label you get to place on historical events. Communism is the end goal but is not something that could work without a very long transition period of socialism.  Its so far off into the future that the details are not really worth discussing in 2018.  No one who grew up in capitalism could ever be capable of comprehending how a communist society would work.  We have been conditioned to think about things in terms of money and authority in terms of state.  We should only be discussing socialism first.

You are asking about "state socialism" which means the state owns the means of production "on behalf of the people".  Its a tired strawman because everyone is already against an entire country's government being one big socialist enterprise.  As a socialist and political organizer, I have never come across anyone who advocates for a move to "state socialism".  "State socialism" is a perversion of socialism because it simply replaces capitalists with government officials and can never transition to communism.

Sure, state socialism has had some successes that capitalism could never achieve, but no one would actually advocate for it for all of the reasons you guys have listed.  Lets drop the tired argument against "state socialism" (since no one is advocating for it) and get back on the topic with discussion about actual socialism.  The definitions bolded above should make the distinction easy for those of you who have never seen them.

Marxism/Socialism/Communism exists simply to give a pretty utopian coat over the shearing of the sheep so they don't struggle too much as they are lead to slaughter to make room for the next herd.

Capitalist class?  So now it's a CLASS?  Typical commie double-speak.  I've started and sold two businesses in my life, one I started with $300.  I'm an immigrant in this country, not a member of any CLASS!  I'm in a class of my own!



Spain isn't socialist or communist, that's why there are corporations there.  In a free market a corporation can organize itself in anyway it sees fit.  I've worked for an ESOP, I've got nothing against people making their own choices, that's why I choose freedom.



That is the most foolish thing I've ever heard.  I work for a multinational corporation and I have great working conditions.  Keep spreading your lies, maybe the gullible and inexperienced will fall for your scam.

The irony of your post is palpable.  There's so much that supports my argument and contradicts your own.  You seem to be so steadfast in your beliefs, almost like a religious fervor.

Yes the capitalist class owns the means of production as well as the time of the working class.  The working class is forced by coercion to sell their labor to the capitalist class or probably die.  Most people don't have time to go start a business as missing their next paycheck means their family doesn't eat.    No one is attempting to attack you as a person or take your accomplishments away but you are speaking from a position of privilege.  You say you are in a class of your own and perhaps that is due to your exceptional talent or prowess in a certain area that allowed you to defy the general trends of the system to break into the capitalist class.  Socialists just think freedom shouldn't be limited just to those with exceptional talent but should be available to all workers.

I wasn't talking about the Spanish government.  I was clearly talking about Mondragon corporation.  Why do you insist on diverting the conversation away from economics and into government control?  Probably because state socialism is the only thing you are prepared to refute even though NO ONE IS ADVOCATING IT.  

Today's socialist believes in empowering the people to organize their labor democratically (see Marcora laws) so it turns out we are getting somewhere because beneath all of the layers, your ideals may actually be socialist or compatible with socialism. Especially the bolded quote.
Check your privilege because most workers under capitalism do not have that luxury and they have no say in their working conditions.  Its either sell your labor to this capitalist on their conditions, sell your labor to that capitalist on their conditions, or starve.   You are making this all about you which is causing you to view the system with position bias.  Lets try to focus on everyone involved in the economic system.  Of course switching to socialism would not advance the ~10% of people who are in the capitalist class.

Please point it out then.  I'm here to have an open discussion with people from diverse backgrounds and belief systems.  I'm not here to call anyone names but simply to learn more about how people digest ideas.  I am a scientist and always approach things with an open-mind.  Thats the only way I could become a socialist coming from a capitalist, christian, wealthy household.  


Its all evidence based.  I'm simply trying to solve the problems of modern capitalism and the examples of solutions have been presented (worker cooperatives), so I'm not going to let 30 years of people telling me socialism is the boogeyman override the actual theory and practice.  If someone presents an alternative solution to the problems I seek to solve, I will apply design thinking and do my best to evaluate them appropriately.

An example of my flexibility is the fact that as a socialist, I am open to welfare capitalism as an alternative solution.  It doesn't seem as ideal as socialism but seems to be working pretty well in Scandanavia so I am open to it. Are you?

Coins4commies, I have to say you are like a walking Communist cliche. It would be hilarious if the results of this moronic ideology didn't seem so helpful on the surface and result in such hell on Earth any time an attempt is made to implement it.

the movie 'sorry to bother you' is very interesting in trying to address  how capitalism affects us.

Shrewd political leaders wanted to come to power by making fool of innocent masses of countries.  They showed golden shining dreams to the people. And came to power calling it socialism.  People were optimistic of getting better standard of living.  But their independence was snatched from them.  Freedom was just a dream for them.  They were exploited financially; politically and religious freedom was also no more with them.  Russia is the biggest example of ex socialism / communism.  People were so much tortured and exploited that there was a big revolution against the governments.  People threw communists out of power.  Now they (citizens) are breathing in independent atmosphere.

Capitalism on the other  hand gives much freedom to live the life.  People are free to do business; service; industry; agriculture etc.  But under this type of rule there are chances of a big gap between the rich and the poor.  This gap increases.   Small fish is prey to the big one. So I think there need to be some government intervention. 
Poor people  are mostly helped with the taxes received from rich people.  But justice also needs to be done while taxing the rich.  It should be ensured that poor do not become habitual of getting free bread and butter and intentionally not working despite there being chances of employment.  (because they are getting free). 
Justice is possible in capitalism; almost impossible in socialism.

I've tried to explain to you what my ideas look like when implemented but you just revert back to the tired USSR strawman.  Its not like I'm just making a cop out that socilaism has never been done.  It has, just not in the examples capitalists want you think about.  I mentioned worker cooperatives and Marcora law in the first post but here are some more resources to introduce you to socialism in action.

Capitalism a love story segment on Coops (3 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VdbFzwe8fQ&list=PLaJhh0k4dkH35GDiLjh7rmM9CKmtJQB8T


Mondragon during the economic crisis (5 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaJ1hfVPUe8


Italian law that led to 30% worker owned GDP in the Bologna leader
https://www.wikipreneurship.eu/index.php/Marcora_Law

The biggest problem for socialism is that people have been incorrectly trained to think it means authoritarian rule and never bothered to research.

The problem is not that I don't understand your ideas. The problem is your ideas... are just ideas. They have NOTHING to do with the reality of the proposals you are making or the ACTUAL RESULTS of implementing Socialism. You THINK it is good, but in reality all it does is make the things you claim to want to fix MUCH WORSE. History has shown this process over and over again, this is not a straw man, this is historical record. So Socialism kind of worked on a tiny scale in some place none of us has ever heard about... very impressive, that doesn't change the scorched Earth and hundreds of millions of bodies left behind every time people try to scale it up.

BTW your example isn't even Socialism, that is 100% Capitalism with a little central control thrown in. You accuse me of not having done any research, but I assure you I have done more research on Communism/Marxism/Socialism than you have ever done on any subject in your life. Frankly I don't think you can even define Socialism based on your "example" here.

The fact of the matter is Socialism requires taking the products of one's labor by FORCE in order to hand it out to another. The ONLY way to do that on ANY kind of scale is a tyrannical government. There is no "nice" way to rob people, even if you do good things with the money later.

I think both are flawed systems and both ruin society and peoples lives in different ways. I am a purport-er of alternative ways to run society there was an interesting project called the venus project if anyone wants to check it out.

But socialism vs capitalism is really a pointless argument they're both crap!

Saw the following definition of Socialism and would like to share it here, since it makes sense:

These days, the word socialism gets tossed around so much, it's almost lost all meaning. Originally, though, it was the bedrock of Marxism and meant that workers and their community should control the market for what they make.

Because the Soviet state eventually strayed far from Marx's idea of socialism towards Lenin's totalitarian communism, socialism is now often used to mean everything from "fascism" to "progressivism." But in its purest form, socialism was a political, social, and economic system meant to empower the working class. In the U.S. today, though, it's often used as shorthand for "the services that government provides and which are paid for by taxes." Depending on who's talking, that idea is either a goal or a target. (source: vocabulary . com/dictionary/socialism) [bold mine]

It looks like "Capitalism" is nearing stalling speed, and since freedom is very important to us all, and what the discussion is really about, we should carefully contemplate and consider the above quoted pure definition of what socialism is about, to fine tune the meanings of the words we use in the discussion.

This is a false equivalency. Capitalism has quite demonstrably improved the quality of life of humanity and reduced poverty, something Socialism could never take credit for. Socialism only takes credit for riding gains created under Capitalism because it is parasitic by nature. At least Capitalism has an element of voluntarism and promotes abundance. This isn't even debatable, it is a fact. Is Capitalism perfect? Absolutely not. Life is not perfect. Does it work more than it doesn't work? Absolutely. Would Socialism fix those problems or do a better job? Absolutely not.

The problem is that it ALWAYS leads down that route. There is no way to operate a system of collective wealth on a large scale WITHOUT taking private property by force. Once the productive people have had enough, and they run out of people to rob, the system must then eat the wealth of the average citizens (ie the worker class) to operate.


None of this is by accident. Capitalism is not stalling, the current economic model is stalling, by design. If you do some more careful research you will find Marxism itself was funded and supported by the banking elite on Wallstreet as a system of controlled opposition to Capitalism. It is right in your face. Look at the symbol of Communism, the hammer and sickle. They are ancient symbols. The hammer represents building and creation and the sickle represents destruction and the harvest. Capitalism is the hammer, Communism is the sickle.

Capitalism issues credit and induces production, then the system is compromised usually by inflation or other financial shenanigans, credit is contracted, everyone is stuck paying debts they can't afford, they sell their real property at fire sale prices, and the bankers buy it up for pennies on the dollar just before they introduce Communism. Communism then comes in and picks the bones under a friendly pink warm fuzzy mask to ease the sheep into the slaughter under a pretext of helping them. The economy is destroyed, a new system is created. Then Capitalism is reintroduced again. Repeat.

Don't submit to harvesting.

I think we socialists agree with TECSHARE on most things but we clearly disagree on the definition of socialism.  Everyone agrees that what he calls socialism is awful and everyone agrees that workers should have freedom and not have the fruits of the labor taken away.  Lets not get hung up over word choice unless you are injecting those examples into the debate to intentionally mislead others about what we actually want.

Well I want to make clear the the actual results you are referring to have nothing in common with my ideas or the ideas of any American socialist I have come across in the 21st century.

We don't want to have the government scale it up, we just want these opportunities to be an available option to everyone.  No one wants the government controlling everyones lives.  Our ideal economy consists of a bunch of small-scale worker cooperatives just like the ones I have described that you call impressive.  These "tiny examples" that you call impressive are what we mean when we talk about socialism.

The Soviet Union was one national so called cooperative where the autocrat had complete control of the entire economy.  We want a democratic economy and all of the examples you think about when you think about socialism involve a totalitarian dictated economy.

The differences between what we call socialism (the definition) and what you call socialism (20th century examples of communist parties running everything) are really as simple as democracy vs totalitarianism.   Maybe your response to socialism should make us socialists thing long and hard about the use of the word.  I don't know how to get around this but perhaps people's perception of the word has been so badly damaged that we should use a new word to get around the trauma caused by perversions of socialism.  What do you think?

We don't want any of that and to be clear, we simply want to put the power to decide what to do with the products of ones labor into the hands of the workers.  We consider capitalism as a force that takes the products of ones labor and hands it to another.   According to this post (especially the bolded part, you want the exact same thing as us socialists.  This is why discussion is so important.  All this time we were using different words to describe our common goals.

This is not true because new wealth is always being generated.  You can collectivize new wealth without taking anyone's old wealth. That is why I keep referring you to Marcora laws as a functioning example of transitioning an economy towards socialism. Also keep in mind, that we are not asking for nationalized collectives or government-ran collectives.  We want an economy that consists of many worker ran cooperatives.  

Capitalism:  Companies have shareholders/owners who don't work but take the products of the labor and also control the company

What TECSHARE calls socialism:  The government takes the products of the labor and controls all companies (everyone hates this so its not even being debated)

What we want: Companies have shareholders who are the workers of that company and democratically decide what to do with the products of their own labor.

Your intent is irrelevant. The results are relevant. There has NEVER been a successful scaled up version of Socialism/Communism/Marxism, and anything you call "success" was only a temporary effect left from residual Capital created under the rubric of Capitalism. Everything you are saying is PURE FANTASY. You are free to your own opinions, but your are not free to redefine words and reality so it fits in your delusional box.

The examples of Marcora laws and worker cooperatives are not fantasy though.  If you would look into them, they have worked successfully for a very long time and affected real people and real economies.  You continue to ignore my point to go back to argue against something no one is arguing on behalf of.  The definition of socialism has been posted by multiple users but it is you that continues to use your own definition. 

This seems to be what is happening and I am done responding if you have no interest in debating and only want to misdirect the conversation to be a critique on authoritarian governments. 

I have looked into them, and addressed your point already. Morcora laws are not Socialist, they are centralized command economy structure within Capitalism. All you do all day long is try to make it look like Socialism some how produced the wealth it stole from Capitalists. SOCIALISM PRODUCES NOTHING.

I have plenty of interest in debate, and that is exactly what I have been doing. You are demanding that I agree on your baseless premise that there is some how some magical version of Socialism we haven't tried yet that won't end up like all the other horrible disasters that resulted from almost every attempt.

Some people define insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If that is true, Socialists are fucking insane.

Well maybe to you they aren't socialist, but the problem is that these are types of programs that can achieve the goal of the socialist party and every socialist I know of in this country today.  So regardless of whether or not you call them socialist, or the historic socialists you read about would have taken that route, the socialists here and now should be the only ones relevant to the discussion. 

Also, you have misread them as they are not "centralized command economy structure".  Individuals use them to start their own businesses which succeed or fail based on the market.  Centralized command economy means that the government is telling people to produce x amount of a good or service.  It just seems like you have all of the economic vocabulary twisted, haven't' read up on the laws, or both.
No economic system produces anything.  Everything is produced by labor regardless of the system.  The system simply determines who gets the surplus.  Socialists suggest that the worker who did the labor should get the surplus. 



We don't expect different results though. We expect the same positive results that democracy and worker-owned businesses have always produced.  Worker-ownership doesn't guarantee success, but it simply puts people's lives into their own hands.  All people are happier when they have freedom and control in their lives.  Relative to their capitalist counterparts, worker cooperatives like Mondragon have proven to be crisis resilient and have increased the quality of life and happiness of everyone involved.  We would be delighted to get the same results. 

Somehow what you call capitalism and definitely no socialism is a core principle of the socialist party.  Maybe you should read the website before strawmanning what socilaists want based on what you read about the USSR.
https://www.socialistpartyusa.net/principles-points-of-agreement

"Individuals use them to start their own businesses which succeed or fail based on the market."

Sounds like Capitalism to me, except the part where they take money at the point of a gun to subsidize this program.

See the problem here is you insist on calling the fruits of Capitalism Socialist at any opportunity. Nothing done under the Marcora laws requires Socialism to be implemented. In fact the majority of the policies it contains are implemented in some form in other countries, and none of them are calling it Socialist.

To you Socialism is some nebulous warm feeling blanket of a term that wraps you up in visions of utopia, equality, and rainbows. The real world has rainbows, that's about it, and real Socialism has a quite a body count every time some one tries to implement it at scale.

They all started out with the best of intentions, they all felt warm and fuzzy about it, and they all screamed in terror at the hell they had created for themselves and the generations that followed as a result of these naive ideologies.

NOW. That said, I am not saying Marcora laws are a bad idea (except for the centralized government subsidy part), it contains many good ideas. However just because they are good ideas and they are good for workers doesn't wave a magic wand over them and make it Socialist.

I find people such as yourself always think they have it all figured out, and all I need to do is just read more because I just don't understand it. I do. I was you. Then I actually started seriously researching. You have no idea how many thousands of hours I have spent reading on this subject alone. You want to play the teacher but you don't want to do the homework. Perhaps you should do some reading? Here let me start you off with some light reading:
http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S. Lewis

Socialists like these laws because they put the means of production into the hands of the worker who would otherwise have to sell his labor for the rate dictated by some capitalist, or live off of the government unemployment benefit indefinitely.

I don't know anything about money being taken at the point of a gun and no one in the american socialist party would condone such so we are all on the same page here.

Nope, to me socialism is simply workers and communities having freedom and control over their own labor and production.

. You still are me.  We have the same views on just about everything here.  The main thing we disagree on the semantics of the word socialism.  You have switched the words capitalism and socialism and think that I (and all dictionaries as well as the American socialist party) are the ones who have switched them.  I understand that you are basing your definition of socialism on the behaviors of governments that have operated under the name "socialist" or "communist" party and that is probably a position shared by people who lived in the former soviet union.  I will concede this because it is not worth arguing over what word to use to classify an economic system by when we all agree on basic principles that are is bad and good.

Lets just call them System 1 and System 2.


System 1: People are oppressed by a power hierarchy.  The fruits of labor are stolen by force or contract.  People do not have the liberty to do what they want with their own lives. In the end, needs are not even met.

System 2: People live in freedom and have control over their own lives.  People are entitled to the fruits of their labor and have the opportunity to be innovative entrepreneurs.  Morale is high.


Why quibble over silly semantics when we could discuss actual differences with respect to the correct means to the same end?  We all (correct me if I'm wrong) hate system 1 and want system 2.  That means it is not productive to continue to talk about how system 1 has failed in the past.  We agree on the end but perhaps we differ on the means to that end.  Why not talk about that instead of arguing about which word to use to describe things we agree on.   

They can like chocolate cake too, it doesn't make chocolate cake Socialist. There you go again with the nebulous Communist buzzwords that are almost completely meaningless at this point.

Exactly, you are totally unaware of the results of these policies. Let me spell it out for you.

With your belly full of warmth and a smile on your face you write up some subsidies that are going to "put the means of production back in the worker's hands" whatever the fuck that means in reality. This subsidy then has to be provided by the government. The government does not produce anything, so it needs to pay for this subsidy with taxes of one form or another. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will come and MAKE you pay your taxes and possibly also put you in a cage.

All Socialists promote taking money from the productive at the point of a gun, otherwise it would just be called charity.



We may share a lot of views, I don't know that for sure. However this is not about semantics. This is about causality, and how this particular ideology, usually even motivated by good intent, has a step by step path laid out for it to turn into a totalitarian dystopian society. Communism was LITERALLY FUNDED BY the Western banking elite in the US and Europe. The ideology is the fruit of a poison tree. Your analogy above is again simplistic and ill-defined.

Human beings are in fact VERY PREDICTABLE, and if you leave them any room to take more power and control, they will. Socialism is like locking a bunch of children in a toy store over night and trusting they will not touch any of the toys. In this analogy the bureaucrats are the children and the toys are our lives and means of survival. Socialism and Communism not only ignore basic human drives and behavior, they ignore the laws of economics, largely based on math. From practically any academic angle you approach Communism from, Communism/Socialism/Marxism fail examination. This is not simply a semantic disagreement between us, but perhaps maybe with yourself.

Its simply taking the money they were "entitled to" for unemployment and using that to build a business.  Are you opposed to unemployment benefits?

The government produces one very important thing. Money.  If the government stops producing money you get rapid deflation, a very bad thing for the economy.  Remember that.  New spending does not equal new taxes.  Anyone keeping up with the US right now should realize that.

Are you against taxes?  Taxes are a government issue regardless of which economic system you are using.  Do you wish there were no taxes?   You can't have a government, or national currency.   That would make you an anarchist.

It seems like you are really just an anarchist.

Entitled to eh? What is anyone really entitled to? If your answer is the fruits of your own labor, then at what point does some one else get to tell you, you have had enough and now they are taking it for others at the point of a gun?

In the USA at least, the government currently doesn't produce the money (though they have the power to under the constitution), the private bank known as The Federal Reserve Bank does. Also, as they print more and more money, inflation is itself a form of taxation. More money is printed, the cost of real goods and services go up, the value of the currency drops in buying power. Then as wages go up to keep up with cost of living, you are "earning more" so the IRS taxes you again for the inflation.

Any time you are feeding money into a bureaucracy, it is going to siphon off some for its own operations. Over time this pool grows and grows and corruption runs rampant. It is inevitable, good intentions be damned.

I am against SOME forms of taxes. I don't agree with income tax policy, and property taxes can be used in a very parasitic way to strip people of land while the larger companies end up writing off their property taxes anyway.
Everything can be paid for with sales taxes. It is very simple. You consume more, you pay more. There is no easy way around it either.

Again you are creating a false dichotomy trying to claim if I don't support your idea of taxes I must be an anarchist. Really this is bottom of the barrel standards of personal attacks and false choice fallacies. What else you got?

I can say that the so-called communism/socialism is false proposition.

Socialism/communism has never really existed in the history of mankind，it exists only in Marx's theory. All self-proclaimed socialism/communism countries that you know are not true communism.To be exact, they are all "totalitarianism/authoritarianism" out the cloak of communism.

The core of real communism is that power comes from the people and people share power.

But now all the "socialist/communist-ruled" countries power are concentrated in the hands of a few high-ranking party members in communist party, and they have supreme power.

In my opinion, communism is an idealized social state. I don't think that true communism is bad,but Marx theory has a major flaw，he envisions a highly civilized society, but neglected the restriction of power.

It does not provide a feasible theoretical basis for how to limit power after power is out of control. He does not see that the concentration of power will inevitably lead to the loss of control.

In any society, once power is too concentrated, it will inevitably lead to the abuse of power. All communist countries are like this without exception.

Therefore, at present, Marx’s theory has proved to be a failure.

But is it possible to succeed？ Maybe, when the human society develops into a highly civilized era, the day when a man with God-like power can consciously not abuse power.

If it happens, then it is a era of God, not human.

Though I like the ideology behind socialism there is a very major flaw in the whole system and that is it breeds dictatorship Because everything is in the hands of the government, it give them power over everything and from the power, it breeds dictatorship.

This is absurd.  Most of human history did not have a state, money, or classes and involved the sharing of resources.  Primitive communism.



Well by definition, socialism puts power into the hands of workers and communities.  Socialism is decentralized power to individuals by definition. Democracy and individual control are literally the mechanisms by which socialism functions.  Its not mob rule either because individuals keep control over their workplace and communities keep control over themselves. 

Of course, when all of your examples of socialism are actually things that are the opposite of socialism, you will come to a conclusion that socialism doesn't work. 

You are saying "putting power into the hands of each individual never works because the state having all of the power leads to abuse of power" .  Its akin to saying "watering plants never works because eventually, the plants will dry out". 

Makes no sense.

Im pretty sure socialism can't exist without the financing and support of capitalism, socialism without capitalism is communism...

All these systems today are antiquated and there needs to be new ideas of political systems developed.. we can't just keep trying to bandage these failing systems..

Well your post is like saying a bridge cannot exist without the land on the side it originates from(duh).   Thats because communism is the future system created in response to capitalism and socialism represents the transition from capitalism to communism.

Its not a matter of capitalism or communism.  Its capitalism then communism.  That is just the next step in the evolution of human society. As we continue to become more and more sophisticated, we drop our old systems and adopt newer, more efficient ones.  

All that pure capitalism does when it is not part of a big, formal government, is to make every, little family into capitalistic socialism.

8)

I think capitalism is the best way to help people, everyone should depend on their own work, their own sweat, if God wanted us to have communism as a model he would've established this in the initial laws he gave to Moses, (everyone was entitled to work their own fields, raise their own animals and so on) first laws of humankind.

The irony is you are describing workers owning the means of production....socialism.  Capitalism involves many people working one man's land.  Socialism is the only mechanism by which everyone could obtain their own land/animals to work.   Capitalists depend on the work of their workers.  Most shareholders are not putting any sweat into what is being produced.   

You just love running around and redefining everything you like to Socialism don't you? Apparently to you everything is Socialism, except real Socialism. Socialism IS NOT the only method, and that statement is completely fallacious. Capitalists depend on workers. Workers depend on workers. We all depend on workers. WTF is your point? I see, so sweat is more valuable than financing is it?

Totally agree, we are not supposed to be all landlords, there must be people who do the lower tasks, those who exploit people are those who we should be against.

Well we agree because we already established that you call workers owning the means of production (EVERYONE working their OWN fields with their OWN animals) capitalism and you call authoritarianism (people having little freedom over their labor or fruits of the labor) socialism.  Since I have so much disdain for nonstop semantics, i'm just going to start adopting your definitions in discussion with you and add a (TS) indicator for external readers.

By these tecshare definitions, we need to move to capitalism(TS) and away from socialism(TS).  

How exactly do you suggest we transition from the socialist(TS) authoritarian economy  we have today to something more capitalist(TS) the OP describes?

So now with your arguments totally decimated, you resort to literally speaking for me? This is a really extremely low level of "debate" bordering on the level of some cheap mentalist act. Maybe you should move to Vegas and get a spandex sequin suit. Oh really you disdain semantics? Is that why you constantly just redefine anything you don't agree with or that conflicts with your existing bias? Really, tell us all again what you do for a living please. I want it to be clear where this stunning level of debate comes from.

The world is not just a word salad like you have flopping around in your cantaloupe. Not everything is subjective. Lots of things are objective, and your ideology totally ignores the objective to very destructive effect.

It is me trying to extend an olive branch to you. everytime I have described the socialist ideal, you say its not socialism and that actual socialism is defined by authoritarianism.  Its an endless cycle until someone lets go of their definition.  I just tried to concede that but even then you are unwilling to move forward.   So I have made a tremendous effort to move forward with you but every one of your post is either based on personal attack or semantics.   Luckily, I have the patience of an educator and will try to have an actual discussion.  I haven't redefined anything but am willing to operate in your definitions because without common definitions of words, we can't have a conversation. 
--------------------------------


I will start from scratch back on topic.  You said socialism wasn't the only way to achieve....

  I really just want to revert to the topic and the answer to the question:

If not by socialism (other than workers owning their means of production), how else can this be achieved?

If your answer is going to involve the words socialism, capitalism, communism, don't you think it would be helpful if everyone knew what you were talking about when you used those words?

I don't want your olive branch. I am not here to be your friend. I am here to do my fair share of butchering in the slaughterhouse of the marketplace of ideas. Your arguments simply don't stack up. The moment you give me a legitimate argument based on empirical data I will address it. So far all you have is sophistry, moving goal posts, rhetoric, and refractory platitudes. You claim I am just using semantics and personal attacks all day, but I am putting to you very simple questions, facts, and references.

Really this whole time you don't even really argue, you just imagine your point was something else and argue that after realizing you have no reasonable reply.

I do so relish the absolute brazen bald faced gall you have to now talk to me as if I am the one who can not stick to a definition when literally it has been your nearly exclusive debate tactic from day one. Have you ever heard of projection? You might wanna study up on that one "Mr. Educator".

The goals you are describing are ALREADY being achieved... WITHOUT Socialism or Communism.

First of all, these issues must be objective. Capitalism is bad, but perhaps more suitable for modern civilization. Socialism is great, but more suitable for the future of human civilization. If socialism is implemented now, people will not go to work because the rewards for labor or refusal to work are the same.

Except for individual families, capitalism is all that exists. Why? Because everybody is out to advance for himself. Few people really care about the other guy, especially when they themselves are in poverty. They might act socialistic, but they are really deriving, at least, brownie points for themselves.

Socialism only exists when people need help to get out of their poverty. They let others direct their strength, hoping that others are smarter than they are. Dictators use this. It's the flaw in socialism.

8)

The point of this conversation is finding the most suitable solution for society, not just proving a point, who is right or who is wrong won't solve any issue, my opinion is that you kill people's spirit when you remove the reward side from their labor, when you see everyone gets the same no matter their efforts or intelligence, that's not healthy for anyone in my opinion, politics to help the needy improve it's living conditions should be the point of discussion, I understand the good side of communism, the same opportunities, the same starting point for everyone, however it's counter effects are of a higher magnitude than the good part of it.

This is strawman developed by capitalists that has gained a foothold over society.  Socilaists do not advocate for any of what you have bolded.  Please read a socialist platform, Marx, or any site like the one below.  You won't find anything like what you mentioned and something more close to the opposite.
https://www.socialism101.com/basic/

This site also debunks a lot of common misconceptions about socialism.

-socialism actually unites workers with the reward side of their labor
-socialism rewards workers based on their labor
-the equality in socialism comes from the democratic nature of decision making---(not equal pay)

Yeah, why reply to me when you can reply to low hanging newbie fruit and avoid a response...

You claimed that everyone already owns their means of production but gave no explanation.  You just said that the goals "are already being achieved" without socialism.

I cannot even wrap my head around that yet alone reply to it.  I never moved any goal posts.  You just misinterpreted where I originally placed them by inssisting I wanted an authoritarian society.

No, you said that I said everyone already owns the means of production. You say you aren't moving goal posts but you literally make 2 statements about what "I say"  that contradict themselves right next to each other.

Quote one never happened. I did say "The goals you are describing are ALREADY being achieved... WITHOUT Socialism or Communism."

This was a direct reply to:


People are already entitled to "work their own fields, raise their own animals and so on". These things are happening now, under Capitalism.

What you call "misinterpreting" is you ignoring the cognitive dissonance resulting from the gap in your logic and your inability to argue it, and attributing it to my "misunderstanding". I understand, I disagree, and this is me describing how and why you are wrong.

So how is the goal of
already being achieved?


You still didn't give any explanation of this.  I read that quote as the goal of socialism and am aware of the obvious contradiction of the socialist ideal already being achieved without socialism.  I interpret the two quotes to have the same meaning and have no explanation from you to get insight to your interpretation. 

Theres no way for me to understand what you are talking about when you say something is being achieved with no supporting explanation or reasoning for why you think it is being achieved.  The cryptic one liner leaves me to assume it is because you have a different definition of "everyone", "entitled"  ,or "own". 

So you intend to argue people now are not entitled to work their own fields, raise their own animals, and so on? What? How are they not able to do this? This is what you call an argument? This is pathetic tripe.

I have no idea how you think people can do that when most people don't even own fields, animals, or modern capital (the means of production).  Our entire criticism of capitalism is based around the disconnect between labor and capital.    

This is far too complex of an issue for me to know which has the highest probability for ensuring the best standard of living for the greatest amount of people in the fairest way. I was thinking about it just the other day.

I would (from where i got to in my wondering) say capitalism is "better". However, if left unchecked I think both lead to a reset and chaos at some point because the majority reach a point of critical discontent in end.  

I could be wrong but I still think capitalism is the most natural human way to approach it. There is no substitute for freedom and natural input and output expectation.

The only issue is to me it "capitalism" seems a bit like monopoly. Once the winners start to emerge their domination only increases until they would own everything.

Perhaps socialism has never had an opportunity to flourish without it's core design being mutated by unavoidable human traits such as greed, fear etc. So socialism may fair better with a race that could operate happily without those traits. It is by trying to work against natural human traits (some that are net positive for communities and some negative) that I think socialism creates a less natural life for humans. So although when taken to extremes both systems fail and need reset in the end the path there is less enjoyable the socialist route for many. Not all because those that are in a position to compete least well will I think offset their lack of freedom for a potentially more positive existence in other ways. Does that mean I think socialism fits well for losers. No not at all perhaps those that are less well designed to compete are actually in some ways less developed than those that do not have the "selfish singular" traits that contribute to competing well and that have that drive for singular success. Not all very wealthy people seem that smart, nor started off wealthy, ...right time right place and luck can account for some but it's strange some of the very smartest people are also quite poor too. Their competitive nature does not seem as strong as some of the mediocre or even below standard individuals. Perhaps socialism stunts creativity though which could be huge driver for individual success?  I don't know really just working it through ...

It's seems to me humans are always going to suffer internal conflict that is insoluble to a degree. I think there could be innate drives that were more beneficial in our early evolution that will take a long time to adapt to being part of a more massive social machine. We know that co-operation is the only way forward to bigger things and security but those things that ensure great co-operation may be in conflict with more ancient hard wiring. So perhaps the more advanced we become (if being advanced is losing a lot of human emotions and traits and operating on more like complex probability of assured success models) the perhaps the balance will swing to the socialist ideology. It is strange because when I studied (briefly and with my usual inability to concentrate without going off in huge tangents) marx for a while I really liked and agreed with what he said in principle. I was explaining to some religious friends that it is possible that it was a control system to maintain the unfair status quo. It was an interesting discussion but I didn't push that theory since I was out numbered at the time.

Then again perhaps i don't exactly understand fully the concept of capitalism nor socialism and I should read up more on many many things rather than to sit there trying to fathom these things for myself. Then again did plato have the internet or bunches of smart people to ask like I have now.  When you read some of these ancient philosophers (not plato) their ideas seem quite ludicrous as much of what i say to people probably is. Still sometimes reading how things are or how smart people believe them to be can take the fun out of it.

Oh, I see so people are entitled to land, animals, and capital now? Who's property rights do you have to violate to provide this capitol to these people by force? Don't tell me no force is involved, because if it was voluntary it would be called charity. Socialism requires taking property rights of some to give to others. This is not even debatable, it is a law of economics. Because of this Socialism will inevitably degrade into totalitarianism as the pool of people who can be robbed shrinks ever smaller until the working class begins eating itself. The only disconnect is in your brain stem where you claim you can entitle people to capital without taking rights from others.

They are both the same capitalism and socialism - it just depends on if your an arsehole or not. (not directed at anyone)

There are plenty of rich socialists and capitalists and plenty of poor socialists and capitalists.

Plenty of giving socialists and plenty of giving capitalists.

Plenty of selfish socialists and plenty of selfish capitalists.

I can see only one difference (in general) and its the wannabe's - wannabe capitalists struggle to be socialists or even want to even entertain the fact, because they cant be fully capitalist because they are failing at it terrible and cant believe they need help.

That pretty much sums it up. Strong people are pro individualism. Weak people demand collectivism, but still want to pretend they are strong.

1.  It was you who said this is ALREADY being achieved.  Please explain how it is being achieved.

2. Socialism doesn't require taking property rights of some to go give to others.  Some socialist systems use that means to the end of worker ownership, but the one I subscribe to only distributes new wealth to the workers who generated it.  Over time, it is the workers who accumulate wealth. 

When you have absolute beliefs about things and say something always happens, it leads you to being close minded regarding said issue.  The idea that you just happened to be born at a time where society has reached a point where everything functions optimally and cannot be improved is naive.

There is a big difference between capitalism and just being a greedy cont. About as big as a difference of being a socialist and a using motherfooker.

The system in the middle is called a working society.

Yes, I said people already have the right to work their own land and raise their own animals. Everything else is bullshit you made up to try to speak for me because the only way you can argue with me is by literally making shit up, pretending I said it, then arguing against that instead of my actual arguments.

Socialism ABSOLUTELY DOES require taking property rights by force. You claim everyone is entitled to all this capital, but you never seem to be able to explain how all this capital they are entitled to just comes into existence magically. SOCIALISM REQUIRES THE STATE TO TAKE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO GIVE IT TO OTHERS THEREFORE IS INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN.

*Entitled to* has a specific meaning. You have now changed the quote to fit what you meant which is fine, you clarified it, but don't act like I made up the original quote or you saying it was already true.

Capital can be purchased.  New capital is always purchased.  Land can be purchased.  Anything currently owned by one person can be purchased by a group of people.    Yes if you wanted to instantly transform into a socialist economy and quickly move towards communism, then the government needs to take pre-existing capital but socialists in my school of thought realize that fast transitions are not feasible. 

I already explained government financing but you skipped over it.   The government finances capitalism all of the time.  TARP, the auto bailout, and amazon is getting 2 billion dollars to build an HQ2 they were already going to build. 

Yes, entitled to does have a specific meaning. I didn't change anything, you invented an argument for me and I clarified my position to refute you speaking for me.
I see so, if the taking of other people's property rights is slower that makes it ok? Well that is different!

You haven't explained government financing AT ALL. You stated government will give subsidies and entitlements to groups as if those resources just appear with a pen stroke. I haven't skipped over anything. YOU CAN NOT EXPLAIN WHERE THESE RESOURCES WILL COME FROM. Just claiming you have is not good enough. Government handouts have nothing to do with Capitalism (except that Capitalism pays for them), and just because they are beginning to be corrupted with Socialist policies is not proof they are working or a good thing.

I don't think we should take people's property at all.

Resources already exist.  
Goods and services come from labor.
Money is created with a key stroke.  

1. The supermarket in a community closes down
2. All workers are out of a job
3. Workers form a solid cooperative business plan
4. Government approves business plan and grants cooperative initial operating costs
5. Supermarket functions with workers sharing the small profits on top of their fair pay.

Notice the supermarket was not stolen from anyone but now the workers own it.  Steps 3-5 could be repeated for new businesses.  Steps 1-5 could be repeated when businesses a community needs close down.

Eventually you end up with an economy that addresses the needs of the community and is completely owned by workers who also live in that community.

You don't really need a lot of government supervision. If you use a PMA (private membership association), you can do a lot without government interference.

However, Woodman's Market of Janesville and Appleton Wisconsin has been employee owned for decades. They have even expanded out of state:
We don't really need government.

8)

Someone owned the building and the land the supermarket was operating from.  The building was sold to someone else when the supermarket closed down.

You are suggesting the building is taken away from the rightful owner and given away to workers.  That is what Soviets did to kulaks.

And you think it is a good idea?  You need to be locked up.  You are planning all-out robberies.  FBI should be investigating you.

Do you even know what the property rights are?

Resources already exist, and they already have owners. Goods come from NATURAL RESOURCES as well as labor. You can not print resources no matter how much money you print. Also if you knew anything about economics you would know simply creating new money results in inflation by debasing its buying power. This is nothing but a form of theft from current note holders of the currency you create more of.

You claim you are for protecting people's property rights, yet you advocate for an ideology that will do so with zero explanation of how they will come into control of these resources without stealing the rights of others. Some one still owns that supermarket property before the workers magically acquire it. If you are suggesting they pay for it, then nothing in your hypothetical is prevented by the current standing system of Capitalism. Not only is Socialism not needed, it is really just what everyone else calls "Capitalism".

The "initial operating costs" include the lease on the building.   Everything is being bought.  Nothing is being stolen and I never suggested that.  Please stop trying to make this about the Soviets.  Creating money does not necessarily decrease buying power.  You seem to have an oversimplified understanding of monetary policy.  Yes if you increase money supply without increasing economic output then you decrease buying power, but in this context, that only happens once the economy is already running at full capacity. Running at full capacity means all of the economy's resources are already put to use and you have more money chasing fewer goods.   When the money is being used to put people to work and create businesses, you won't see this effect until no more resources (employees, buildings, or raw materials) are available to be purchased.   You should fear deflation just as much as inflation and having resources sit idle is not a good thing for the economy.  Also, the our purchasing power has been in steady decline for decades.  Have you never noticed the debt?  People only mention it as a doomsday scenario when we talk about using the new money to help people instead of using it to help large corporations.   Its really not that big of a deal if the economy is doing well.


Yes the reform policies I am suggesting would take place within the current system.  Thats the point. Its within reach.  Current tax code is not very cooperative friendly and actually makes them pretty much illegal in a lot of states.    Those would need to be updated as well to treat worker cooperatives as nonprofits.  There aren't many lawyers who have the training to deal with cooperative disputes either.  Very unfavorable right now yet there are still very successful worker cooperatives because the model is so superior.

What if all building owners refuse to lease to your socialist co-operatives.  But instead will operate their own businesses hiring people at $5/hr?

What you are going to do?  Where you are going to get the building to operate your socialist co-operative?

You are going to confiscate the private property sooner or later.  Just be honest about your plan.  

If your socialist workers want to buy the building, they have to come up with the money (gold or bitcoin as your socialist money will not be worth much) and buy it from the owner.  Then they can operate whatever business they want.  There will be nothing socialist about it.  Just a bunch of guys working in a limited partnership arrangement.

Unrealistic hypothetical. In the real world, large amounts of real estate sits idle.   Real estate developers don't operate businesses. Thats just not the way our specialized economy is set up.  Landlords just want reliable tenants.  They gain nothing by letting their property sit idle while they continue to pay taxes on it.  Once the cooperatives starts accumulating money, they can put profits into a fund to buy their own building. 

People aren't going to take the 5 dollar jobs.  Its an illegal wage and those businesses would fail anyway.

How about margin call i think it's quite unique the concept of margin call, however, sorry to bother you the half of it concept is written comedy correct me if i'm wrong though, i drop a link below maybe some will watch it.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2DqFRsPrns

As usual, it couldn't be that you are wrong, no I simply have a "oversimplified understanding of monetary policy". Its not that you provide little to no support for your arguments, it is just that I need to look it it from the position of your mental gymnastics to understand it.

Lets put aside over 100 years of your ideology actually resulting in the systematic removal of property rights, then redefine the laws of economics so that inflation magically now doesn't reduce buying power because "the economy is already running at full capacity" whatever the fuck that means. Your next statement is just word salad in a sad attempt again to give yourself a facade of authority by jibbering off some economic buzzwords in a nearly meaningless order that are in direct contradiction to what would happen under the inflationary solution you propose.

You then proceed to make vast baseless generalizations and postulations without referencing anything at all to back up your rambling senseless attempt at justifying this failed ideology. The existence of debt does not invalidate Capitalism or support the idea of Socialism. I also don't like corporate handouts any more than I like Socialist handouts. Just because they can get away with it does not validate your own ideology.

Creating a larger monetary base is MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN TO DECREASE BUYING POWER. This isn't something you can deconstruct your way around. Its not that big of a deal until Socialism burns up the remnants of the resources created under the previous Capitalist system, then it is a huge fucking problem. Sooner or later you run out of people to rob.





Oh he is being unrealistic? That is cute. In the real world companies holding large amounts of real estate that is not in use get tax cuts that effectively reduce their property taxes to zero. Yeah, you are right, who ever heard of speculative investment in real estate right?

In this thread I will say that the government can spend money as long as it stimulates more economic activity and direct you to the "MMT: Modern monetary theory" thread  for a more detailed explanation and discussion about how your gold standard era understanding of money is outdated in the context of the USA. 

I am aware of hoarding and tax loopholes.  Tax loopholes should be closed.  I am also aware that although speculative investment happens, it is unrealistic that every vacant property would be simultaneously off the market to a point where new businesses could not obtain leases.   

You can say whatever you like, that doesn't make it true. You don't even bother explaining how Socialism will "stimulate economic activity", you just accept it as a given and everything magically works out. Once again, more theories are useless unless you have empirical data to back up your arguments.

Once again you talk for me. Why even have a debate if you are going to just make up arguments for me yourself and argue them. I never said anything about the gold standard, you did. For about the 800th time, you are the one advocating a change, the burden of proof is on you to support your argument.

"it is unrealistic that every vacant property would be simultaneously off the market to a point where new businesses could not obtain leases."

What the fuck are you even rambling on about?

This has already happened.  I already gave you empirical data on the success of Marcora law in Emelia-Romagna.  Yes it stimulated the economy.  Yes people became happier.  Yes that region with 30% GDP coming from worker cooperatives is more resilient during economic crashes that affect the rest of the country.  No they did not collapse into inevitable dictatorship.

It should be simple to grasp
1.government spends money
2. businesses are created with that money (buying goods and services from other business)
3. business hire workers who produce goods and services (economic activity)
4. workers are paid, taxes are paid, and those workers go and consume more from the economy

"This has already happened." This what? I already responded to your single go to "Marcora laws". This is not empirical data that Socialism will stimulate the economy. First of all because the country is not Socialist. Second, even if it was, Socialism can coast on the fruits of the previous Capitalist system for some time until it fails.

This is the lie Socialists are best at selling. This is why I said Socialists are like an 18 year old with a credit card. Sure you can live off of a credit card and not produce as much as you consume for a little while, but eventually the debt comes due and your lie collapses.

It should be simple to grasp

1. Government has to take that money from workers by force
2. Businesses are already created with that money
3. Economic activity is already stimulated because we are operating under Capitalism
4. Workers are already paid and consume more from the economy

So when give examples of socialism working, you use the same "not a true scotsman" fallacy you accuse socialists of using to disregard negative examples of socialism.  Could it be that there is a lot of nuance on the spectrum between all out socialism and all out capitalism? 

1. Nope we've been through this.  Governments with sovereign currency already have that currency. 
2,3.  The economy is not running at full steam.  There are massive amounts of unemployed and underemployed persons who could be producing more goods and services.  We have idle resources that aren't benefiting anyone. 
I think this link may help you with monetary policy. I admit I am not explaining it well enough on here.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/how-can-inflation-be-good-economy.asp

4. If the working class earned their fair share, you would have more of the money going to more people and get more spending out of that portion of the population who still have a lot left to buy. 

That is not an example of Socialism let alone Socialism working. Really? Now you are resorting to refractively using logical fallacies as a cudgel? You don't even know what a "no true Scotsman" fallacy is, stop pretending like you do you are just making yourself look stupid using it incorrectly.

Could it be that you rely on this endless Postmodernist "nuance" to weasel your way out of any position and define Socialism however it suits you fort any given argument?

1. Yeah, we have been through this. Printing money is stealing buying power from current money holders. You can pretend it doesn't but this is a mathematical fact which is a direct result of the fact resources are finite no matter how much money you print.

2,3. Running at full steam? Sounds very scientific. I love that you think "investopedia" would ever present a good argument for Socialism. However in the mental gymnasium that is your mind, and doing backflips to and contortions reach a conclusion is standard, I would suppose these things are not contradictory in your mind.

A paragraph on "possible benefits of inflation" (IE theory), is in no way supportive of your insane handout policies that would destroy the economy. No, you don't seem to explain anything well. You claim to be an educator? No wonder our children are performing so poorly.

4. This is nothing more than your opinion with zero basis in fact. "get more spending out of the population" What? Do you really think productivity stems from consumption, and you have the nerve to lecture me on my "simplistic views on economics"?

   I actually think the old school way of workers forming unions and negotiated a deal with the "evil" capitalists gets a far better deal than government mandated minimum wages, etc. I also don't think government inspired wealth redistribution inspires healthy innovation. Many nouveau riche deserve to be rich and some of their contributions are so good, they should be able to ensure that their descendants get some advantages too.

There are many types of socialism.  These systems lie on a spectrum which harkens back to your giant blind spot on the political compass.  Even amongst socialists, there are many means to many ends.  

Workplace democracy is the form of socialism I have been arguing for all along.  You've been dying to get back to a semantic argument of how you define socialism but I refused to continue.  You're still going to have to be consistent.  No one wants a system like the Soviet union.  Every socialist I have ever met wants democratic socialism.  Please point me to one who wants totalitarianism.   You can't have it both ways to say that "my ideology" has killed millions of people then say the success of Marcora law and workplace democracy is not my ideology.  

1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy.  

2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies.  It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth.  Resources are finite but they are not all being used.  This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it.  Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about.

4. Could be a chicken egg thing.  Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money.  

Simplisitic example:

-Unemployed shoe workers start shoe cooperative and make money selling shoes, pay taxes.

then

-Said workers buy bikes with their extra money, expanding the bike market

then

-More workers start a bike cooperative to help meet increased bike demand

then

-All of these new bike workers buy shoes.....GDP increases

This process doesn't continue forever. Cooperatives are only improved in areas where resources are idle and there is need.  If all aluminum was already in the economy, a business plan for aluminum bikes would not be funded.  

The "old school way" is what they do in Europe.   Its a good compromise.  Government mandated minimum wages don't work because companies just hire less people or decrease working conditions some other way to compensate.

I would love to know how you think its ethical that entire generations of people should be able to live off of society's workers, consume at a high rate, and contribute nothing.  

There you go talking about your precious political compass as if it means some thing. A political compass is nothing more than a visual aid to demonstrate a certain view of political interrelationships. It is no more based in fact than a map of Mordor would be.
Furthermore the image you use is a pathetic attempt at giving Socialists a facade of authority by remaking a more respected and more recognized version of that chart, and using that association to give it the appearance of credibility.

I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried.

Your intent is irrelevant. You might believe feeding your child bleach will cure their flu, that doesn't mean just because you didn't intend to kill them feeding them bleach won't kill them. No one wanted totalitarianism before, you think anyone ever asked for it? No naive people like you HANDED THEM CONTROL. It is ok though, it will be different this time right?

"1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy."

You are in way over your head. Increasing a monetary base decreases the buying power of the currency. This is a fact of math. You can't deconstruct your way around math. Oh the current money holders aren't wise are they, and you are? If you are so wise why don't you have all the money and hand it out as you please?


"2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies.  It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth.  Resources are finite but they are not all being used.  This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it.  Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about."

Yet you are arguing for inflation in order to pay for your entitlement programs. Claiming your ideology creates economic stimulus is not the same as proving it. Yes, that is exactly what you are talking about, you want to create new money to chase the same already existing resources. These "idle resources" you talk about DO NOT EXIST.

"4. Could be a chicken egg thing. Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money. "

The fact that you would even give credence to the idea that consumption creates productivity is quite illustrative of your inability to use logic and understand the most basic of economics principals, as well as your willingness to bend reality to meet your bias.

It could not be a chicken and egg thing. Burning through more resources is not the same thing as being efficient or productive. More "activity" is not automatically better. By that logic, lets just set everything on fire! Think of all the activity that will result from rebuilding!



I think the more important question you should be asking is what quality of life would these same people have WITHOUT being able to enjoy the fruits of Capitalism? The fact that poor people exist is not an argument against Capitalism.

If the family is multiplying, the resources become diluted among the individuals. If they indeed are consuming at a high rate and contributing nothing, the resources are likely to be squandered in short order.

Its a visual aid that is specifically relevant to showing you that our ideology is further from totalitarianism than the status quo current day.  If I say I am moving to Florida and the entirety of your argument "against" that idea is why I shouldn't move to California, showing you a map might be the best place to start. 


My definition of socialism has always been workers owning the means of production. None of the failures you have mentioned involved that.  In fact, workers owned less in those societies than they do in the capitalist societies we have today.  Naming two things the same doesn't make them the same. 

The problem is your argument is that moving further away from it will cause it.  Democracy is decentralization of power. You haven't explained how decentralizing power would lead to centralization of power. 
Its a fact of math for currencies with finite value like a gold standard.  The US dollar does not have a static total value and that value is derived from the strength of the US economy.  Money holders who would feel like inflation robbed them aren't wise because who would walk into a situation where people are being robbed and stay there.  Purchasing power has been on the decline and the economy is stronger.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YTyPGaEsBcw/T0Kd1nS9zJI/AAAAAAAABQw/MhD1cWnfJI8/s1600/Purchasing%2BPower%2Bof%2BU.S.%2BDollar.jpg


Are you claiming that the economy is running at full capacity?  4% of the country is just sitting on their hands because there is no work.  That is idle resources.  You should take a trip to the rust built.  GM just announced they are laying off 15% of its employees and closing 3 plants.  All that capital that was stolen from American workers will be sent overseas.  Everytime something like this happens, there are idle resources. Grocery stores are an easy example.   Capitalism will never allow full employment because at that point, the tables are turned and people are no longer coerced to taking a bad job.   
Another nice straw man.
I was talking about rich heirs!

Most people enjoy the fruits of some of the labor.  The fruits of capitalism (stolen labor value) only go to the 1%.  People would have much more quality of life without the fruits of capitalism (stolen labor value).  They would be able to keep most of the value they produced.  Apple profits 400,000 per employee per year but the average employee salary (before profit) is only 28,000-178,000.   What quality of life would these same people have if they controled the labor value they actually worked to produce?

Stolen?  Are you sure?

You are completely ignoring the cost of capital and the initiatives and the entrepreneurship of the capitalists.  

BTW, nobody is stealing anything from workers.  Workers work willingly.  

Who is taking the risk?  Capitalists or workers?

The risk in any venture is correlated with the potential ROI.  What do workers risk?  Not being bored at work?

Why do you think the Apple employees deserve the 400k/year?  Who risked their capital?  Apple employees or the capitalists who own the company?

Do you want to benefit from Apple success?  Buy the APPL stock.

PS.  BTW, workers control the value of their labor.  They ask for wages or salaries.  Where did you get this idea that workers are not in control of their lives or their labor?  In democratic societies, we are all free to pursue whatever we desire as long as it is legal.  You can go to university, get your Ph.D., start your own company, hire people who can be trained and help them better their lives.  Run your company, invest and retire early.  Nobody is stopping you.

That's the point. Legal and lawful are two different things. Lawfully you don't have to pay taxes that you have to pay legally. How can this be? If it's your property, nobody can legally take it from you until they lawfully give you something in return. Prove that you received anything from government in return. Taxes are unlawful, even though they might be legal.

8)

Capitalists take much more than the cost of capital.  If they only took the cost of capital, that would be fair and no one would be complaining.  Its misleading to say workers choose to work for capitalists, they work or starve.  That is coercion.  This is why homelessness and poverty are necessary for sustaining capitalism.  If you ended them, there wouldn't be a viable threat to coerce people into accepting these predatory work agreements.   This is why there is so much slander of anything remotely socialist.  Any policy that might help people take control of their lives (funds for welfare, education, healthcare or starting your own business) is an existential threat to capitalism as we know it.

I'm glad you brought up risk because capitalists don't really risk much at all.  They risk not making as much money as they could have made elsewhere.  Thats it.  Meanwhile, workers risk everything.  They risk their life.  If a machine blows up, capitalists aren't going to lose a finger, an arm, or their lives.  Capitalists aren't going to develop cancer because of the conditions in their factories.  Capitalists aren't going to fall to their death at work.  It is workers who risk the most.  

If apple workers paid the company for the capital and kept the phones, they would be arrested.Workers have no control.  They live under dictatorship of the capitalist above them.  

A worker cannot decide to work in a different way because the current way is a bit too dangerous.  A worker cannot decide to stay home when they feel like it. Their only decision is which capitalist they will work for.  

The bold quote is very out of touch for most of the working class.  This is something true for people born into the capitalist class.  Working class people cannot afford to stop working.   They cannot afford expensive graduate tuition and they certainly do not have the capital to start their own company or they wouldn't be working class, they'd be capitalist class.  

It may be true to say that anyone could become capitalist class but capitalism requires most people to be working class.

So it is only fair if people don't make a profit is what you are saying? Of course you are the one who gets to determine the appropriate amount of profit if it is even allowed right? What is the motive to take the risk tying up your resources if there is no profit? No one would be complaining? I highly doubt that.

You drop a naked man in the middle of a forest and he either works or he starves. The world doesn't owe people a living, and Capitalism did not invent this situation. Which would you rather lose? A finger or all your profit from 20 years of labor? A lot of people would chose a finger.

You act as if "Capitalists" waved a magic wand and made these people rich, as if they didn't work or provide value to the economy to earn it. So now you think you can take that same magic wand and just make everyone rich. If everyone gets the same then exceptional people have no motive to work exceptionally hard to create all the great things we enjoy, you know like more food than we know what to do with for example.

I don't know what you are rambling about here but most jobs in modern nations have quite strict safety regulations. People do have a choice to choose a more dangerous job and be compensated more for that risk, or choose a safer job that pays less. Also who ever heard of grants or scholarships right? Or educational loans, I mean that is clearly an evil Capitalist invention.

Except Florida and California are real places. Socialism is a concept. You showing me a subjective picture about a subjective topic that exists only within your mind is not proof of its efficacy. In fact it is not even an argument, it is just you repeating your pathological need to always play the role of the educator, and anyone who disagrees with you is simply ignorant and in need of your benevolence graced upon them via your superior knowledge. It is a stale shtick and you are essentially a walking appeal to authority.





Your definition of Socialism is constantly shifting depending on how little of an argument you have at the time to support it. You can define Socialism as a can of smashed assholes, you still don't explain how that can comes into reality, or how the workers "own the means of production" without stealing the property and rights of others. All of the failures I have mentioned involved people just like you spouting about how they were going to return the means of production back to the workers. Saying it is not the same as doing it.



Democracy is mob rule. Individuals, minority groups, and fringe individuals have no rights under a pure Democracy. In a pure Democracy the many always take the rights of the few. This is how power is centralized via pure Democracy, by uniting the majority against the minority.





No, it is just math, you don't get to deconstruct math out of reality too. It is a fact endless money printing will inevitably debase the buying power of a currency. There is nothing to debate there, it is a fact no matter how "strong" the economy is. Thanks for the nifty chart proving my pointing that the policies you advocate debase the buying power of the wages of workers. You want to lie to them so they can be robbed by bankers, have them dependent on these policies, and grateful for them getting handed back SOME of their own money. Banks are the primary beneficiaries of money printing.

Communism and Socialism are banker lies designed to strip our bones, and you gleefully welcome them barely understanding what you do on a superficial level while claiming the authority of an expert and educator.





People are resources now? I thought they were workers. Which one of us is fighting for the workers again? You don't get to determine what resources are idle, the market does. Supply and demand create price signalling which tunes the supply and price of products and resources EXACTLY where they need to be to be most efficient at delivering these products. Now you want to come in and play around with this finely tuned machine that keeps us all warm, fed, and safe cause "workers should own the means of production".



  

You need to stop naming logical fallacies if you aren't even going to bother to take the time to learn to use them correctly. It is just sad... like picking up a gun and threatening to shoot as you point it at your face. I made very specific criticisms in direct response to your premise.

A straw man would be for example when you reply

"My definition of socialism has always been workers owning the means of production. None of the failures you have mentioned involved that."

to my statement of

"I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried."

that would be a straw man, because I point out the end result of attempting to implement your ideology and you simply say "workers owning the means of production isn't totalitarianism!". You give the appearance of arguing against my point while never even addressing it. You go ahead and keep misusing logical fallacies though if you like, I will keep showing you the real definitions with examples of you yourself demonstrating them.




Oh were you? So I suppose some how magically your ideology would only effect the RIGHT people wouldn't it? It certainly wouldn't indiscriminately steal wealth from people arbitrarily designated as the "1%" now would it?

What you have is a pretty fantasy. You keep telling me about how great it would be but you aren't giving me any details on how that is going to happen without systematically robbing and stripping people of their rights.

Are we in the 1920s?  Are you sure?  Who in the western countries works because they starve?  Most work because they have mortgages, car loans, and cc debt and no income-generating investments.  Food is cheap and abundant.

There are so many opportunities in the capitalist societies that is just not funny anymore.  

BTW, any worker can become capitalist.  There is no law that says if you are born poor you must die poor.  This is not 1300s England.

People stay poor because of their inability to understand the system, or simply they stay poor by choice.

Who says that the working class has to move up to the 1%? The education system is designed to produce workers, managers, and future leaders.  Only a small percentage of people born in the working-class families can improve their socio-economic status.  Why?  Because of the IQ distribution.  You have heard of scholarships, haven't you?  Score perfect on SATs and you are guaranteed free education in the US.

The system works well with nature.  IQ distributions are natural.  So is the system.  Is it cruel?  Sure, so is nature.

I don't think that's what communists and socialist want.  They want the 1% notched down to the 100%.

It's a combination of ignorance, jealousy, greed, laziness, and incompetence.  Since they are completely incapable of reaching the 1%, then nobody should.

In the real world, nothing is like what wanna be communists claim.

It's even okay to be rich in Cuba today.

Capitalism is similar to using your private property to gain more private property.

Bad capitalism is when some people use their private property to steal the private property from other people. Often this is done through embezzlement.

Socialism is when capitalistic private property owners voluntarily use some of their private property to help the less fortunate.

Bad socialism is when socialists suggest that they are going to use private property donated to them to help the less fortunate. Then they use it for their own capitalist activities instead.

8)

Jealous much?


That's why there are laws against that...


False!  More fantasy definitions because reality doesn't suit your argument?


Lifting your head out of the sand, just long enough for your eyes to adjust? 

Well, what I posted is what it really is about.

Having laws when they promote the things that are against proper capitalism doesn't really help anyone.

Every socialist uses capitalism in some ways. If he receives some property through his socialistic government, he uses it capitalistically in private.

Capitalism is what it is really all about. Reducing capitalism among people, except when they voluntarily agree to it, with the right to volunteer out, destroys incentive to do anything. It's part of the reason why the U.S.S.R. fell.

8)

Florida and California are political constructs superimposed over actual native nations.  Its all subjective which is why a political map is important for showing you which specific location on Earth I am talking about.  Even if we call them different things, the map specifies where we are referring to.   

The same can be said about the compass.  Regardless of what you call different points on the map, I, and everyone else in these threads is quite far away from the ideology you constantly refer to.   The compass solves the problem of semantics.  Reasonable critics may argue its not completely accurate, a bit skewed, or unnecessary, but only a person who prefers a semantic debate would refuse to acknowledge the existence of 4 quadrants of political ideology.




The only argument you've made about it being "stealing the property of rights of others" is that printing money does that which is already standard procedure. 


Who said anything about "endless money printing".  This is a very specific policy used in a very specific way.  Money loses some of its value when you grow the economy but where do you think the value of the dollar comes from?  What has happened to the value of the dollar over the last 50 years?  What is so bad about that?









Have you never heard of HR?   Supply and demand being used on humans is what makes capitalism such a moral quandry. Capitalists need to reduce costs to stay competitive in the market so they keep wages as low as possible and terminate jobs that extract less profit.  Market forces means jobs chase poverty.  This is why GM is moving their plants overseas. 


  No one said "burning through resources" was "automatically better".   That was the straw man because the argument was about creating companies in areas of need with workers who are unemployed to fill in the gaps of the economy capitalism cannot address.   

ok I'm glad we have finally established that it is democracy you are against. 


The idea I have laid out have been done and do not strip any rights.  You haven't mentioned any rights that would be stripped but have only repeated that statement.  Its almost as if you have operant talking points that were crafted by someone else against something else. 

People aren't starving but they are hungry.  40 million Americans are food insecure.  This is the visible threat of what will happen if you refuse to have your labor value stolen. 

When you use western countries to define capitalism you are falling into the capitalist trap of externalized costs.  Capitalism does a great job at externalizing costs.  As time progresses, more and more of the working class is located outside of the western countries.  We live well by importing cheap goods but they are cheap because we are externalizing the costs.  We aren't paying for our goods but the poor workers are paying for them with most of their labor value.    Producing a car or a phone is not any easier in china but it is significantly cheaper because more can be stolen from people with less power. 

So no its not the 1920 but eventually capitalism runs out of things and people to exploit...

Any worker can become a capitalist but most workers cannot.  That is the issue.  The fact that anyone can win the lottery does not tell us anything about realistic probability. 

IQ scores don't measure intelligence.  IQ is a farce.  Stop pretending this social constructed test is "natural" and so that you can use it to try to justify the hierarchal oppression of the masses.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931870-400-the-truth-about-intelligence-do-iq-tests-really-work/

My choice is capitalism.  You work hard and you get to keep most of what you earn. 

Right, so now Florida and California are not real places you can go to, they are concepts. yeah. ok. This is a perfect example again of your Postmodernist mind mush. You aren't wrong, all you need to do is describe the premise into such a contradictory way until you are right again! You are a walking example of the Hegelian Dialectic.

Your pretty picture is subjective, and so are the topics within it. Your continuation of presenting false choice fallacies again is not a support of your argument.





Not the only argument, but yet another argument you have been unable to refute. Printing money does steal buying power from the currency holders. Just because it is standard procedure already doesn't make it good or acceptable. By that logic since the system of Capitalism we operate under is standard procedure, we should keep being Capitalist. Again, I never advocated for inflation, you did as a requirement for your implementations of Socialism.




The buying power of the dollar has plummeted over the last 50 years. What is so bad about that is people who work and save for a lifetime suddenly find their savings are worth a small fraction of what they worked for. What is so bad about that is you have to debase the ENTIRE ECONOMY to do this. It is like cutting off your legs below the knee, and taping them on top of your head then telling everyone to look at how much taller you are.

The value of the dollar constitutionally is a very specific amount of gold and silver. Over time this backing was removed and we entered into a system that essentially was backed by the utility of being easy to use for buying and selling oil. Over the years they have just printed so much money though the economy is completely debased and a global economic collapse is now unavoidable. You create a magic button that prints money and expect it not to be abused? Please.

When people do it its called counterfeiting, when banks do it its called "quantitative easing".





Yes, and? GM is moving overseas because they are failing. They are failing because people aren't buying the cars they are producing. People aren't buying cars because the value of the currency has been so debased, no one trusts the economic system any more. As a result people aren't taking risks and starting business that would employ people and allow them to afford to buy more vehicles.

This system is what makes the use of natural resources most efficient. Jobs that aren't creating profit are not creating resources, they are only burning them. Simply consuming is not the path to a functional economy.






Actually, this is exactly what you advocated:

"...Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money. "

Here your logical progression is, if we simply pay people more, they will spend more and the economy will be better! That is like someone telling you they have a huge credit card bill and you suggest they use their credit card to pay it off. The initial profit and resources still have to come from somewhere and can not just be invented into existence without theft via inflation, or some other form of theft of rights.


   



I am against pure democracy. Mobs do not make smart choices and are easily lead around because they don't make the effort to be informed and have no problem pretending to be. More importantly the rights of the marginalized, minorities, and individuals are sacrificed by the dictate of the majority.



Oh it has been done? Where, your precious go to one hit wonder Marcora laws that I already broke down as being capitalist in nature except for the government subsidies? I have mentioned exactly rights that will be taken. Property rights. Since all rights are forms of property rights, this is pretty fucking important. The right to have a dollar remain to be worth a dollar. The right to not be stolen from via inflation, confiscation, or taxation to fund ever expanding handouts.

I find it so cute when people like you take the "big words" they found most impressive out of my speech, and try to throw them back at me in a refractory manner, the whole time never even bothering to look up the definition of the word.

That word makes no sense in the context of that statement, and I used the term "operant conditioning" to describe your tendency to simply repeat yourself over and over in the hope that people will hear it enough times to just accept it via brute force much like a musical jingle in a commercial that gets stuck in your head.

This demonstrates to me you think language is just some kind of superficial game we engage in and the one who has the most sophistic skill wins, not that there is any kind of logic, critical thought, or meaning behind these words that determine their veracity. Of course why would I expect anything different from you Captain Postmodern?

Just popping by to make you notice how funny it is that TECSHARE refuses any kind of argument or hypothesis which is not backed up by at least 3 different sources of raw data (not infographic mind you cause that can be manipulated, raw data only please) and still in a single paragraph you find 10 different hypothesis or logical links that are backed up nothing but his good faith:

1-GM is failing
2-GM is moving overseas BECAUSE they're failing
3-People aren't buying the cars they're producing
4-GM is failing BECAUSE people aren't buying the cars they're producing
5-People aren't buying cars
6-No one trusts the economic system
7-It's because currency is heavily debased
8-People aren't buying cars because they don't trust the economic system
9-People aren't starting businesses
10-Starting businesses is what provides economy with jobs

Funny thing is that you're exactly "debating" like this asking everyone to prove with empirical data EVERYTHING they say. Sounds ridiculous right? Well that's what you do, but in a less organized way because you don't even take the time to separate the different hypothesis you're asking other ones to prove. At least it would make it possible to move forward...

In your paragraph I'd say numbers 2/5/7/8/9 are false at least. But hey, burden of proof isn't on you of course  :-*

Now you need to make up lies about me to make your arguments? 3 sources eh? I don't recall ever demanding a specific number of sources for anything but please feel free to quote me (not that you can because it never happened). This is just your SOP.

I ask for people to state a clear premise and back that premise with empirical data yes. This is the standard by which practically any professional operates from. The difference between you and me is that I ask for empirical data in relation to the core topic, while you use this deconstructivist method to endlessly divert the discussion on to side topics in a pathetic and refractory attempt to "hold me to my own standards".

Really all it is though is a sad divisive move designed to use up as much time and energy as possible WITHOUT actually refuting any of my core arguments, supporting any of your own premises, or providing a drop of empirical data.


Hey but just for fun to demonstrate how perpetually misinformed you are to everyone else, here are some sources:

2-GM is moving overseas BECAUSE they're failing

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2018/11/27/economists-advice/2120444002/

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/general-motors-fail-article-1.374800

https://fox17online.com/2018/11/26/gm-to-close-canadian-plant-but-thats-just-the-beginning/


5-People aren't buying cars

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/03/01/february-2018-u-s-auto-sales/384210002/

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180709/RETAIL/180709775/gm-car-sales-sedan-crossover

http://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/13667/used-car-values-are-plummeting-faster-and-faster-across-america-report-claims

http://www.autonews.com/article/20170720/OEM01/170729956/uaw-gm-talking-about-impact-of-slumping-car-sales-on-u.s.-jobs



7-It's because currency is heavily debased

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/08/-us-inflation-is-the-worlds-most-important-economic-variable.html

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com/index.php/easyblog/entry/3-ways-how-inflation-destroys-an-economy

https://thedailycoin.org/2018/11/04/inflation-is-destroying-the-middle-class-blame-the-fed-video/


8-People aren't buying cars because they don't trust the economic system

This is a misinterpretation of my words. The debating of the economy results in less risk being taken by would be business owners who would otherwise be employing people, enabling them to afford to buy more cars.


9-People aren't starting businesses

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2015/02/12/the-decline-of-american-entrepreneurship-in-five-charts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6abcb8ffdce0

https://www.coastal.edu/media/administration/honorsprogram/pdf/Alyssa%20Sharples.pdf

Socialism only works if all consumers act in a fair and honest way. Capitalism works even if you're not fair and honest.

Oh my god you actually did xD

The whole point was to show you how innefficient, useless and not intuitive asking for empirical data for everything you say is! Not to make you do it!

You didn't do it at first because that's not very useful and that's how civilized people debate. You exchange each other reasonning and only when you disagree or don't believe a precise point of their argumentation you ask for specific proofs on this specific topic.

Asking someone to back every premise he states with empirical data is NOT useful and is NOT constructive and NOT the "standard". It might be your but it's yours only.

Concerning your points I can't really discuss them cause most of your sources aren't available in european countries/from my computer  :-[
Not your fault of course, I just can't say much about them as I can't access the articles...

I would argue a bit here but you're right that complete freedom isn't compatible with socialism.

But is it compatible with anything else than anarchy?

You're not free at all under capitalism either. Anyone cares to give me one capitalist country where you're free? But it's true that in equivalent situations, I'd say you might be less free in socialism than in capitalism.

I know exactly what your point was, and I did it anyway just to prove how fucking lazy and disingenuous you are refusing to support your own arguments. Also to prove the point that I don't just make shit up because it sounds good like you do. Civilized people debate using facts and empirical data. Asking for proofs of your premise is literally all I have been asking for you to do but this seems to be beyond your abilities otherwise you would have done it by now.

EMPIRICAL DATA IS THE SOURCE OF ALL KNOWN SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.

You go ahead and pretend your subjective Postmodernist deconstructivist cancer is equivalent to logic and empirical data, but it is not. Either you care enough about the topic to support your arguments, or you don't, but lets not pretend demanding empirical data is extraordinary.

I've never refused. You simply have never asked me to prove a specific argument you're just saying "you're not proving your premise". Please do the work I've done for you and list the hypothesis you want me to prove and I'll kindly oblige.
Yes, agreed. Of scientific TRUTH. Not of scientific debate, scientific logic, scientific work... You need empirical data to say "ok, we're sure it works that way" not to say "hey does it work that way?"
Ahah no idea wtf is that  :D
Never said it was
When the thing we talk about doesn't exist, it's quite extraordinary ^^

Involuntary socialism is slavery. Why? Because all people are capitalistic by nature... they want to improve themselves by their own activity. Even those who volunteer into socialism do it for personally capitalistic reasons. All socialism really is, is, a stepping stone to more capitalism... especially when it is slavery. Then it is capitalism for the slave makers.

8)

The socialist failed due to the brake down of the whale when the cold war ended that also saw to the end of the socialist mode of economic system due to the fact that the socialist created a breading ground for mediocrity because every one will leave it all in the hand of the government there by limiting the citizens from discovery, but capitalism on the other hand is more or less decentralized and at that everyone will be all out to develope and maximize profits.

Socialism works when the corrupt overloads are not fair and honest. Capitalism works only because the free market forces it.

I see so the fact that you refuse to state a clear premise is my fault now is it? I have actually asked you to state your premise several times, but every time I examine it critically suddenly "thats not what I meant" again, and it shifts.

Frankly if you can't even state a premise you feel comfortable standing behind either you are completely disindigenous or you are ignorant on what you speak. Of course everyone sees you do this to avoid having to support an idea you KNOW you can't support.





Actually yes Scientific debate, yes scientific work. You chide me and insinuate I have never had any experience with science, yet you think empirical data is not a critical part of scientific work and debate. Also, yes, you do need empirical data to answer the question "hey does it work this way?".




I know you have no idea what that is, because your ideology is specifically designed to prevent you from looking into ideas that would threaten its primacy over the loose collection of a few dozen cells you call your brain.



Yet you try to argue that subjective information alone is sufficient for finding truths by dismissing the very concept of burden of proof, or even arguing a clear premise!



I am glad you have finally admitted you have no empirical data to back up your premise, you could have saved a lot of time and energy doing this sooner. If the premise you support has ZERO empirical data to support it, just perhaps it is a bad idea with little basis in reality, and you should get another one to advocate for.

Either that or identify your discussion as a philosophical one and stop trying to pretend any of your ideas have the backing of science, reality, or history.

Capitalists operate under the USSR as the definition of socialism. This is a contextualization issue.  You flew in a one plane 100 years ago and now you use your knowledge of that specific plane to represent the meaning of flight.

Somehow people have confused a socialist economy to mean simple redistribution where everyone makes the same earnings.  I'm not sure where this one even comes from as the USSR didn't even have that. 

How can someone be so brainwashed to think that slavery is a socialist concept.  Its as if you have never read any Marx or Engels.  Socailism is all about giving people complete control of their labor.  You literally cannot get any further from slavery than that.  The freedom argument is strange.  What capitalists insists is freedom to control other people without realizing that people cannot be free if other people have freedom to control them

If you're going to think only about Soviet style systems when thinking about socialism then fine, your mind is made up, but if you're willing to take a step back and think about the actual meaning of socialism, you will see that it is only the socialist ideal that guarantees freedom over oneself to each person.  Capitalism gives freedom to exploit. 

Well by your own arguments of what you call Socialism, inflation would be required to support subsidies. This is a form of wealth redistribution where everyone is robbed by inflation to fund those programs.

He compares it to slavery because under your system, no one is ever free to truly enjoy the fruits of their own labor, because they will always be forced to pay into your subsidy programs, either by tax or hidden tax of inflation. This is not brain washing, it is common sense and logic.

Its funny reading this last paragraph, if you were to replace the word "Socialism" with "Christianity", it is amusingly a very similar argument based in faith alone. Christians believe in Christ, and some atheists believe in the God of the state, Socialism.

"If you're going to think only about Soviet style systems when thinking about Christianity then fine, your mind is made up, but if you're willing to take a step back and think about the actual meaning of Christianity, you will see that it is only the Christian ideal that guarantees freedom over oneself to each person."

Much like I don't like religious fanatics forcing their beliefs on others, I don't like secular religious fanatics that worship the state as their God, pushing their ideology on people either.

But we are arguing about capitalism vs socialism.  If we change from capitalism to socialism and everything else stays the same, you cannot make an argument against socialism that is entirely based on one of those other variables.  If printing money is bad, it is bad regardless of your economic system.  That belongs in a gold standard vs fiat discussion.  

We don't want people saving money in mattresses. Having some inflation is great because instead of holding money for 50 years, people go out and spend that money.  This kind of monetary policy (a little inflation, but not too much) encourages economic growth and has nothing to do with who owns the means of production.  Gold and silver have limited value, fiat does not.  Value of the US dollar is derived from the governments ability to collect tax.  As long as the US dollar is the only currency accepted by the IRS, and the US government is able to enforce its taxes, there will be a massive demand for the US dollar.  Growing the economy and specifically income taxes creates more tax revenue, which adds to this arbitrary value.  Money held in a mattress cannot put goods in motion nor be taxed and is useless to society.

The idea that GM was failing is why capitalism is inefficient and immoral.
If 2.8 billion in profit is failure, then what does it take for capitalism to succeed?  This should be enough empirical evidence that this system is completely unsustainable.  How much money do you have to extract before it is "enough"?  

By contrast, GM employees could all be sharing that 2.8 billion profit and not have to worry about being laid off due to calculations that the shareholders can steal even MORE money from workers overseas.

The only thing efficient about capitalism is that its efficient at redistributing labor value away from the worker and to the 1%.  

The profit already exists and under capitalism, is being stolen by shareholders.  Think about that 2.8 billion dollars from GM that is now about to be spent moving production to another country.  Had GM been a cooperative, the workers would have that 2.8 billion to spend here.  
   This is your first argument directly against what we want and it is how you should lead your arguments against socialism.  I am frustrated that we wasted so much time getting here.  Instead of wasting time strawmanning about why the Soviet union was bad, just come right out and say you hate democracy.

Isn't "making bad choices" just the cost of freedom?  I feel like people learn the hard way in democracy.  If a "mob" makes a bad choice, they will pay the consequences and probably won't make that choice again.  Its like burning your hand on a hot stove.  We shouldn't treat people like babies who have to be bossed around.  

None of these things listed are rights.  You don't have rights to control what other people do.  You don't have rights over society.  Money is controled by all of us.  If you don't like money, don't use it.  No one is forcing you to use US dollars.  Hold your money in bitcoin.  If you don't like taxes, then don't participate in and benefit from our economy.  Again, this paragraph has nothing to do with the economic system and everything to do with your disdain for not having complete control over society.  If everyone doesn't have to do everything your way then your rights have somehow been violated.  

I understand the desire but why do capitalists feel entitled to control over other people.  

I think you sum up rather well one of the main failure of capitalism here.

Capitalism is possible and sustainable only with a high growth.

High growth isn't sustainable in long periods of time.

Capitalism isn't sustainable in long period of times.

Quite easy to understand, a kid could understand that infinite growth isn't possible. But they try to make you believe it is thanks to services and financial market, even though any economist knows you must separate financial market and real life industry...

The only reason there are tax loopholes is because there is a tax system in the first place. Remove the system, et voilà! No more tax loopholes. Also, hoarding is not bad. However, is better to use a more sophisticated vocabulary, the word being 'savings.'


'It is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption' (Jean-Baptiste Say, A treatise on political economy).
Spending more doesn't actually do anything; that is the Keynesian illusion.
See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHAsnzALQJk

Saving is more important. If you have capital to to start a business, that business will grow, growing or stimulating the economy.

For example, if you use bitcoin to buy a cup of coffee everyday, you are not growing the economy. However, you can save that bitcoin to start a business, that will.


Where the gun in the workers' heads forcing them to work?

Also, if you are a socialist (which means you despise a concentration in wealth), why are you into crypto? There is a huge concentration of wealth in crypto. Most coins are owned my few persons (for altcoins).

Sounds like you have been tricked into a misunderstanding of what Marx and Engels were really saying. Giving people anything that is a requirement for happy living for them, is slavery. If you can control people, so that you GIVE them the fruits of their labor, that's holding them in slavery.



True capitalists simply use their knowledge to interact with other true capitalists. For example. Pete is an unwise capitalist. George is a wise capitalist. Pete has Object A that he wants to trade with George for Object B that George has. George agrees, and they make the trade. Pete benefits by making $100 off the trade. But George makes $1000 off the trade. If Pete had been a little smarter, he could have made the $1000, himself.

George didn't force Pete to make the trade; in fact, it was Pete's idea to make the trade. George is not in the business of being a teacher for people like Pete. George is simply in the business of trading. Both are capitalists with a certain knowledge of the benefits of trading. George's knowledge is simply a little better than Pete's.

The banker uses inflationary tactics to make money off both George and Pete. The banker is a capitalist by getting paid for providing a money system that benefits both Pete and George, and millions of other people, as well. Bitcoin comes along, and Pete and George and many other people find a cheaper way to trade than using the banker's money.



All of the example has nothing to do with GIVING anybody the fruits of their own labor, like you were controlling them. All of the example is capitalism... the freedom to use what they have to individually make their own capitalistic decisions.

Socialism would exist if Pete and George had been forced to use the money system, or had been forced to give some of their value to other people, or had been forced to receive and use a value-system/money-system that they didn't want to use.

Once the value (Objects A and B, or money for the banker) of the trade has been transferred to somebody else, the other person might use that value to leverage his own position. He might use it better than the person he got the value from. But he might not use it as well as someone else.



There are a lot of hidden points in Marx and Engels. But the points all rely on the idea of people doing what they do, at times voluntarily, and at times through force. Even if things are done voluntarily, someone else might be able to leverage his capitalism value position better.

In many countries, there is a fine line between what might be considered socialism and capitalism. But capitalism lies in the hearts of all people. Capitalism in the hearts of fools is the reason why they complain and rage against the wise when the wise leverage themselves into more wealth. The fools want more socialism so that they can get some of the wealth of the wise... they think. But it is really capitalism they want. If they didn't want it, they would be content with what they had.

8)

You guys are not only stupid but dangerous.

Without the tax system, there would be no country.  The government can either collect taxes or go into debt.

Someone needs to pay YOUR bills.

Who paid the guys who set up the Constitution and worked at getting it and the Bill of Rights ratified? Nobody. They did it voluntarily. Why? Because they wanted a voluntary form of government.

But some criminals have worked their way into the voluntary government, and tricked the people into thinking that they owe taxes, and that government can't work through voluntary giving or through purchasing what you want from government, just like you purchase things at Walmart.

8)

You misunderstand me. I was not advocating of removing the tax system. I was merely point out the fact that tax loopholes only exist because a tax system exists in the first place.

However, before the 16th amendment was created, how do you think the government made money? Not through taxes, but mostly free trade. There are alternatives to taxes.

I misunderstood, I thought you wanted to remove the tax system.  

Today, the government needs taxes and lots of them.  The debt interest payments increase every year, not to mention spending and the size of the government.  You know, building border walls, fighting wars that cannot be won, spending money on immigrants etc.

There is no way the government can survive without taxes.  They barely survive with them.

The reason the US government was able to survive off trade was because it was small and limited. However, today, the government is much bigger and therefore requires tax to function.

Definitely, public tax helps to pay for the public roads, law enforcement, health care, education etc. These basic welfare requirements are essential for all countries.

The use of the word savings implies need.  Saving more than you need is when it becomes hoarding.  Personal savings beyond personal needs happen at the expense of the current needs of others and is what makes hoarding so problematic.  

You and that video are looking at this from the perspective of what you, as one person should do in a capitalist system instead of looking at the society as a whole should do. Imagine if everyone tried to take the same approach of saving to fill gaps in the market by opening businesses.  The gaps in the market would all close as demand would crash.  Companies relying on that spending would close, jobs would be lost, and there would be fewer people who could afford to buy lattes as well as many other things.  

Using bitcoin to buy a cup of coffee is not growing the economy but it is maintaining the coffee industry.  If everyone suddenly stopped buying coffee, less coffee would be produced, shops would layoff baristas or close and the economy would shrink.  

Capitalists fail to think beyond the individual choices of one person.  Smart moves in capitalism are only smart if a few people are able to make them.  There is no way for all or even most people to make smart moves simultaneously.  This is also why capitalism requires systemic inequality in access to basic needs like education and healthcare.  If everyone had those things then everyone would have opportunity and the "smart moves" would no longer be smart without anyone left to exploit.
 





In the literal sense, the police have the gun on behalf of the capitalist class.  They are there to enforce the laws of private property.  So if the workers don't work, they will literally be dragged out of their homes by men with guns.  

I am into crypto for many reasons.

1. I am searching for coins that could be used to aid socialist ideas (coins for commies).  Google "blockchain communism" and you will realize that the possibilities of communist applications of crypto are endless.  Here are the ones I have focused on.  Keep in mind that crypto tokens or blockchain technology do not have to represent money.  

-Smart contracts could be used to make direct democracy, basic income, and social dividends more practical.  
-Microtransactions could be used to monitor and score input and consumption of collectivized commodities
-Blockchain management of a IOT shared network of goods.  

There is a lot of disgusting things in the world of crypto but that doesn't mean the technology is bad.   Even though there would never be any currency in a communist society, all communists recognize that a socialist society has currency and is a transition towards someday not having it.  I am one who believes it would take several generations and much better technology under socialism before we could come close to achieving communism.  Crypto is a step in the right direction of taking money out of our lives.  Crypto doesn't ssem like real money because you never see it.   That is a huge mental step towards realizing money is not even real to begin with.

Iotas tangle could be used to help AI manage traffic or to track records of anything really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81rXoSRIRSA
I am also an environmental Scientist so this type of application in the video really gets me excited.

The government could definitely survive without taxes.  The government doesn't need taxes at all.  The value of the dollar is what needs taxes.  The dollar is not pegged to gold but instead, is indirectly pegged to the US economy through taxes.  The IRS only accepts payment in US dollar which is why taxes create demand for the US dollar.  Since taxes are proportional to economic activity, a bridge has been created between economic activity and demand for the dollar.  That bridge is the IRS ability to collect taxes. 

If we ended all taxes, the government would survive and could pay off all of its debt instantly anytime because the US government only owes debt in US dollars.  The US government, wisely, does not owe debt in gold or any foreign currency or paying debt would be an actual issue. 

Has anyone made a case for layering capitalist and socialist ideas on top of each other, seeing as that's what actually works in reality?


Insurance is a great example of that. A profit making company (capitalist outermost layer) that administers a money pool (socialist inner structure) that people join voluntarily (capitalist at the individual level) to manage risks.


Here's how you fuck that up: insurance companies convince government to add an extra layer; coerced standards (aka "regulations"). This makes it very difficult to break into the market as a startup. Then the existing companies can easily charge too much, because they haven't got any competition (and can make deals with their existing competition not to undercut each other). Next, the insurance company cartel can get government to force people into buying insurance for various risks, and present it as "keeping everyone safe".


Supply side distortions (standards that prevent new entries to the market) and demand side distortions (forcing all people to buy something at fixed prices) completely destroys the market, but it's apparently easy to convince people that this is free market capitalism in action.

But if everyone is forced to buy and there is no competition, how is that different from socialism? The method is different to outright socialism, and complicated: 5 layers of socialism and capitalism nested inside or across each other. But what's the outcome? Very similar to what happens in total socialism: friends of the government run massive companies that don't have any incentive to do a good job.

     What type of insurance are you talking about? If you are talking about auto insurance, most states in the US require people to have auto insurance if they want to drive. However, I see a very vigorous, competitive auto insurance market. If you are talking about health insurance, that is a big mess in the US. The problem with healthcare in general is that the biggest customers are either chronically ill or dying. Also, in emergency medicine, there is an ethical mandate to treat first. It's not practical or ethical for a healthcare provider to secure means of payment in the middle of an emergency. Most times the indigent or underinsured end up not paying the bill. Therefore, the healthcare providers are forced to raise their prices and try to make up for it by charging more. It just ends up being a feedback loop where the amount the healthcare providers charge keeps rising. In my opinion, the healthcare market is going to end up being socialized no matter what system you try.

All insurance



It's not much of a marketplace if you have no choice but to pay something to someone. That's called a racket, not a marketplace. It's a hard problem to solve though; roads (or railways) are natural monopolies because of the physical reality of the infrastructure (there's only 1 surface a road can be built on, and the routes are limited by other infrastructure that obstructs those possible routes)



Is it practical or ethical to socialize all healthcare, and pay for it with socialised debts that can't be paid at some point in the future? It's easy to say "socialize it to simplify it" now, and forget about how everyone maintains that long term. But remember why we're here on bitcointalk: government debts all over the world have increased more since 2008 than they have since the year 1908. That means big expenses like socialized healthcare are gonna either end or get drastically cut the world over once the government debt market reverses trend.

I'm just saying, in the end, it becomes socialized in one form or another anyway. I work for an ambulance billing company. They are ethically and legally required to transport anybody. It would be totally unethical for us to leave a person untreated and untransported who is obviously having an emergency, even if the crew suspects the person does not have the means to pay. In the end, the ambulance service charges a higher price in order to recoup the costs from people who do have the means to pay. In the past, most hospitals were run by churches and non-profit corporations. Many still are. In the end, you just cannot have an effective free market when the main consumers happen to be chronically ill or dying.

You don't have to give them the fruits of their labor.  I  just frame it that way because in the current context, it is being taken away from them.  So by ensuring it is not taken from them, we could say it is being given to them.  Your argument is the same as saying government cannot give slaves freedom.  Its true, but its misleading because the government can obviously stop them from being enslaved and restore the freedom that they have naturally.

If object B is a finite resource and george bought all of object B then no, Pete does not have another option.  No matter how smart Pete is, he cannot get object B without buying it from George. If Pete needs object B to make a living then george, by taking more of object B than he needs, is forcing Pete to make the trade.  

Capital and knowledge are two different things.  Keep in mind that 80% of wealth is inherited.  


Your entire analysis is based on a false assumption.  Your false assumption is that socailists reject capitalism because we are not content with what we have want more wealth for themselves.   This is what happens when you project the capitalist "me me me" mentality onto socailists.  The problem with that is socialists are socialists precisely because we do not think about what is best for our position, but we think about what is best for society.  

Think about it, most socialist intellectuals are in positions of power and privilege already.  Its necessary in order to have the time and education to dig so deeply into economic theory.  We are already among the highest percentiles of earners and in control of our own labor.  Most academics work for the state or employee run non profits anyway.

Personally, I feel like I have too much wealth and live with too much luxury considering the state of the planet.  It is this extreme level of guilt and empathy for less fortunate that drives my passion for socialism.  Sometimes I want to buy a really nice product, and I don't because I feel like it wouldn't be fair for me to have it while people starve. The main limiting factor for my consumption is guilt.  Just as humans have been trained to think about everything in terms of money, I think it can be reversed.  We can restore human nature and build a society where people make decisions based on ethical value. 

In the end, the state and the church will run out of money. Charities could continue, as long as people feel wealthy (and generous) enough.

The ethical argument is problematic. You present it as ethically absolute, but not everyone sees it that way.

This to me is a major issue with politics in general; it's an argument that never ends (until everyone literally kills one another, of course). Everyone thinks they're ethically correct, despite the fact that that's a complete contradiction of the fact that everyone has different ethics.

Nobody will ever run out of money IF he considers everything he owns to be money. If all he has are the clothes on his back, his money is his labor. If he is too weak to labor, he will die soon. Only then will he not have money. But then he won't care, right?

8)

I'm not sure how this sentiment exactly gels with the principal put forward by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Also, I may have missed the part about Jesus charging Lazarus,the lepers, etc.  Quite frankly, if a society thinks emergency medical professionals are being completely moral by sitting on their hands if they can't be assured of payment for their services, when a person is in peril of death, it is not a society that I would want to live in.

The other side is that it is often against the law for police to pull an unconscious man out of a burning vehicle, thereby saving his life. But cops will often disregard the law and save the guy.

As far as the good Samaritan, the Samaritan is wrong by earthly standards, but right by heavenly standards. To understand the earthly standard clearly, see Ayan Rand - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAFKnfN4bfk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y.

8)

I don't use Goolag, sorry.

OK, it appears that I have not explained my point adequately. One of the problem with the healthcare system in the US centers around emergency care. In emergency care, it is not practical to secure payment up front. What the medical provider does in this case is extend the patient credit. Needless to say, this results in a good deal of bad debt. Now it has been demonstrated what happens when a certain sector of the economy generates a good deal of bad debt. The housing crisis is a perfect example. The losses end up getting socialized one way or the other. It is true that we could have just not started bailing companies out. However, if the government didn't shoulder the burden, then the costs incurred would have to be passed on to someone. In fact they already were passed on since many people lost their jobs, and the economy as a whole suffered.  In an ideal world, it would probably be better to secure payment up front and not extend credit to anybody. However, in certain situations, (an medical emergency for example) this is not practical.

And how do you prevent big companies to use their money as leverage and lobby to corrupt your government and create regulations in their favor? :/

With representative democracy, socialism or capitalism is all the same. It leads to concentrate the power in few hands, them being corporations in capitalism and government members in socialism.

The end doesn't change, though capitalism takes longer I'd say.

Notice that the common factor in all the different systems you're talking about is state power. The state, and the corruption it attracts, is the problem, not capitalism or communism.

Completely agreed.
I'm all for getting the guillotine out and make the whole government going through it, but how do you make it so another one doesn't pop out?

Back in the day, the US government was limited, it did not get in the way of the economy, and there were no lobbyists. Remove the government's job of managing the market economy, and the corporations will not be able to lobby.

Both the Capitalism and Socialism has loopholes and downsides. They have both deficiencies as much as they have both efficiencies. Capitalism seems to be unfavourable on the lower class, thus, hindering them to be on progress since it allows competition. The principle in Capitalism is very simple, the rich will become richer, the poor will become poorer. On the other hand, socialism seems to be too idealistic to the point that we will find it difficult to have a social organization, encouragement of competition, and will become unfair to those have more that will now have less just to be in balance with those who has less. The bottomline here is that, both ends must meet especially that they are considered the extremes of ideology on society.

For me, socialism sounds good but doesn't work and capitalism sounds horrible but works. There is no single country on earth that practice socialism, not even the U.S.S.R was under socialism. Well perhaps Cuba and Moldovia and still they have lots of capitalism stuff

Capitalism works beautifully. To illustrate how capitalism is working itself towards its ultimate forthcoming success, look at these interesting statistics from Oxfam, a development charity:

In 2016 the number of billionaires owning as much wealth as half the world’s population were 61

In 2017 the number of billionaires owning as much wealth as half the world’s population were 43 -            a drop of 29,5%

In 2018 the number of billionaires owning as much wealth as half the world’s population were 26 - a further drop of 39,5%

I predict in the 2020 report we are probably going to see top billionaires in the vicinity of maybe 12.87 -   a drop of 49,5%

* for argument sake I shall round the 12.87 top billionaires to a nice round 13, so I will stand with this number for this year (2019)

It is truly remarkable to see the centralizing beauty of capitalism in action.

And yet they manage to convince millions of people that capitalism is all about work...

How the fuck do you think capital is created dipshit?

Sorry I don't answer to question that makes absolutely no sense.
Especially when they're so polite  :)

Indeed these billionaires work 100000x harder than these lowly peasants.  They totally deserve that wealth

sarcasm

i am actually fine with both, socialism and capitalism,

in socialism there is also capitalism, but a social one, instead of private bankers like in the usa that privately enrich themselves in socialism there are directorates, that act as capitalists in the economy. they are in general richer than the average population, and the population has to trust them.

the usa has only a successful capitalism, because of successful psychological tricks, global domination, keeping the world to still use the us dollar.

the usa has a very ineffective economy.



regards

Everyone should read this book (free download), and debunk socialism to what it really is: Coercion.


The main key point of socialist economies, is to force people do things they naturally don't want to.
Freedom leads to free market economies, and better quality of life to everyone, especially the poor.

Once you read this book, you will never fall for socialist lies ever again.
https://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis

^see socialist libertarianism, democratic socialism, market socialism, anarcho-communism, or democratic confederalism.  

Those critiques and almost all other are against state socialism, authoritarianism, command economies and large-scale centralized ownership.  

Also unicorns, see unicorns.

^^^ I tried seeing some unicorns, but then I realized they were Walt Disney cartoon characters.

 :D

Both capitalism and socialism are made to enslave ppl. There is allways elite who rules and slaves who do what they are forced to with laws, monetary system etc. Before we make sort of revolution, throw elites down and implement direct democraty most of us will stay slaves.

These ideologies are tools. Under certain circumstances they can be harmful. They can both be exploited, but Socialism does not create anything on its own, it requires Capitalism to exist. Also Socialism was created by Capitalists as a wealth extraction tool to harvest nations of resources anyway, so the point is somewhat moot.

Actually, both socialism and capitalism have been made to free people.

The family is the main and basic socialistic unit. The family is made to have children, to free their souls from the slavery of not having a body to operate in.

Then, after the kids grow up, they get into capitalism so they can afford a spouse, so that they can get into socialism, and free some more souls by giving more child-souls bodies.

And the cycle goes on.

Only greedy people don't want to do their fair share in freeing bodiless souls by getting together with a spouse and making babies.

8)

The inefficiencies created by bureaucratic bloat are destructive to any system as well.
The argument for Capitalism is in the results we are experiencing in quality of life right now.

exactly socialism is effectively just a different form of capitalism, with different people.

there would have been not much difference if the soviet union would have won the cold war.

the soviet union was effektively just a landlocked united states.

they also had capitalists and workers

regards

"We" being the top few percent of the people on the planet.

https://pics.me.me/stephanie-kelton-stephaniekeltorn-no-one-makes-a-billion-dollars-you-40940907.png

Socialism doesn't work, because people are lazy and abusing the system.
Capitalism doesn't work, because people are lazy and abusing the system.

Neither of these approaches is acceptable, and neither of them can exist without oppression.

You understand that lazyness has nothing to do with both systems?

Communism didn't fail because people were lazy, it failed because it became a dictatorship. Capitalism isn't failing because people are lazy, it is failing because in his very basic idea it will always lead to an increase of inequality. And when growth is no longer there to compensate those inequalities, it becomes pure theft.

Lazyness is a simplistic stupid myth of the typical old right winger trying to claim that young people and hippies are lazy assholes...

I haven't read all of this thread, but has anybody pointed out that you can't have capitalism without capital? The US has lost most of it capital - it has gone to foreign investors and into the overseas trusts set up in tax havens. Most of the national assets have been removed from the country, and replaced with a massive debt mountain. This has turned the US into a communist country ruled by an unelected politbureau, and it is well underway with creating slavery in its population, and the forced acquisition of countries with a different political structure, and assets that are worth stealing.

It failed because the government decided to solve all everyday issues by simply printing unbacked money. Since 1960s, the USSR council of ministers practiced a massive subsidizing of the economy through limitless enlargement of its debt to central bank.

Much like the US government is doing right now.

Nope, the lazyness is real. Just think about that: why bother doing anything when you can borrow some trillion from the central bank.
Two systems with different agenda but plagued by the same practice.

It doesn't whether you have a "President of the US" or "Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR". As well it doesn't matter how many political parties do you have. Because borrowing money from the central bank  is independent of such irrelevant things.

In fact, it is always like taking a cocaine dose: you have a short euphoria and sense that you can quit this in any moment. But in practise you're getting loans again and again, until you're coming to getting loans just to pay interest for your previous loans.

capitalism also doesnt, work because no one wants to work for the money of an obvious scammer,

in socialism there is also capitalism, dont worry. its usually an even worse one.

people become imprisioned slaves, and the society is just a matter of time till there will be a revolution

well said,

its always the same the bank is unloading risk on you, those that are the bank, have the least risks, they usually are free to work, and they enrich themselves and blame to others for their poverty, while abusing them as money earning cattle.

its the same in the usa (fighting against poverty) as in the ussr (fighting for social justice and against abuse)

regards

No "WE" being the individual in the current collective of humanity.
Our quality of life, the experience you and we all are having now as opposed to 500 years ago.

Capitalism has created this---in fact not theory.
It has been a bottom up creation of opportunity for the individual human being.
Bezos didn't start out as a billionaire--- he sold books out of his garage.

Has it become destructive for us to value money over people? YES
Personally I think it's perverse for us not to hold corporations criminally accountable when there actions have sociopathic results...and they knew it.
These are things we can address together right now.

Socialism doesn't work because of human nature, maybe in small scale ventures, for a time, until: two legs good four legs baaaaa'aad.
Even if we adopted socialism world wide tomorrow, people might feel better for a couple generations and then?

If we're going to fantasize about a utopian society, why not aim for the Star Trek model?
No one is ever scrambling for change for a cup of coffee or worried about whether to pay for their electricity or food.

Its really absurd to contribute every human advancement in the last 500 years to capitalism.  Are you sure they would have never happened without capitalism?  Could they not happen in a communist world?  Were most of the biggest advancements a product of private or public sector?  Did the soviet union not contribute to those advancements?  Science is unique to capitalism?


.
Its complete capitalist dogma.  Bezos didn't become a billionaire by selling books out of his garage...Those would have been some expensive books...It is not possible to become a billionaire from your own labor. 

We are aiming for the star trek model.  Thats communism.  Socialism is what gets us there.

It would be absurd to say that, that's why I didn't: it was a point of reference to a different time----don't try to change my words to fit your argument


                                                                               Never said that




            ----that's what I said

 
                                                                                                     Ok



 HuffPost
"The United Federation of Planets in Star Trek is mostly libertarian-socialist, post-scarcity economy."
Not sure I agree with HuffPost's analogy but it isn't a social structure that we are currently living anywhere.

I agree with "post-scarcity economy"

Oh dear god
I really do have to learn to quote properly

This is SO ABSURD and basically stupid that I can't really see what to answer.
It's like a child saying "The sky is blue so that birds can swim inside". I mean it's wrong on so many levels you can hardly explain him.

Lazyness means not wanting to actually do anything. Not wanting to work in the general and broad sense of the term.

You do understand that people in USSR weren't especially lazy and that people currently abusing the capitalistic system or the people trying to survive in it aren't especially lazy neither?

If there is no lazyness then how to explain the gazillion public debt which we're observing now?
After that I would like to see your ideas why the USSR government borrowed a ton of money from the central bank, while experts were opposing such practice and claimed that it leads to cataclysmic collapse.

Greed of the people currently in power and different interest from yours. Why would the public debt be a problem for anyone but the public? Governments have no reason to reduce this debt that allows them to make harder policies, steer taxes to there pockets and increase the influence of their businesses.
Just give me a reason for them to NOT increase the debt.

USSR mismanagement is far too wide to give a precise answer here, what period do you talk about?

capitalism is also a dictatorship actually.

through a financial cartel

Please stick to the topic under discussion...


...for instance, take note neither Bezos, the garage-book seller, nor Bezos the CEO and president of Amazon could have been a billionaire using only his own labor.

And you don't eat without the labor of others. What is your point?

                                                "Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here."  <---------topic

I've made my argument for capitalism clearly --- I'm not interested in reiterating for you: as you're trying to be rude,  you didn't take the time to read the thread and you don't seem to have any ideas of depth to add or conversate about.


If you think you have a point of your own to make then make one.

It is quite obvious to me that this so called capitalism is nothing more than a system of hocus pocus, devised many years ago by self acclaimed  argle-bargle nitwits.

Everybody uses forms of socialism throughout their lives, whether they are poor or rich.

The socialism being talked about in this thread is being used by the wealthy as a form of capitalizing on people's ignorance to make them slaves of the wealthy. In other words, socialism is a form of capitalism that the wealthy are using.

Drop both, socialism and capitalism, and get on with your life.

8)

I lived in capitalism and socialism.
Main difference is that in socialism state owns everything and regulate everything.
NO free market and no freedom.
In capitalism we have free market and freedom.
We have private ownership and people are free to start business.
I really prefer capitalism based on my life experience.

There isn't a debate being had.  No one supports socialism as the capitalists are defining it but people in this thread continue to argue against that straw man.   No one supports a system where people have no freedom.  Advocates of socialism and capitialism both want a system with more freedom. 

So is your argument that all the other times Socialism and Communism failed they all sat around and said "Hey you know what would be great, if we had a Communist totalitarian dictatorship!". No. They all thought they were making an improvement just like you, and they all lacked basic understanding of economics and human nature that tell them this system ALWAYS leads to this result. What you want is irrelevant. The outcomes of your attempts to attain your goals are relevant, and history has filled entire libraries with the documentation of the failures of your ideology.

Stop fighting wind :)

They won't open their eyes on the very simple fact that previous communist countries were dictatorships... That a dictatorship is communist, capitalist, religious or whatever it doesn't matter. It's a dictatorship.

Now could we implement communism without dictatorship? That would be an interesting question.

But don't argue just put those idiots on ignore. They're too stupid to discuss anything outside of their beliefs.

I never saw a communist refusing to admit capitalism has its pros.
I never saw a capitalist admitting communism has its pros.

It isn't difficult to see where is the open mind.

They didn't just become dictatorships magically. Socialism and Communism were the preferred methods of usurpation for many of these dictatorships. You simply lack the intelligence to understand this process of degradation and what causes it. You think you have the answer but all you have is the same old genocidal dictatorships with a new face and an Instagram page.

Communism at best is "successful" until it runs out of resources and a way to motivate its people to produce resources. Once the resources are gone and there is no work incentive, guess what? You are now all slaves and you go to forced work camps or else the country collapses. This is the guaranteed outcome EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

Communism has its pros like cocaine has its pros. It feels awesome for like 20 minutes then you feel like shit and you want more. You get addicted to it, burn through all of your savings, and now you are blowing people on the street for crack rocks. That is Communism in a nutshell. So if by pros you mean you have a tiny moment of euphoria before a horrible grotesque world is imposed upon you then, sure it has pros.

You're amazing my dear <3

You manage to gather so much nonsense in so little words...

Anyway, I guess you can see why it is NOT useful to try to argue with people like that coins4commies. They have no argument, no reasoning, no logic... They just like to say the same thing over and over again. What you say don't matter, they will answer the same thing.

Even though their answer is completely illogical and self contradictory ^^

I say fuck both these asshole systems. We the people could dismiss, deny and nullify these oppressive in-bed-with-government systems once and for all. We have the means and power through technology.

And we should be very wary at this time for the other just-as-fucked ass system - fascism, which is the next in line to rear its ugly head, given the point in time we are at.

Definition of fascism (wikipedia): Fascism is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.

Take heed my fellow libertarians.

Can you explain how my system leads to the same result?

I think the biggest difference is that the historical examples you're thinking of wanted to achieve communism immediately by force, and I want to achieve communism slowly by improving conditions to the point where the current state of human nature under capitalism is removed and the natural, cooperative version of human nature is restored.

For example, can you find any historical examples of communists who don't believe property should be taken away from the capitalist class? Theres a fundamental difference between people who want to take the power away from the capitalist class and give it to the workers vs people who want to drown out the power of the capitalist class by empowering the working class. 

I would concede your point if you showed me non-authoritarian examples of marxism that failed.

The bolded part of your statement I feel perfectly exemplifies your inability to even form a basic logical premise. You define conditions by which I argue do not even exist (Marxism is inherently totalitarian), and then demand I meet your impossible contradictory standard in addition to meeting my standard. In short you are doing little more than demanding I ARGUE YOUR POINT FOR YOU.

Seriously man. You need to see a professional psychologist. You have problems. I don't mean that in a dismissive way. There is something seriously wrong with the lens thru which you view the world and I would wager it is the cause of many problems in your life, all of which you likely project upon other causes. Either you are here to do a job or you have serious issues. If you are on the job I am impressed with your acting skills because you fit the bill to a T. If not seek help.

This bold part is called disagreement. You don't have to completely breakdown just because we disagree on premise. There are other ways to deal with this disagreement considering I have explained why I don't think my views are authoritarian.

You could:

A. Explain how the things I have described are not marxist
B. Explain how the things I have described are indeed totalitarian
C. Draw a connection between the things I have described and the failures of previous marxist regimes.


I am curious, what kind of job do you think I may be working? Do you think a socialist party has sent me here as a way of campaigning? Please explain.

Its also funny to see someone who dismisses psychological research and doesn't believe psychology is "real science" claim the expertise to diagnose psychological problems through the computer and in addition to that, have the nerve to recommend someone to a "professional" who according to their own claims,  can't truly help because they aren't practicing "real science" in the first place.

Talk about logic.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky's speech about communism, communists and free speech:

https://youtu.be/V_ioMFHd9PQ

Turn the subtitles on.

You stand with the capitalist and from you Post my guest is right but my argument is on the fact that hard it been the socialist did not lost the cold war to the capitalist we may have been witnessing another dimension of economic movement in the world because for me I still like the socialist ideas.

I think that socialism will always be a disguise towards insured failure, where everyone wants to be equal, but never will that happen, a worker can never earn the same as an Engineer or a Doctor, because it would not make sense to study hard to win as a worker. Under this premise they have a rich country, Venezuela, where their political representative says that no matter what degree of study is achieved, a worker who has not had a study should never earn the same as a teacher or teacher who has a degree. That is why I prefer a thousand times the most radical capitalism that exists, where the one who works a lot earns more and the graduate professional is recognized and valued in terms of salary.

Work doesn't determine who makes the most in capitalism, capital does.  A ton of people go to college, work two jobs, and are still barely scraping by. Making money in capitalism only requires capital.  You can inherit capital and create a top income with little work at all. 

No graduate professionals do not earn top salaries under capitalism.  Doctors, professors and engineers are far from . the top but they still do it because its what they want to do. 

Your entire post is based on an outdated premise that there is work to be done for everyone.   We are approaching a world of automation where there is scarcity of work but not scarcity of necessities.  That world just isn't compatible with capitalism.  You are also projecting this idea that people only work to be paid but once peoples' needs are all met, they will work for leisure.

I would study regardless of what it has to do with pay assuming I'm going to have all my needs met.  Don't project your own current tendencies onto humanity.  People naturally want to create things that can be used by others. Not everyone but enough of us.

coins4commies laying down the brutal truth


We do not live in a meritocracy and the hardest workers are often the poorest.  Capitalism is all about exploitation and stealing value that workers create.  The system is a complete failure when one person can own hundreds of houses and millions of acres.

Lots of totalitarians think they are benevolent, then suddenly they realize they weren't so benevolent and everyone wants their heads, and shockingly like magic that changes their outlook and approach to the situation. I have no way to know if you are simply a true believer or some one who does this for a living, but the fact is some one sent you here either by choice or by programming. I never said psychology was totally invalid, just that it is "barely science" in the grand context of all hard sciences, and I am not the only one who shares this view by far. What is not science however for sure is your preferred Frankfurt School of "Critical Theory", which is just Marxism with a superficial veneer of science, commonly known as propaganda.






We aren't here to discuss your fantasies and predictions for the future. History shows your ideology is not only a complete failure but is a horrific stain on humanity itself resulting in hundreds of millions dead. The fact is there is still scarcity of resources regardless of the rest of your horse shit "reasoning". This one fact alone means everyone can't just have everything they want and there have to be limits for society to function. Even if capital is inherited stupid people don't hold on to capital for long meaning regardless they have to work to keep what they already have, and that means providing value for society as a whole.



He is laying down delusional half truths at best. The thing about Communists is they have an argument but their solutions are always worse than the problem they claim they want to solve.

I think almost all of the countries already chosen their systems. I just want to point out the cons of a capitalism system, is that sooner or later
a revolutionary war might happen given the fact the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer. The gap of wealth distribution shall be widen and its only a matter of time that a war might happen. The government shall address this issues before its too late to cure it. I think a socialism system is more desirable and better option in a society.

Capitalism is the degradation of society , the way to the slave system,smart people will not be able to get an education, will be distinguished from the disease,

Socialism is human development , smart people will lead the rest of the people and develop humanity, even if you were born in a poor family socialism will give you the opportunity to get a good education in order that you could realize yourself

That's a valid point, every country who found all the signs about the widening gap between the rich and poor should take further steps to lessen the gap. A measures that will help the society avoid such war that will lead to reality shall be formulated soon.

the ideology of socialism is great if it is implicated truly.but human nature can not allow it.we can see that soviet union fall because they can not implicate  what they say.if the authority ia hundred percent honest then we can socialism is great,with great power comes great responsibility.in socialist country' the government and high officials get immense power which leads to a situation where they abuse their power,and people loose their freedom of speech.government controls everything and there is little scope for individual freedom.

I stand for free market, because only deliberate and purposeful human action can create the efficient allocation of scarce ressources in order to give the most value to every actor through trade.

Murray Newton Rothbard, Man Economy, and State (https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man,%20Economy,%20and%20State,%20with%20Power%20and%20Market_2.pdf)

It may lead or signals the beginning of World War 3, since our society today are communicating closely due to the advancement of technology.
Probably, a war between two or several states with different systems.

I think decentralized infrastructure will invalidate these centralized political infrastructure no matter what it's called, capitalism or sweet socialism.
I also think that bitcoin and its followers bring the imagination to the new world. People and their value will no longer being manipulated by any group they dislike.
This means the independence of the individuals inside the human society. This is very important to protect the human value.

Excellent to have a honest socialist. Its all about control, coerced control. You obey or else... Socialism is the opposite to freedom, pure and simple.


In a free market you live in freedom, you can exploit but you can also give on your own will, without someone pointing a gun at you. Of course, that means one type of society is more mature than the other, and its not exactly the socialist one...

Let me debunk the lie of inequality. Is inequality bad? NO. You don't care the 1% is richer than the 99%, but that the poorest of those 99% still have  better lives than the majority of "equal" societies ruled by an iron fist or a dystopian police state, like socialism produces in the end (see east Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany)).

Socialism wants control of the means of production (and the economy). Do not be fooled by any sweet words, it is about coercion. "Humans are egoist so they must be coerced into sharing", is what they are deep thinking. They come with a thousand excuses to justify this exploitation on a state level, and even try to paint it a "democratic" face, but its all about obeying the leader, and in some extreme cases, paying cult (and tribute, of course).

And this also means, no leader can ever be questioned, because you are an enemy "of the people" for daring to question him or the party or the ideology. Then corruption creeps in and now everything is in hand of corrupt bureaucrats which will burn the last bit of wealth by managing somehow to do nothing for the people they collected that money for...

Let me tell you, this is one of the worst systems ever devised by man, and its so scary because you only get it once you are trapped in it.

"Capitalism" may lead to injustice. Yes, because you have the freedom to do the good and the bad, but in socialism, you will either do "the bad" or you won't be able to survive.

A free market economy is power directly in the hands of the people. You cast a vote with your wallet on every single purchase. This is a decentralized system which scales to the last individual member of society with grace and elegance, producing information real time and adjusted to the situation of everyone.

In socialism this power is snatched away from the hands to the people and given to a small select few who suddenly decides who eats and who doesn't. Who is going to question these decision makers when tomorrow you risk not getting food or worse?

This "select elite" can never replace a free market economy. They can't get the information fast and well enough, they can't process the amount information needed in the required time, they can't ensure the resources allocated reach their intended recipients, they can't come with a solution that works well for every single person at every single moment either, etc, etc. In it terms, its centralized, and un-scalable.

In our context, one way to understand socialism is centralization, with all its risks and weaknesses, and injustice, oh the injustice. Of course, everyone gets the same level of injustice under socialism, except those close to the rulers, that is... Socialism makes monarchies look tame.

You guys have done a great job critiquing government control.  Congrats.  Nobody is advocating for that so I'm not sure what you are accomplishing by critiquing systems everyone hates. 

Simple solution: give power to individuals not the government

What is government composed of Captain Postmodern?

^^^ In common law, the government is composed of paperwork. Paperwork doesn't jump up and do anything. It just lies there.

In common law, government people are simply people. When they harm you, use the legalities of the paperwork to punish them just like they would punish you if you harmed them.

8)

200 individuals max.

Socialism = give power to ALL individuals. Not just 200 selected gods.

How should everyone be able to show their power, through an individual vote?

yup

Why should the masses with no experience get to determine policy? Wouldn't policy better be determined by experts in a field? Should medical doctors write laws on oil and gas excavation? Or should oil and gas engineers get to write laws on what medical practice?

Or better yet... should experts in the field write the laws?

Experts in the field would still be able to write policy.  They just wouldn't be able to pass it without consent of the people. The people have full experience living under the laws so they can listen to expert opinion and make their own decision.

When you go to a doctor, they usually tell you the options and their expert opinion but ultimately you get to decide on the path of care.  That is what we are talking about here.

And what's to say people make good decisions as a collective? Why should anyone get to decide what medicines are legal for an unrelated third party to take? Especially when doctors might support giving it, even though the public has still voted to keep it illegal?

In the US, the collective makes decisions by voting for their representatives. Everyone who votes for a particular person into office knows that these people follow the regulatory bodies that have been established for certain areas. In the medical area, representatives are expected to trust the medical establishment through the HHS and underlying agencies (these include things like FDA, CDCP, and others).

Since these things are run by humans you can expect human interference.

And they can't. First thing that happens when socialists get the power, is dictate rules for everyone else to follow. No they don't ask everyone, and even if they do, the "minority" is irrelevant. Social struggle is their belief, not peaceful resolution as done in a free market society with every transaction...

A small group ends "leading". Its a natural transition from the communist party organization, they don't believe masses can "do revolution" without leaders, they HAVE to lead. And once they get into power, this thinking remains and is put in motion nationwide.

Which is how you end with, all the "failed" attempts in human history...

Yes, they would give you this fake rhetoric/facade: "power to the people", but we the people will follow our loved great leader... They "replace" the wealthy group they accuse of everything, and after taking all their possessions by force (sometimes distribute a bit but keep the best for them) take their place as the leading "nomenclature" or party officials or revolutionary whatever. And it always degrades into something resembling a monarchy, just look at north Korea: hereditary leadership like the absolute monarchies of the past (who ruled from that very city of Pyongyang).

They call themselves social scientists, and yet neglect to see that repeating the same experiment, again, and again and again produces the same results. When are they ever going to give up? Theory does not produce results, and practice has always shown the opposite results to what they promise.

They don't blame socialism, they blame the corruption. Oh, lets conveniently forget how corruption is instigated by their system, ok, they never experienced it beyond their own thinking, that is why they make such comments. Let them try socialism somewhere, and NOTHING they do can't prevent it from degrading into, the same thing the rest of humanity degraded into when they tried...

IT DOES NOT WORK.

You always end with something worse than what you had. Humans won't act like machines even with your enforced rules, they won't ever fit in your theories, people don't act that way.

Portland used to be a really nice place until socialism took over.


Collapse: Leftists have taken over Portland, Oregon, as cops are no longer responding to calls (https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-05-01-leftists-have-taken-over-portland-oregon-cops.html)




8)

I used to get offended but other topics have made me realize where this misconception comes from.  The same logic that allows  you to think a person calling themselves muslim and killing people makes islam bad also allows you to think this sort of thing makes socialism bad. 

I don't know how to help you understand that individual actions and ideology are not the same thing.

You need to understand that DPRK is not a product of natural 'degradation' but rather a direct creation from outside interference.  The PRK was the original, socialist government before the US murdered most of the leadership.   Some of them escaped to the north and the USSR coopted their movement and created the DPRK as a combative, oppressive counter against American/capitalist aggression. 

All you have done is told us that socialism doesn't work with capitalist interference or cooption.

How evolved you have become! You are capable of having retarded delusions without being offended when they are challenged. MUCH SUPREMACY!

Your logic allows you to believe that ideology has no effect over these individuals, because you prefer to claim any positive aspects and disown any negative aspects of the ideologies you propagandize. I don't know how to help you realize ideology is the basis for all actions. Again, everything bad is the fault of capitalism, and everything good is socialism. Lets just ignore that socialism creates all of the factors needed for a dictatorship to take control. There are never socialist nations formed without other capitalist nations existing, therefore your analogy is bullshit because in order for it to be valid would require the total removal of capitalism globally in order for you to call socialism socialism. All you have done is told us that socialism requires impossible to meet standards in order to function.

No its more about the power dynamic.  If the US was socialist, capitalist countries would not be able to assert their will over it because of the military power.  Obviously nothing works when it is crushed.  Whoever has the bigger stick gets to right the rules but that doesn't mean might is right.  Being decent towards other people's lives is not an impossible to meet standard and 100 years from now, people will probably look back on today and wonder how the world could have been so savage.

You aren't arguing for logical and logistics based reasons for Communism and Socialism. Your arguments as always rely completely upon emotionally based moralizing where all of your preferred ideologies are superior, moral, and good, of course only ever defined in the contrarian context of the inferior, immoral, evil Capitalism. Much like the Democrat party has zero platform except "Orange Man Bad!", Communists have one mantra "Capitalism Bad!" and of course by comparison of course "Communism Good!". Any time an analysis of the actual results of your insane ideology are examined even superficially your facade crumbles under the weight of ITS OWN contradictions. Communism is insane and is the preferred ideology of mentally ill people who think they are helping people when they are actually working to enslave them even further.

i support both in some context. i think every single human being has right to get food, shelter, education and health related facilities but one who is working hard and giving day and night to work should get more money, more perks and privileges and better standard of life.

Capitalism isn't really about working hard, its about ownership.  That is the real path to obtaining wealth.  Working for a salary will never compete with capital.  Money makes money faster than you can even spend it.

Especially ownership of property. Without that there is nowhere to build anything. You can't even plant your own food without owning your own property.

Capitalism is pourly base on profits maximizing and at that ownership is in the central door way of capitalism. This economic system is base on private ownership but the state playing the regulation role and at the same time go into state overall ownership of all property but leaving it in the hands on individuals. But socialism on the other hand is full ownership of means of production by the state.

capitalism works for the capitalists,

those that are in the core of the system (central bank) always win because they just invest.

regards

That's quite true. 


Again, true.  Like my bother who's a VP at one of those banks, he does quite well for himself.  Not bad for the son of an immigrant who showed up in the US with $35 in his pocket.  My parents had nothing when they came here, and before my dad died they had raised four educated, professional children, and owned a house and a commercial property in one of the most affluent counties in the country. 

Nobody gave it to any of them.  Not my parents, not my brother.  They had to work their asses off for it.  Opportunities don't exist in socialism, but they are plentiful in capitalism.  So yes, capitalism most definitely works for capitalists.

you are right capitalist is all about ownership but to get ownership you need brain, luck and hardworking

when government own every thing than its necessary for the country that their leaders must be honest otherwise they become kings and rule for years, so in that scenario capitalism works

In my opinon, most important capitalism's advantage against socialism there is more effective economy. In long term it means that capitalistic countries develop much faster, people have there higher standard of living etc.

High standard of living? You may want to go on youtube and see how homeless people are living in Los Angeles, Seattle, and Portland.  If you didn't know any better you would think it was some 3rd world country in Africa.

The socialist countries in Europe seem to be doing much better for the lower class.

Interesting you pick the most Socialist areas of the USA as an example of Capitalism...

In the country where I live, it has a socialism, a communism, a truth is a disaster and every day it seems a nightmare, because only less than 20 people in power have been totally destroyed and without a future in a country, if they gave me choose between socialism or capitalism, choose the wildest capitalism that exists, because the professional will always have all the options to have a life that he deserves due to his effort and dedication.

Capitalism allows you to work hard, has good money, is necessary to live and cover your basic needs, socialism is not, if you work 24 hours a day you can not be able to eat, people who have to look for jobs that escape the normal laws of traditional economy, socialize power, capitalism is not made for lazy people that the socialist system, where they worship the rulers and earn a mouthful of food.

I would add just one point on top of all these arguments which were posted earlier.

In reality, there are no 100% pure capitalist countries and 100% pure socialist countries in existence. Even the so called socialist nations such as Cuba and North Korea now allows private ownership of property and private business ventures. If you take the case of the so called "capitalist" nations such as the United States, then you can see that socialist ideas such as affirmative action have been included in the laws.

in socialism there is also capitalism, there was hate between socialists and nonsocialists because of the controll of the accepted financial system

people never get enough money and power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_ruble

capitalism is root of evil and good, but capitalism divides society in poor and rich.

those around the issuing financial centre are the winners and kings,

those financially illeterate are the labour gulag

in the usa these people are the rednecks the white trash and the hut rats.

Well the society have always been about class struggle and both socialism and capitalism are one coin with two faces it all about name and if you look critically you will know that the nature of capitalism is about ownership of property and socialist is also with the same ideology but just that citizens owns the means of production.

I'll leave this here even though anyone who believes in actual research already rejects capitalism.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661

Well, that is a very impressive 33 year old cherry picked study. You know its relevant when it is still referencing East Germany. Have any studies that are maybe created after the internet?

Well we both know you would never accept any fact that goes against your agenda right?

I've never seen you accept anything unless it goes your way 100%.

That's what you call fanatism. I can see the good sides of capitalism but you never accepted any pro of socialism or communism. That's what you call brainwashing dude ;)

No, that's called not just blindly believing anything that calls itself a study. All that is is a collection of cherry picked metrics and massaged statistics leaving out lots of very relevant information. Furthermore it is from a snapshot in time just before massive failures in these modern forms of Socialism/Communism. It would be akin to throwing you off a building, taking a picture, and saying look its ok, see, he can fly. You are still going to eventually hit the pavement regardless of the fact of the picture of you in mid air.

Funny you use this metaphore a lot but the good thing is that it ends every possible argument.

"oh no it's not working, it's just working temporaly before it fails"

Yeah thanks dude, great argument really.

Where is this quote from?
It is not found anywhere on the link you provided.
Nor can I see anything like it there.


Yet we have never seen a communist country that didn't eventually hit the pavement.

It is a perfect metaphor. Doing cocaine makes you feel great. Why don't people do cocaine all day every day then? Oh right, because that is not a viable long term strategy for living.

Yeah but we can prove that cocaine is harmful to the body. See the difference?


Stupid argument at the same level than the "it's not real communism"

Because it failed before it can't succeed in the future? Guess you never heard of changing the conditions in a scientific study then.

There is also a long historical record of Communism being harmful. I love how you dismiss the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy of "it's not real Communism", then immediately proceed to rephrase the same argument.

I'm very sorry you consider changing the condition the same as doing repetedly the same thing.

Probably linked to your lack of scientifical knowledge.

If every time it fails, you make an hypothesis on why it fails and you chenge it, there is no reason it will fail.

The difference is that 'almost communism' always results in starvation and dictatorship while 'almost capitalism' results in prosperity.


Which relevant factor has been changed in favor of communism working now?

And which one of it avoids theft of private property?

Nothing has changed, Communism is still the same failed model as before. Pro tip, if you are going to try to critique someone's knowledge level, try not to look like a total moron doing it.

Direct democracy which means you can have communism without an abusive government. Which means you can implemant communism without it falling into dictatorship.

And I don't see why "theft of private property" would be a bad thing on its own. Only Americans still consider private property as a sacred divine right.


Oh my god nothing as changed since USSR? We haven't learned anything and science hasn't changed shit? Sorry then, I guess nothing as changed and conditions are exactly the same as before, it means there is no reason for communism to succeed.

"Direct Democracy" is just a rebranding of a pure Democracy, which is just a more palatable way of saying mob rule. Under mob rule individuals and minority groups have no rights, because the mob can always just vote their rights away. Democracy is by no means infallible, in fact it makes the populations much more easily controlled because getting people to operate as collective unthinking herds is a lot easier than gaming a Republic for example with protected individual rights and rule of law. You just declaring that it can be done is nothing more than your imagination. Your fantasies do not count as substantiation for your arguments. ALL RIGHTS are property rights. Without property rights you have no rights of ANY KIND.

Oh, I see, the world is different now, so Communism will work this time, promise! You are just making a long form rephrasing of "it wasn't true Communism", IE the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The world has changed, but Communism has not, and the basic elements that make Communism a failure have not changed in society either.

That's incredible. How can you be so blind?

Ok so we're going to try to use your brain a bit. What kind of social organization is NOT a mob rule?
Yes it has, and a lot. You being so deep up your own ass doesn't change the fact that no one refers to Das Kapital as the Bible nowadays because people learned from past mistakes and have changed the idea of Communism. If you think it hasn't changed, you just show your ignorance.

Interesting retort. Call me blind and move on. Speaking of blind, you missed the part where I already answered your question, a Republic is not mob rule. You keep saying Communism has changed, but you can't define anything about it that is different. Every single argument you have made for Communism is one that has been used in past failed attempts.

That's the definition of a republic:
"a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

That's not a mob rule? Supreme power held by the people and their elected representatives is not mob rule for you?

Can you define "mob rule" then please? Because clearly the "supreme power is held by the people" should be rather close to my definition of "mob rule".

Because you never asked.

Main differences of Communism and Neo-Communism:
-Power is directly hold by the population, there is no strong government, only strong people
-Private property is no longer abolished as it has not reason to be
-No national monopoly but every vital sector (health, transport, energy...) must always have a governmental company providing the service. It can have private competition though
-No shares and trade shares. Any investment in a company is impossible to sell.
-No company can close without the State autorization, which has the right to nationalize it
-At least half of each company is possessed by the workers.

See how it's different? How it has evolved? How it has NOTHING to see with what Marx imagined? Because Marx was a genius but never could have foreseen internet, which allows so much more local management.

You conveniently left out several requisites for the definition of a republic (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic) to include only the part you believe makes your argument. That is like saying Usain Bolt isn't a world class runner because you only describe everything above his waist, and use his lack of legs as an argument. More specifically a Constitutional Republic is not mob rule.

Why do I need to ask? You are the one making the argument, either make it and substantiate it or don't. lets go over your supposed changes point by point.

1- "Power is directly hold by the population, there is no strong government, only strong people"

This has been claimed before and failed. Furthermore the government consists of people, they are on in the same.


2- "Private property is no longer abolished as it has not reason to be"

Yet the abolition of private property is one of the core tenets of Communism. Thank you for supporting my argument private property should not be abolished.



3- "No national monopoly but every vital sector (health, transport, energy...) must always have a governmental company providing the service. It can have private competition though"

You are simultaneously describing 3 exclusive concepts. How do you even manage to wipe your ass with that kind of lack of logic?



4- "No shares and trade shares. Any investment in a company is impossible to sell"

Oh, so no investment huh? Well that will go over well. I am sure that won't have any negative consequences like, not allowing peopel to afford to buy homes or cars, or other basic necessities or anything.


5- "No company can close without the State autorization, which has the right to nationalize it"

That sure sounds a lot like fascism, as do some of your other points. So you are going to compel people to work for a company by force of law when they don't want to? That sounds a lot like slavery.


6- "At least half of each company is possessed by the workers"

Why would anyone invest in a crating a company (oh right I forgot investments are banned) if they immediately will have half of their investment taken from them? Also, tell me, how do the workers own half of a company if there are no shares? Your total lack of logic is astounding.


Your ideas are nothing but pure fantasy that collapse under even the most superficial examination.

Very sorry I didn't use the same dictionnary than you. It's clearly manipulation from my side and not just you who should have given your complete definition and how it proves your point. If I have to complete your argument because you were too lazy don't accuse me of manipulation.
Please prove your assertion.
Sure direct democracy has already been put in place. Can you point out where?
No absolutely not, abolition of private property of the means of production is core tenets of Communism, not abolition of all private property. You would know this if, as you said, you had really studied Marx.
You're welcome as I also believe private property should not be abolished. It seems we agree on something.
Very sorry your brain can't handle so much complexity. Don't hesitate if you need a drawing.
Exactly, no trade shares means no investment, because there can be no investment without trade share  ::)
Clearly it's the same to forbid share trade and the right to own a house. Not at all a biased stupid comparison here.
Exactly because It's what I said. How did you manage to read "Company closing can be nationalized" as "people will have to work without wanting to"?

Dude, you can't imagine a company without shares, what do you want me to explain you if you can't even imagine a company without external private investment funds while 99% of companies ARE ALREADY created without them??

Is it safe to say that a hybrid system is required due to human nature?
I mean that is basically what the U.S. is now with all the social programs that exists.

You will always have go-getters, people who are lazy/un-motivated and then those in between.

Fat cats and starving dogs has been around for centuries.  I don't see that changing.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah the very known social programs of USA xD

Well known for this yeah

Socialism is scary

Sarcasm?

Welfare subsidies everywhere...

social security, medicare, medicaid, food assistance, public housing, flood zone subsidies, tax credits, student grants...list goes on.

That's social democracy (aka. Nordic capitalism), not socialism.

A strong welfare state might make life a bit more comfortable for the poor but it is still squarely within the framework of a free market capitalist society. There is nothing about removing the capitalist class or abolishing private property or nationalizing large swaths of the economy for example.

In recent years, it's been made more confusing by the fact that many democratic socialists (e.g. Bernie Sanders) and democratic socialist parties in Europe run on what are more accurately described as social democratic platforms. Democratic socialism and social democracy both arose from the same roots but while the former aims to implement socialism gradually over time through democratic reforms, the latter is essentially just capitalism with regulations and a big safety net.

I see argument against both ideologies, none seems appropriate to lead us into the next industrial revolution.

 tragedy of the commons ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons )


This problem our society is facing never got bigger than now a days.

How to provide freedom to the people, and at the same time prevent people from depleting or spoiling common resource ?

My feeling is that both system are inappropriate and new ideologies / social organisation must been followed. the problem have no binary answer : Capitalism vs. Socialism.

Capitalists don't make money except that they make everyone prosperous by each person's own work and initiative. This means that the best thing that capitalists can do is make the situation fertile for each person to WANT to work. Here we have Bernie aiming for Venezuelan kind of capitalism... otherwise known as socialism.


Economic Bill of Rights: Bernie Wants Same Healthcare Promise as Venezuela (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/262998-2019-06-14-economic-bill-of-rights-bernie-wants-same-healthcare-promise-as.htm)




Check the links in the article.


8)

I didn't say the US was socialism...it was a hybrid.   Social Democracy is a good term.

Education, good health, guarnteed living wage, and a clean environment are all things that make people WANT to work and you are arguing that the result of these things is a population that won't want to work.  Its such a weird argument to make logically. 

And on what evidence exactly are you basing your conclusion that these entitlements will result in people wanting to work? If people have all of their basic needs covered free of charge, what incentive do they have to better themselves or work?

I've never come across another human who was healthy, educated, and had just their basic needs met but didn't want to work.  Do you know people like this? Do you work? Do you not have your basic needs met?

On the contrary, I've come across a lot of people who didn't want to work and none of them had all of those things.  I've also seen them obtain those things over time AND end up wanting to work.  

Many want luxury
Many want to help people
Many want to fulfill a purpose

Some want all three but I've never seen one who didn't want any of those things. Thousands of people and I can't think of a single exception.

Please tell me what evidence you have of the contrary. Maybe my life experience is all just a wild fluke.

That is what is called "anecdotal evidence". Even if it was true, your personal experiences are not statistically relevant. You are basing your argument on assumptions, not facts and evidence. All these entitlements not only create dependency (the opposite of independence), they also remove the primary motivations people have to better themselves and work harder. Plenty of people are perfectly satisfied having their basic needs met, and if those are handed out freely, what motivation do they have to ever do more? Why would people who are working really hard to make it keep working so hard if they can just give up at any moment knowing the government safety net is there to take care of them? What happens to the ability of society to produce all the resources and services we need to survive when everyone starts checking out and relying on these entitlements? Most importantly what kind of power and influence is created over the population by the government with such a large dependent class? You are arguing from a position of Pathos, not a position of Logos.

Sometimes, anecdotal evidence is all we have.  You are right here in this thread and haven't answered the questions about your personal motivation.   I have given anecdotal evidence and you have given no evidence.  I acknowledged my experiences could all be a fluke but your claim are completely unsubstantiated. 

If you were correct, no one in Finland would be working at all anymore.  The entirety of the Country and countries like it are part of my anecdotal evidence.   

I challenge anyone in this thread who has their basic needs met, is healthy, and educated but does not work to reveal themselves.


-Many want luxury
-Many want to help people
-Many want to fulfill a purpose


You are basing your entire argument on people who don't exist.

Lol. Sure it is, anecdotal evidence is all you have when you have no logical argument. My personal motivations are as irrelevant as your personal anecdotes. The Finland UBI experiment was like 2000 people, that is hardly a national economy shifting development and not indicative of anything. That program was so successful they ended it BTW.

Let me break it down using simple logic. Most people don't do work they want to do, they do the work that provides the most value to the economy that they are capable of. If people didn't have to work, we would have a billion people who want to be famous rock guitarists or basket ball players. We don't need a billion famous rock guitarists or basketball players. Furthermore just because some one wants to do some thing doesn't mean they are any good at it. That is the purpose of supply and demand within the economy, to provide the skills and resources we most need the most reward, and to reward the people who fill those rolls and do so efficiently. Even if your premise was correct that people would not be influenced to work less, the simple economic fact is that handing out free money does not magically make more resources appear. More money handed out for nothing just creates more demand for resources, driving up the prices. All you are doing is creating inflation and ending up right back at square one with the haves and the have-nots.

Entitlement programs create dependence. Dependence is exclusive of independence. Independence is agency and responsibility. Dependence strips people of agency and responsibility making them less able to be independent as time goes on and they are not continually expanding their abilities via exercising their agency. Just like the body atrophies without exercise, the mind and the will atrophy without being challenged by responsibility. Liberty and responsibility are inherently linked, you can not have one without the other. Even IF your nonsense premise was true, all you are doing is giving the government ever increasing power over the population, and turning the government from the servant of the people, into the master of the people. That is a huge problem. Especially when the resources run out and labor becomes mandatory and government controlled... like every other time Communism is tried. There are endless reasons your premise of free shit for everyone is a failed concept.


"Labor-force participation fell substantially after the crisis, contributing 2.5 percentage points to the shortfall in output. The decline showed no sign of reverting as of 2013. Part is demographic and will stabilize, and part reflects low job-finding rates, which should return to normal slowly. But an important part may be related to the large growth in beneficiaries of disability and food-stamp programs. Bulges in their enrollments appear to be highly persistent. Both programs place high taxes on earnings [emphasis added] and so discourage labor-force participation among beneficiaries. The bulge in program dependence …  may impede output and employment growth for some years into the future."


https://fee.org/articles/surprise-welfare-incentives-discourage-work/

https://www.politico.eu/article/welfare-discourages-work-labor-market-employment-social-rights/

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/dependency-work-incentives-and-the-growing-welfare-state/

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/welfare-better-deal-work

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/welfare-reform-analysis-issues/view/full_report

https://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0046.html#Conclusion

https://rbj.net/2016/10/21/welfare-system-that-discourages-work-ambitions-needs-fixing/

no one right in the mind joins capitalism if he is not part of the elite.

the problem with those capitalists elites is that sooner or later they will need a victim (working class) to supply their followership

"#31 The Origins of Communism and Its Tactics | China Unscripted"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwPScbShR_0

"#55 How Communism Destroys a Society | Joshua Philipp"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjBUPB009Qo

You really need to watch the second video especially. This guy is exceptionally informed about the psychology and function of communism/socialism, and why it is by definition malignant.

Neither, Voluntarism is the way forward. Earn as much possible, give as much as possible to the "right" cause. 
Will-based system.

Capitalism is not antithetical to voluntarism. Socialism and communism however are.

They both equally beneficial to a country's economy sometimes a regulated system or government needs to intercept private owner's that wants to overprice their products or services which is why capitalism if left alone to individual owners would ruin fair standard pricing that socialism provides.

I think both are equal to capitalism vs. socialism Both are used in the field of society The effect of capitalism is more on the lower classes of society If they are exploited and oppressed by the rich people of society then it is not a form of socialism if the society is obstructed It has a serious impact on the economy of the country.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is the extent of government intervention in the economy.
A capitalist economic system is characterised by private ownership of assets and business. While a socialist economic system is characterised by greater government intervention to re-allocate resources. Socialism takes care of prices , inflation and unemployment while capitalism cares about profits as owned by private players. Therenis more equality too in socialist society as compared to capitalist society.

Socialism doesn't take care of price, inflation or unemployment.

Most of socialist countries experienced shortages because there was no invisible hand to show the scarcity of items, they experienced tremendous amounts of inflation because goverments were printing money in order finance their spending and they only hide the unemployment rates by hiring people on non-existant positions.

Equality doesn't exist. No one is equal to anyone else, that is the definition of being individual. Of course equality of opportunity should be striven for, but equality of outcome is not an attainable goal, or at least not one anyone really wants. They think they do but they don't. If you deliver equality with an equal number of bullets to each person's head so they share an equal amount of life, that is also equality. Achieving equality requires taking from some to give to others. People always fantasize that they will be the ones receiving and never the ones taken from of course. They seem to forget that universal slavery is also equality. Increasing your relative position by reducing that of others is not gain, but that is a requirement to acheive equality. The term equality itself is meaningless and arbitrary.

No one wants equality of outcome so lose the strawman.  He simply said more equality and meant less inequality.  Its a sliding scale.  No one wants to strive for equality of outcome but that doesn't mean we want a system that accelerates inequality of outcome until a few people own everything.  Those are the two extremes of the spectrum.  Socialism is about installing a floor where everyone has access to basic necessities.  We don't want to put a ceiling on how much anyone can earn. With that said, we do want policies that have a secondary consequence of affecting how fast someone like Bezos accumulates wealth.  Bezos having lets say 20billion instead of 120 billion is far from "equality of outcome"

Surprise surprise. More shifting of definitions form Captain Postmodern. Communists and socialists ramble on about "equality" all the time, so save the act. Is the part in bold even in English? What the fuck are you trying to pull out of your rotting cranial cavity here other than jibberish purposely intended to obfuscate the situation?

Oh you don't want to do that? [Immediately then explains how you want to do that]

This is why I have zero respect for communists and socialists in general, but especially you. I find it absolutely revolting and it turns my stomach you might actually be in a position to be "educating" people. You are doing your students and the world at large a great disservice. You don't have logical arguments, you have rhetoric, sophistry, and mental gymnastics. Literally nothing, not one word of what you said makes any sense or has any basis in reality. P.S. Jeff Bezos isn't a policy position.

Socialism keeps check of distribution , much maintains an oligopoly market, keeps check of prices , inflation and laws of land and labor. Socialism for me is fairer as compared to capitalism. Giving too much power to privates can turn one selfish as it is finally about making money and earning profits.

Just two questions:  Was it fairness that motivated Henry Ford, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates?  Is your life better as a result of their motivation?

Human nature trumps fairness.  Every one of us wants more than "the other guy," and some of us have an abundance of skill, intellect, and motivations to achieve.  If you truly care about fairness, then what makes you think you are entitled to share in the accomplishments of others?  To me that sounds absurdly unfair.

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people that want equality of outcome.
Few people can never own everything because they'll always need to trade with other people, they'll need to purchase services and items from others for which they'll have to pay since no one's going to work for free and by exchanging money there's always going to be circulation of currency.

You're missing on how the world works.
If you limit Bezos on 20billion instead of 120billion, maybe he's not going to have Amazon Prime anymore and people won't have a service that delivers items to their door in 2 days. By limiting profit, you limit services, because you're taking away the incentive to make something possible and to make peoples lives easier.

Others aren't capable to do that. Bezos is. That's why he's there and why he's done the things he's done. He deserves to earn those billions since he provided so many services to so many people.

capitalism doesn't work without some kind of support through religion, or opposition from a soviet union, american and british banksters will simply scam everyone working for their money, and destroy them.

90% of China is irreligios
73% of Sweden
72% of Czech Republic
United Kingdom   69.00%
Netherlands   66.00%
Belgium   64.00%
Australia   63.00%
Hong Kong   63.00%
Norway 62%
Denmark   61.00%   
South Korea   60.00%
Japan   60.00%   
Germany   60.00%   
Estonia   60.00%   
Switzerland   58.00%   
Spain   57.00%   
Canada   57.00%   
Ireland   56.00%   
Finland   55.00%   
Slovenia   53.00%   
Austria   53.00%   
Latvia   52.00%   
France   50.00%

Socialism leads to benefiting the lower class while capitalism brings our more of organization and control. Following either can not benefit all the socities. At,my end , socialism prevails and there is a big gap between top and lower classes of people. Socialism reduces the equality gap , keeps check of law of land and labor and also maintains price fluctuation . Capitalism works well in socities where the authorities are disorganized and dont work well.

How did socialism help the working class in Ukraine, Cambodia, China, North Korea and Venezuela?

Who are these people who want equality of outcome?  Not any major socialist or communist party that I can tell you.  Show them to me then.  Give me a link to their platform to prove its not just the same tired strawman.

and lol you think bezos makes amazon prime work. thats cute.

He might as well try to convince a 2 year old Santa Claus doesn't exist. Every criticism you have no argument for is a "strawman", and any time communism was tried was "not real communism".