Why Socialism is the key

[RealBitcoin]

No. Absolutely not. I don't even understand how you can say something like this. USSR was a dictatorship nothing else. the means of production weren't in the hand of the community but of a small elite!

Ok tell me 1 single workers union or any other labor association that has not become eliticized.

I want to hear only 1 example where a bunch of people got together and could vote equally without anybody taking over or taking charge of the association.


Even when I was in college, when we had group decisions to take we all voted on it, but it has become clear that some more dominant voices quickly took charge of all of it.

The rise to power is instinctive in all humans. It cant even work in a small scale with 10 people, so how do you think it works out in large scale with billions of people?

Sorry but democracy as it is, is heavily flawed, and socialism is just an abomination of a few wishful thinkers who think they know better things.

[1714938084]

1714938084

[1714938084]

1714938084

[1714938084]

1714938084

[1714938084]

1714938084

[jaysabi]

What I meant that you didn't understand is that property is unique to the human species. Man is the first species that has had the capacity to understand the concept of property, therefore is the first species on Earth capable of owning property. The Earth is therefore man's for the taking. Wealth is not assigned by position of birth in non-caste systems. In America, you have the ability to move up. More can be done to lessen the obstacles, but trying to create equality through the use of force is immoral. When socialism can achieve its ends without the use of force, it will be a morally acceptable system, but of course, it cannot by its very nature.

If you are born rich you are born rich, caste is irrelevant.

In any capitalist society your caste is determined by birth, but not totally so,
your life choices are overwhelmingly limited by your birth caste. If you are born poor and for some reason you are not the victim of poor dietary habits, exposed to hideous psychological traumas, educated in a lacklustre way maybe you might grow up to be rich.
(children are victims, they cannot control their environment).

Morally acceptable force is everywhere.
Police is a socially acceptable community based force. Community based force is not inherently moral/immoral.

Ownership does not rely on inequality, if everyone has a toothbrush there is no issue.
But when ownership = inequality it becomes immoral.

To use community force to correct an immoral reality is not immoral.


your idea of force is poorly presented. It is a highly ambiguous concept that is portrayed in a one dimensional way to suggest it is immoral.
We use force when we chew our food.
We use force to protect our communities.
We use force to protect our personal being.
Force has no necessary moral/immoral position.

In some cultures, castes are almost a physical barrier. Certain members of of society are not permitted to interact with higher status members, and are not permitted to hold certain jobs. That system doesn't exist in America. America does not have a caste system. You can make an argument (unconvincingly) that our economic system is a type of defacto caste system, but that's 1) not the same, and 2) not an overly interesting debate to me because I've had it so many times.

So moving on to what I do find interesting:

The initiation of force is unjustifiable. The only morally acceptable force you will be able to list will be responses to people who unjustifiably initiate aggression. Police do not initiate force, they respond. When police are the ones who initiate force, the public rightly throws a conniption over it. Community-based force is immoral when it is initiated against life, liberty, or property, but never in defense of innocents.

The initiation of "community force" to correct an "immoral reality" (and I'm using quotes on that term because it's highly subjective) is indeed immoral. In every instance, the initiation of force is immoral.

Your example about using force to chew food is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you would even write that. As for your other examples, using force to protect a community is reactionary, not initiation. Force to protect a person is defensive, not initiation. And force by it's nature carries a moral position, you cannot use force without assigning a moral value to it. And most of our laws carry the implicit understanding that using force is only morally acceptable in defense of life, liberty, and property. It is the initiation of force that is immoral.

[cjmoles]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

[jaysabi]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

I cannot imagine how indentured servitude and fractional reserve banking are anywhere near being analogous, but I'd be open to considering your view on it if you write it out. However your overly generalized statement that the rich do not deserve what they have because you've lazily assumed that there's no way it could have been justly derived and therefore it is proper to take it away is an immoral argument because it requires the initiation of force to do so.

[BARR_Official]

The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them. 

What land do you live on?

All your own property must be stolen too.

[pitham1]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

Sure but that was about 200 years ago, nobody cares about that anymore. Just like nobody cares about Julius Caesar massacring 50,000 galls in his wars of conquest.

But what happens today, every month you are robbed by taxes, so the robbery is in the present and still going on, that should be a bigger concern.

The government still cares about what happened 200 or 400 years ago. Why do you have affirmative action? It is because of slavery which existed in America a long time ago.

[Kingno.1]

There is a lot of good in socialism, it brings people equal opportunities in the future, and provides them with safety and security. Those opposed to the idea highlight the higher taxation often associated with socialism, but it really just depends how you view it.

[Laosai]

Yes it does matter. Because your system can encourage consumerism or not. It can encourage people manipulation or not.
Free market without regulation encourages manipulation.

And with regulation it encourages bribery and special privileges for the elite that bribe them.

Which will be a detriment to all other folks who have to follow the regulations that the bribed regulators give out.

Not with direct democracy as there is no longer an elite...

[Laosai]

Yes it does matter. Because your system can encourage consumerism or not. It can encourage people manipulation or not.
Free market without regulation encourages manipulation.

Ok so which one is worse:

An unregulated bitcoin with a few scams here and there, probably not losing more than 1 million $ /week.

Or a heavily regulated fiat economy, that still manages to build up the largest central bank ponzi scheme ever, losing people trillions of $ /day.


Which one is more preferable?  Your very regulated ponzi pension scheme being wiped out in a few years after the next economic collapse, or having a few scam bitcoin investments that only lose a small % of money for investors.


I think it's obvious, an unregulated market is not perfect because humans are like that. But when you start regulating things, you are putting the same evil rules to be followed, just that now it becomes mandatory.


Sorry bur regulation is evil, things have to be free as they are, because wherever humans put their dirty hands on, it becomes more fucked up than before.

Or maybe a third choice of a currency regulated by its own users? Seems rather good to me...

[Laosai]

As far as I read, none of you capitalists/free market/whatever defenders have managed to propose a way to give free education to new generations. Which is the greatest victory of socialism with universal health care.

Free education means that children will be able to get highly educated independently from their parents situation. It's the guarantee of the future of a country. Even if it's hard to imagine in countries where you take a 250k$ loan to go to college...

[btcbug]

As far as I read, none of you capitalists/free market/whatever defenders have managed to propose a way to give free education to new generations. Which is the greatest victory of socialism with universal health care.

Free education means that children will be able to get highly educated independently from their parents situation. It's the guarantee of the future of a country. Even if it's hard to imagine in countries where you take a 250k$ loan to go to college...

There is always some mysterious sector of the economy where Socialists just cannot fathom a market solution. They claim certain things are "rights" that others shouldn't be allowed to profit from.

This is silly nonsense. If you're for healthcare and education being provided by government, why not food and shelter too? Would it not be a terrible thing for somebody to make a profit from someone's hunger or their need for shelter? There is no consistency in Socialism in this regard. If profits are greedy and therefore evil, then shouldn't it apply to every sector?


In a free market...

The only thing that matters to me is that it's done VOLUNTARILY.

There are many solutions to educating the poor. Just use your imagination. The only requirement is that you can't do it through taxation.


Either your idea is good, in which case it's easy to persuade people to help, donate, etc.

OR

Your idea sucks, in which case you need to resort to a system of taxes where people are forced to pay and unable to opt-out.


BTW... government student loans and excessive regulation of universities are responsible for todays outrageous tuitions. It's simple supply and demand. If everyone goes to university (demand increases), price must necessarily go up! Nothing is free! Government needs to stay out of education. Legislating that somebody needs 5 years of university to be working in Education is completely ridiculous. Fortunately access to information is so cheap now that practically anybody can learn anything on the Internet for next to nothing and now it's a matter of letting the market determine a persons qualifications, not some arbitrary standard set by government.

[cjmoles]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

I cannot imagine how indentured servitude and fractional reserve banking are anywhere near being analogous, but I'd be open to considering your view on it if you write it out. However your overly generalized statement that the rich do not deserve what they have because you've lazily assumed that there's no way it could have been justly derived and therefore it is proper to take it away is an immoral argument because it requires the initiation of force to do so.

All of the money we work for is backed by a debt that will never be paid...the more dollars they issue to pay us for our work, the larger that debt becomes and the more we have to work to pay that debt off.  And who's reaping the rewards?  How is that not indenturement?

[cjmoles]

The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them. 

What land do you live on?

All your own property must be stolen too.

I came from a little tiny Indian reservation that has been deforested and mined before it was granted back to us....Come visit one of these reservations talking about "what is" and "what is not' owned by whom and see what people think in the real world.

[Farma]

There is a lot of good in socialism, it brings people equal opportunities in the future, and provides them with safety and security. Those opposed to the idea highlight the higher taxation often associated with socialism, but it really just depends how you view it.

yes, with socializing we might be able to make people interested in bitcoin, and make them use it so as to make bitcoin prices rise, other than that we can multiply our friends to socialize

[GamingBro]

How much countries now living with socialist system? Are they rich? Here is a key.. Why everybody think that's socialism is good? but IMO it's so devitalized system

[Barnabe]

How much countries now living with socialist system? Are they rich? Here is a key.. Why everybody think that's socialism is good? but IMO it's so devitalized system

Most european countries define themselves as socialist without any problem. When you speak about socialism in US, people only think of goulags, communism and big old shoe factories ...

[MedaR]

Most european countries define themselves as socialist without any problem. When you speak about socialism in US, people only think of goulags, communism and big old shoe factories ...

I can't say this is only propaganda, but actually lot of these stories are fabricated from the west.
And main cause is to stop spending communism further. That is why America had more wars the any other
 country on the world.

[valta4065]

Most european countries define themselves as socialist without any problem. When you speak about socialism in US, people only think of goulags, communism and big old shoe factories ...

I can't say this is only propaganda, but actually lot of these stories are fabricated from the west.
And main cause is to stop spending communism further. That is why America had more wars the any other
 country on the world.

Ahah! I like this illustration ^^

[RealPhotoshoper]

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

socialism is the key because people cannot life lonely,i saw on other thread that uploaded link about video on japan,and that video shown us how socialsm in japan built from child,from elementary school,that look awesome,i forget on what thread it was.

[jaysabi]

Well, when it comes down to it, it's all just a lie....all of it....on every side!  What we need to do is to take back the power from our "governors" and put the power back into the hands of the "governed."  They are supposed to work for us....not the other way around!

As for force???  The United States was taken from the Native Americans by force and its wealth was created by forced slavery....So, what is claimed to be the property of the wealthy does not belong to them.  The wealth of the United States was built upon stolen property and forced labor.  In fact, one can still claim that the whole system is based on the indenturement of its populace because of fractional reserve banking.

I cannot imagine how indentured servitude and fractional reserve banking are anywhere near being analogous, but I'd be open to considering your view on it if you write it out. However your overly generalized statement that the rich do not deserve what they have because you've lazily assumed that there's no way it could have been justly derived and therefore it is proper to take it away is an immoral argument because it requires the initiation of force to do so.

All of the money we work for is backed by a debt that will never be paid...the more dollars they issue to pay us for our work, the larger that debt becomes and the more we have to work to pay that debt off.  And who's reaping the rewards?  How is that not indenturement?

Let's first just take your sentence and try to get you to reach a conclusion. "All of the money we work for is backed by a debt that will never be paid." Let's just assume everything about that is true. So what? What exactly do you think that means? How do you think that makes you an indentured servant? Do you think the job you work is because of the central bank and not because you need to perform something of value to the economy in order to eat? Are you under the delusion that you work directly for the central bank, and that you don't have a choice in the matter? Do you think this "debt" means the money in your wallet is owed to someone, or is going to be called in to pay the "debt?" Do you think that the central bank issuing fiat is the reason you have to work or that the work you do is to pay back the central bank's debt? You must think these things, otherwise I can't wrap my head around what you think is the implication for this statement.

Now let's follow through on your premise to a conclusion. Money is issued by debt that cannot be repaid, according to you. So I guess first you're assuming that it needs to be, which isn't true. Fiat is issued through debt, and if they the issuer wanted to collect on the debt, all they'd be doing is devaluing the money they collect. Fiat money is a zero sum game because it is simply a representation of the value of the goods and services in an economy. So it doesn't matter how much money is issued, it doesn't change how much goods and services exist in an economy. If the "debt" can never be repaid, it doesn't matter. Fiat is only representative value anyway. So call in all the loans on the "debt," all the issuer would be doing is collecting worthless paper, and the more they collect the more worthless it is. This is why the debt never has to be repaid, or actually, can't be, and why it doesn't mean anything sinister for the economic system. Goods and services have value independent of fiat. Fiat doesn't give goods and services value, goods and services give fiat value, because fiat is just the means of trade.