While You Were Sleeping: Among Democrats 49% Favorable To Socialism

a reply to: CB328

Then a reasonable change would be do away with expendable goods in most production ,not court the next Pol Pot.
We really staryed away from our roots when we embraced planned obsolecence.

What really happenes when socialist policies get implemented is that they're no longer really socialist policies but loaded with cronyism that does nothing to really help those they were meant to help. Usually just ends up giving someone a job that is completely meaningless and covered by three other officials already and costs more than it should have.

What's funny is a lot of these tea party/conservative types are self-identified "libertarians", which is just anarchist-lite.

In an anarchist society private property is a big no-no:

Private property, therefore, produces a very specific form of authority structure within society, a structure in which a few govern the many during working hours. These relations of production are inherently authoritarian and embody and perpetuate the capitalist class system. The moment you enter the factory gate or the office door, you lose all your basic rights as a human being. You have no freedom of speech nor association and no right of assembly.

infoshop.org

It's hilarious to me how similar anarchism is to communism, and yet some of the most "conservative" people I know love the idea of anarchism's "no government telling me what to do!" philosophy.

And to those libertarians who think we should still have *some* government, and totally unrestricted capitailism in a "dog eat dog, survival of the fittest" world...

The stunning growth of the American economy in the 19th century had little to do with unregulated capitalism. As Cambridge economist Professor Ha Joon Chang notes, America was the most protectionist country in the world from 1830 up until World War II. In fact, as Chang outlines in his book Bad Samaritans every industrialized economy on the planet grew astronomically by strictly regulating markets, government investment and the protectionism of key industries through nascent stages of development.

Link

I think we need to take a good look at how our founders viewed corporations and banking. I think a serious, high-profile series of debates, lectures, hearings and whatever need to take place within our government and society. What we have going right now just isn't sustainable.

Whether we want to admit it or not, we're headed into a world like the movie "Elysium" in which a very, VERY small sliver of the population lives in opulent pleasure palaces, meanwhile 99% of the rest live in abject poverty in tin roof shacks.

While I'm sure those with the money and wealth see no problem with this, I'd like to think that the bulk of humanity would want to have a brighter future to look forward to.

Or we could educate your neighbor, cut your hours in half and both of you will be working equal hours at the same job.

Educate my neighbor, fine, but what if I don't want my hours cut? What if the pay rate means that cutting my hours no longer makes that job economically feasible for me, and yes, I am more or less in that position now. My job is barely feasible. Any more cutting hours and I'm underwater on it.

Or better yet we could tell the stockholder sitting at home making a billion a year that his stock belongs to the employees. Now the company can afford to employ you and your neighbor at $40 per hour.

Do you have any idea how many companies already make their stock available to employees? Or at least give their employees options to get into stocks via 401(k) plans? A little savvy work on your part and you can take some of that money and then buy into your own company. You make this sound like it's too difficult. Even one of our local grocery stores make their employees part owners. My job offers 401(k) to full-timers.

Our neighbors are not working because there are not enough jobs. 99% of able bodied people are willing to work for a living wage.

There is a difference between not enough jobs and not enough jobs for a living wage. The first is an entirely different problem from the second. Btw, my job? It isn't a so-called living wage job. I make less than what everyone calls the magic number, so if you give them that, I'll make less than burger flippers ... just FYI.

We have to stop blaming the poor for poverty. The poor have absolutely no control over min wage or job creation. So they do the only thing they can do, vote for Socialist programs.

If someone had every opportunity to go to school, get their high school diploma and failed to do even that, then there is a very real limit to what they will likely be able to do. Yes, I will blame most of them for their poverty. If you made choices that rendered you functionally illiterate and are only fit for the lowest rung jobs, then that's the bed you made for yourself.

You either need to do some serious catch up work and get your GED and whatever other education you might need, put forth effort to better your lot in life, something I will help you do, or I have little sympathy for you whining that all you can do is flip burgers and thus deserve $15/hr.

The real people I have sympathy for are the ones who truly and genuinely cannot do for themselves (disabled, elderly), not the ones who chose not to.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: CB328

Then a reasonable change would be do away with expendable goods in most production ,not court the next Pol Pot.
We really staryed away from our roots when we embraced planned obsolecence.

I can agree with that. I own very few things that have exceeded my low expectations. Those products that have? I've become a customer for life.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

I know you're not talking to me ... but how do you earn your money?

Do you do it surrounded by a society that provides infrastructure? By a society that includes the customers for your goods and services, and the purchases that provide the money that you so crave to claim as wholly "yours"?

Should you live among us, use our resources, take our money from purchases, and not give anything back to help sustain that system?

Sounds like you're the one looking for a handout, Kets.

Let's do a Hannibal Lector and reduce this to basic principles.

If all we have here is our bodies and our time, socialism presumes it has first dibs on the labor of our bodies and our time.

There are two words for people in such a system: serfs or slaves.

When the system takes the first fruits of what you produce with your body and your time and presumes it is best to judge what you deserve to keep, if any, then you no longer have the right to your person or your property and are no longer free. After all, the system is making demands or quotas you must fulfill or else.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Don't get me started on cars... AGGGGH!

a reply to: ketsuko

Yay! A 401k! I can contribute a meager amount of my low pay and get my employer to match it!

Meanwhile, my 'shares' are worth less than .001% of the total company, even though the work I do brings in twice what I'm paid!

A 401k is a slap in the face, a placating measure to give the illusion of some "ownership" in a company. Unless you're investing millions into a multi-national corporation, your few hundred bucks a month and employer match is negligible.

Pension plans actually embed employees into the companies they work for. Knowing I'll get a set amount when I retire gives me incentive to work harder and keep the company in business. The uncertainty of a 401k means I could be screwed the next time the bankers and politicos want to gamble with our economy.

401ks also make employees less loyal to their employer. I can take my 401k and roll it over into a new job. This is one of the many reasons why millennials and gen X'ers are jumping from job to job so much these days -- there's no incentive to stick around, especially if they never get any raises.

a reply to: ketsuko

If all we have here is our bodies and our time, socialism presumes it has first dibs on the labor of our bodies and our time.

There are two words for people in such a system: serfs or slaves.

Not if you think of it as being more like a barn raising instead of picking cotton

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Tell me about it..I love the Dansko brand for shoes. They're ugly but insanely comfortable, and each pair I've had has lasted over 3-4 years of daily wear. In fact, if it wasn't for someone in my family not knowing what to get me for Christmas, I'd probably have worn a pair 5-6 years!

The fact that they last and are so durable make me a life-long customer. I'm willing to pay a higher price for an item I know I won't have any problems with. It just feels good to own something that I know is built to last, like how things should be.

I'd rather have fewer "things" but the things I do have made of higher quality. A lot of my kitchen gear is really old -- as they just don't make stuff like that anymore. I actually enjoy thrift shops because you can find awesome deals on older Pyrex baking dishes. The new ones are a lot thinner and more fragile.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Why are you only doing your 401(k)? You can take some of that money and invest it into your own stuff.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Unless you're too attached to socialist benefits like policing, medical care, fire safety, that army that protects your borders, toilet paper, etc.

There is a balance in everything. I have no problem paying taxes, but there is a reasonable amount. I like large foot print state level and small foot print fed level, so if people want a large or small socialistic structure at the state level it is fine with me. It is when the fed comes along and dictates for everyone, like Obamamcare, that I do have issues with. Now before you get you panties in a wad I do think there are many issue at the fed level too, as long as it is all balanced.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: ketsuko

If all we have here is our bodies and our time, socialism presumes it has first dibs on the labor of our bodies and our time.

There are two words for people in such a system: serfs or slaves.

Not if you think of it as being more like a barn raising instead of picking cotton

No one was forced into helping their neighbors raise the barn.

You are missing the essential point: Socialism on the scale you all want DOES NOT LEAVE ANYONE A CHOICE. It compels. If I am compelled I am the slave in the field, not the neighbor helping out with the barn raising.

a reply to: ketsuko

This isn't about how much they can make for retirement, it's about having ownership in the company they work for -- having a compelling reason to want the company to succeed.

You can't invest enough making 50k a year to gain any appreciable ownership in the company you work for.

a reply to: ketsuko

And this is the exact entitlement attitude that leads to income disparity and the poorest class voting for Socialism. Many of the billionaires agree with you, they don't want to help the poor either. Of course many of the elitists would prefer the poor just die, rather then feed and shelter them. After all if they just worked harder they wouldn't be poor, right?

IMO you are far from reality when it comes to the jobs problem and income disparity in this country.

And it really gets old putting down fast food and retail workers who make up anywhere from 8 to 10 million employees. With 21 million unemployed and 8 to 10 million working low wage retail we would need to create 30 million plus middle class jobs for them to make $15 per hour.

Getting an education and working harder are not the solution. This is not 1980.

Everyone not making $250,000 a year deserves a $5 bump.

The owners are responsible for paying a living wage and creating enough jobs for everyone. And enough middle class jobs for those who work hard and get an education. If they fail to do so we need new owners.

To me if your not making $40,000 per year, your living in poverty and should be demanding change.

a reply to: ketsuko

Oh come now, you'd feel forced and compelled for a while, but once you realized the benefits your grumbling would subside.

It's like how a kid who has two GI Joes and won't share them realizes that if the other kid has one, they can play together and have even more fun than alone.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Anarchism is the most utopian BS ideology.

Anarchist somehow think anarchy leads to a perfect world were everyone cooperates without laws.

Sometimes you have to wonder how sheltered a life one must have lived to believe anarchy can do anything but end in fascism.

a reply to: ketsuko

A community (even on a larger scale) can choose to work for it's collective benefit (sorry - couldn't help myself)

Capitalism can still be a part of this - here's a little something from the communists :
For decades economists have studied how Denmark and its Scandinavian neighbors have blended socialism with capitalism, a robust welfare system with a market economy.

No system is perfect - but I prefer something that's a little more user friendly. I'm even willing to pay for it

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: ketsuko

A community (even on a larger scale) can choose to work for it's collective benefit (sorry - couldn't help myself)

Capitalism can still be a part of this - here's a little something from the communists :
For decades economists have studied how Denmark and its Scandinavian neighbors have blended socialism with capitalism, a robust welfare system with a market economy.

No system is perfect - but I prefer something that's a little more user friendly. I'm even willing to pay for it

Yes, but those countries are going to collapse.

The collapse has absolutely nothing to do with debt based financing and politicians allowing imports to far exceeded exports though. It's all collapsing because of Socialism. - End Sarcasm.

a reply to: Xtrozero

...before you get you panties in a wad...

Why would I?

It was a decent response.

You prefer it localised, that's respectable & understandable.