How Fake Socialists Might Lead to Real Socialism

originally posted by: Athetos
My job is in water treatment and dose not exist privately in Canada at least not in any fashion I am aware of.

I also understand it was my choice to enter the field and stay I am ok with it. Just stating the fact that if it wasn't such a controlled work envrioment maby it would be different but I only know one side of the tracks.



I guess I could make water at a private camp ground but pretty sure they wouldn't pay what I would like or I could start my own chain of bottled water that would be neat.

So the reality is that there are no private sector jobs available which you are giving up so much not to have.

And to stay on topic:

Socialism for our needs
Capitalism for our wants

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
Because "capitalism" (to big to fail you say??) is really working out for millennials.

For a generation that feels special and expects everything handed to them you're probably right its not working which is why they love socialism. I'm a late millennial and had to figure out the only way to get what I want is to work hard and go get it. Lets just say my early twenties was easy until I learned my lesson.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think terminology has evolved to the point that if one doesn't understand it, maybe they never will. I don't know anyone that wants the government to own businesses - They just want CAPITALism to be more responsible, more SOCIAL. When a society cares more about $$$ than they do the citizens, things go downhill fast. We know a lot of politicians are bought and paid for, we know the impact that lobbyists have on this nation...Why is it so hard to extrapolate from there, and say that businesses are using their money in corrupt, unethical, anti capitalistic and free-nation ways?

A Millennial can be talked to and reasoned with, believe it or not - They aren't completely against business and aren't entirely for the welfare state. They simply know that they're getting paid less than we have been getting paid in decades, to be more efficient than ever. They know that social security will run out before they're old at this pace. They know that the ability to save, invest, etc, on a regular full-time job is near impossible these days... "Safety nets" is more a plea for things to be as equal as they were - Some decades ago when our nation was prospering, the ability to afford housing, food, etc was a lot easier. A father without a college education could support a small family - Now, two parents with or without that education, working full time can hardly do so ( in some circumstances )

Corporate corruption can only run so far before an entire generation realizes that "trickle down economics" has only been "trickle-fed" to them from their elders, and that it's nothing but lies. I'm trying to find the statistical evidence showing that more and more money is funneling UPWARDS, and not coming back down into the hands of those that were told these lies their entire lives.

I'm a Millennial, and I'm quite sad that my entire generation leans so far to the left - On the other hand, I can't blame them. When those on the right spoon-feed them bullsh*t and lies their entire lives, there's every reason to rebel against that regime, and no reason to stick around.

Yes, it wasn't intended as a slight against millenials, only an argument that a growing population of youth are unwittingly becoming the mouthpieces of a failed and pernicious system.

By the way, the proper term is "supply-side economics", not "trickle-down economics". The latter was invented by the opposition to demean and mischaracterize the theory of supply-side economics.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think "trickle down economics" is something still propped up by some - The thought process that if a rich man/corporation gets more money, so does everyone else. This has been proven quite false in some situations, it's not as direct as some would act.

I've had a thought process that I'm not sure the complete validity of - But I believe there is an intentional effort to ensure citizens are not entrepreneurs, that we do not find independence and wealth, and the like. This is not particularly one person's fault, there's reasons for this all over the place - From the average person growing up being catered to and spoiled, to education completely failing at instilling even the slightest sense of becoming self-employed, etc - Also, the Government. Why would they want free-thinking, independent people running around when they can ensure they are simply slaves to the system? Not to mention lobbyists, subsidies that create unfair advantages ( think amazon with shipping subsidies ), regulations that only larger/rich corporations can follow, and the like.

Anyways, this is diving deeper down a hole - But do you agree with this premise? That while entrepreneurship and small business is a grand goal that many could achieve if they even had a clue it existed or knew the path, or the rewards- But it's existence is practically hidden, cast out, etc?

Bernie:

"when you call the police department or the fire department, who do you think you're calling? those are socialist institutions."

EEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRR Wrong, buddy. City departments like that (especially police) are primarily funded through court fees, fines, tickets, assets confiscation, etc. Thats not a pool that everybody pays into.... So no socialism there.

I also know exactly what happens when I call the fire department or an ambulance - We get a bill in the mail for the call and subsequent services.

Silly self proclaimed socialist doesn't know what socialism is.

This does sem to be a recurring issue with the youth today..... Protesting against whatever they don't understand.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I've had a thought process that I'm not sure the complete validity of - But I believe there is an intentional effort to ensure citizens are not entrepreneurs, that we do not find independence and wealth, and the like. This is not particularly one person's fault, there's reasons for this all over the place - From the average person growing up being catered to and spoiled, to education completely failing at instilling even the slightest sense of becoming self-employed, etc - Also, the Government. Why would they want free-thinking, independent people running around when they can ensure they are simply slaves to the system? Not to mention lobbyists, subsidies that create unfair advantages ( think amazon with shipping subsidies ), regulations that only larger/rich corporations can follow, and the like.

Anyways, this is diving deeper down a hole - But do you agree with this premise? That while entrepreneurship and small business is a grand goal that many could achieve if they even had a clue it existed or knew the path, or the rewards- But it's existence is practically hidden, cast out, etc?

I do agree with the premise. The government, like a business, requires profits to maintain its existence, or it will have to cut itself back. The best way to do that is to keep people dependent on the government. This is a problem in countries where the population is in steep demographic decline, with upside-down family trees, as the labour force necessarily shrinks. Governments with huge bureaucratic systems in place are forced to replace the labour force with immigration or trim its own fat.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Baddogma
Oh nos ... society making sure we have safety nets, institutions and a watchdog so that successful private enterprise doesn't enslave?! The horror... the horror.

But I think you are picking at definition of terms... when most Europeans and United Statians say "socialism" they are thinking of capitalism with assurances... not a fascistic gulag mixing Stalin and Orwell.

At some point capitalism will have to be anachronistic due to ubiquitous wealth via tech, if nothing else.

Capitalism was/is a handy, quick tool to get to a cooperative, planned society brimming with material wealth, but a tool is what it is, not the goal. It's also making a mess that could end up exterminating us.

I think we're smart enough to pick and chose economic modes and methods ... but pure capitalism is horrible, and pure socialism has never been done, but has potential for hell, too.

Let's hope we find a happy balance between cowboy and borg.

Government providing safety nets is a lot different than society providing safety nets. The former is centralized, bureaucratic, and unsustainable.

In a democratic state government provision is how society provides a safety net.

Government provision is also inherently no more centralised, bureaucratic or unsubstantial than private provision.

Family and community have been the traditional way of providing safety nets. Government provision and welfare are fairly recent phenomenon.

Some forms of safety nets go back as at least as far as the Roman empire.

The current level of safety net and welfare exists largely due to the failure of private provision to provide an adequate level.

Just because something was traditional doesn't mean it was better.

Doesn’t mean it wasn’t better either.

The current level of safety net and welfare exists because of the private wealth of tax paying individuals, generated by capital. It is funding all levels of welfare.

The level of private generation of tax is made possible by the system in which it operates. This includes infrastructure, education and health of the people. You can't separate them and say one is dependent on the other, they depend on each other.

One is entirely dependent on the other.

Any evidence or argument to back up that assertion?

Yes, governments have to extract revenue to provide governing and public services. They do that mainly through taxation.

In most economies the purpose of taxation is not to raise revenue but that's possibly a bit off topic for this thread.

There is nothing to stop the state providing direct consumer goods and services just as there is nothing to prevent private sector providing most government services.

It's just that some things are more effectively provided by the state and some by the private sector.

They are equally dependent on each other on order to function well.

Yes, the purpose of taxes is to raise revenue. There is no government without it, and government is wholly dependent on taxation from private wealth to function...that is unless it nationalizes industries Etc.

Governments are dependent on people using their currency. Not the same thing as raising revenue.

Socalism, the thing you are arguing against, involves nationalising industry. In a mixed economy, which pretty much all are, state and private sector are dependent on each other. They are both part of the economy and it's just the relative mix that varies.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think "trickle down economics" is something still propped up by some - The thought process that if a rich man/corporation gets more money, so does everyone else. This has been proven quite false in some situations, it's not as direct as some would act.

I've had a thought process that I'm not sure the complete validity of - But I believe there is an intentional effort to ensure citizens are not entrepreneurs, that we do not find independence and wealth, and the like. This is not particularly one person's fault, there's reasons for this all over the place - From the average person growing up being catered to and spoiled, to education completely failing at instilling even the slightest sense of becoming self-employed, etc - Also, the Government. Why would they want free-thinking, independent people running around when they can ensure they are simply slaves to the system? Not to mention lobbyists, subsidies that create unfair advantages ( think amazon with shipping subsidies ), regulations that only larger/rich corporations can follow, and the like.

Anyways, this is diving deeper down a hole - But do you agree with this premise? That while entrepreneurship and small business is a grand goal that many could achieve if they even had a clue it existed or knew the path, or the rewards- But it's existence is practically hidden, cast out, etc?

Most governments, including the social democratic ones, spend large amounts of time and money on promoting small businesses.

Small business are generally good for the economy and it's in the states interest to promote them.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Very well. I think we've come to a point of agreement, whereas I may have misinterpreted your original message due to my own biases and vantage points -I fully believe our government could cut costs, while providing their services more effectively, if they were held to any standard of efficiency. Unfortunately, they have zero incentive to be efficient.

Even though I'm against some of the corruption that a profit-centered society has brought, I really think that capitalism and the free market could be an answer to many of our ills. Competition breeds inspiration and creativity, while monopolies breed apathy. If only our elected positions were held to high standards, and we the people acted as the board members that could and would fire them when they prove ineffective at providing the services they promised.

How do you believe we can steer away from the economy/society you originally mentioned? The reasons for the younger generations believing in socialism are not all bad reasons, I'd argue it's more a failure to move in the right direction, not a failure to have strong convictions based on moral principles.

originally posted by: dothedew
Bernie:

"when you call the police department or the fire department, who do you think you're calling? those are socialist institutions."

EEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRR Wrong, buddy. City departments like that (especially police) are primarily funded through court fees, fines, tickets, assets confiscation, etc. Thats not a pool that everybody pays into.... So no socialism there.

I also know exactly what happens when I call the fire department or an ambulance - We get a bill in the mail for the call and subsequent services.

Silly self proclaimed socialist doesn't know what socialism is.

This does sem to be a recurring issue with the youth today..... Protesting against whatever they don't understand.

Those services are primarily funded by taxation.

In most countries you don't get a bill for calling an emergency service unless you misuse the service.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Governments are dependent on people using their currency. Not the same thing as raising revenue.

Socalism, the thing you are arguing against, involves nationalising industry. In a mixed economy, which pretty much all are, state and private sector are dependent on each other. They are both part of the economy and it's just the relative mix that varies.

No, they are dependent on raising revenue. Governments must decide what's called their "fiscal capacity", which is to determine how to generate revenue before deciding on what programs and services to provide. Most of the revenue, of course, is generated from taxes.

a reply to: deadlyhope

How do you believe we can steer away from the economy/society you originally mentioned? The reasons for the younger generations believing in socialism are not all bad reasons, I'd argue it's more a failure to move in the right direction, not a failure to have strong convictions based on moral principles.

Frankly I do not think we can, and the big government systems will inevitably crash having not been able to sustain itself.

Just from my own observations. I could list many things about the capitalist system that are failures. Or have at least reached a point where the system is now detrimental to the well-being of our country. And in fact detrimental to the Earth as a whole.

There is one rule I could see that could be made that I think would to a great extent alleviate some of the problems. That rule would be you cannot stockpile money or liquid assets.

You can make all the money you want and have it pass through your hands but it must be spent you can never have more than x amount in liquid asset form at any one time. And in my opinion that amount should be well under a million dollars.

And... I cannot see off the top of my head any reason why anyone would be opposed to such an idea.

a reply to: HarryJoy

Just from my own observations. I could list many things about the capitalist system that are failures. Or have at least reached a point where the system is now detrimental to the well-being of our country. And in fact detrimental to the Earth as a whole.

There is one rule I could see that could be made that I think would to a great extent alleviate some of the problems. That rule would be you cannot stockpile money or liquid assets.

You can make all the money you want and have it pass through your hands but it must be spent you can never have more than x amount in liquid asset form at any one time. And in my opinion that amount should be well under a million dollars.

And... I cannot see off the top of my head any reason why anyone would be opposed to such an idea.

They would be opposed to such an idea because wealth is not a fixed-pie, meaning that wealth is not finite, fixed, a zero-sum game, and someone gaining wealth at one end does not mean he is doing so at the expense of someone else at the other end.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
Just from my own observations. I could list many things about the capitalist system that are failures. Or have at least reached a point where the system is now detrimental to the well-being of our country. And in fact detrimental to the Earth as a whole.

There is one rule I could see that could be made that I think would to a great extent alleviate some of the problems. That rule would be you cannot stockpile money or liquid assets.

You can make all the money you want and have it pass through your hands but it must be spent you can never have more than x amount in liquid asset form at any one time. And in my opinion that amount should be well under a million dollars.

And... I cannot see off the top of my head any reason why anyone would be opposed to such an idea.

Who are you to determine that having a million dollars is too much? How would people retire and provide for their family?

Secondly, you do realize that capital is not horded under a mattress, right? Money is invested making loans and other businesses possible. Where do you think all the venture & private equity capital comes from?

The economic and business ignorance of some of you is mind boggling....

It is the whole idea of the OWO is a socialist movement. But when it comes about it will be a false-theocracy.