Listen Up - The Three Types of Socialism

originally posted by: olaru12
I find it odd that so many European countries, essentially socialist have a higher standard of living than the US.

www.latimes.com...

I can't pay much attention to conservatives that are mostly ideologically constipated.

How many of these countries are the size of the USA? Do they have the same population? Most euro countries are what the size of a states in the USA? I think your comparing aplpes to oranges here. Large scale socialism does not work.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: FyreByrd

One result of Socialism....

Misery.

At least for the masses. The political elite will be just fine, the rest of us get to live off what they decide is good enough.

As if our current system of laissez faire capitalism doesn't have poverty and socialism!!!

Every year we have HUGE productivity gains but all the profits only go to the smallest percentage of the population. If you do not think people suffer under our current system of corporations gone wild you are insane!

"In 2015, the six Waltons on the Forbes 400 list were worth $136.1 billion, making them the richest family in the United States. They have more wealth than 43% of American families combined. Their net worth is nearly equal to the combined wealth of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett."

a reply to: FyreByrd

We have corrupt people in our capitalist free market system.

Changing the system will only give us a corrupt socialist system.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Funny video since Richard Wolff is a renowned communist. I'm still waiting for the promotion of Russia but not as of yet.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
"In 2015, the six Waltons on the Forbes 400 list were worth $136.1 billion, making them the richest family in the United States. They have more wealth than 43% of American families combined. Their net worth is nearly equal to the combined wealth of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett."

So?

They employ hundreds of thousands of people directly. Not too mention the tens of thousands of other companies and workers who benefit from selling goods and service in and to Wal-Mart. What is your point?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd

We have corrupt people in our capitalist free market system.

Changing the system will only give us a corrupt socialist system.

Doing nothing serves who?

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd

We have corrupt people in our capitalist free market system.

Changing the system will only give us a corrupt socialist system.

Doing nothing serves who?

The first step is realizing that our system is corrupt and just changing the system does not eliminate the corruption.

We can’t even get people to realize that.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd

We have corrupt people in our capitalist free market system.

Changing the system will only give us a corrupt socialist system.

Doing nothing serves who?

Radical change to a failed system serves no one except those at the very top. So what would actually change?

"In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.--B. Franklin"

Read More Here read through nonheadined examples in/of history.

If perhaps one is able, show how FDR's war on poverty won as it failed. I'll rebut with failures closer to home: hurricane Katrina as one single heads-up example I'll use....

mg

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd

We have corrupt people in our capitalist free market system.

Changing the system will only give us a corrupt socialist system.

I agree....adding:

Using wealth as a target against those which attained needs to be examined by the complainer.

The US leadership is, can and will be bought currently. Train focus there, not on the "billionares" they got there legally.

mg

Here is a small explanation of the problem with socialism:

Five guys get together to play poker every Friday night. One night, they decide to order in supper, but as they make the decision spur-of-the-moment, most are slightly short of money. However, they discover that if they pool their money together in common, they can order in a large pizza and everyone will have enough to eat.

So they go in on pizza and get a pepperoni since everyone will eat it although not everyone really likes it all that much.

They agree that getting supper is a good deal, so continue to plan to order takeout with the idea that they won't always get pizza, but that's sort of what happens because one guy never brings enough to let them order anything else. He's content to always eat pizza and cheap besides.

One night, one of the five decides he wants to order in his own takeout instead of ordering pizza and he brings enough to Chinese. Now, there's a problem. If he orders on his own, the guy who just barely brings enough to cover pizza won't have enough for his own supper anywhere else even though most of the others could get their own food just fine. There's an argument, and it's decided that since they decided they would all order takeout together, it's not fair for the guy to pull out of the pizza agreement and leave the poorer guy hanging.

So they all agree that he can order his Chinese *if* he covers his part of the group pizza first. Of course, he doesn't have enough to do that, so he ends up getting pizza he doesn't particularly like yet again because he can't do anything else.

That's socialism. It takes away your freedom to allocate your own resources as you choose to best satisfy you and your needs leaving you with options that are less than satisfactory or that you may not even be able to use at all. It may or may not allow you to satisfy your own needs *after* you pay into the group options that are mandated you pay your share of whether you use them or not.

And after a while, it adds up to where you have no freedom to access the goods and services you do need and/or want because you paid for what the government says you must need and/or want or that others must need and/or want.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I've heard this spiel by Richard Wolff for years. Having democracy in the workplace or workers replace the CEO is not the answer in my opinion. Most people in the workplace when given ownership power simply do not take it serious enough unless their own capital and poverty is on the line. People generally do not give a crap. And even if their own money is on the line some people are fatalistic nihilists and don't care about losing their own capital.

The threat of poverty and the high value of capital is essential to getting the necessary motivation and commitment to success needed to be successful in business.

Communism is not the answer. Worker co-ops is also NOT the answer.

The problem we have in this country is the 4th industrial revolution currently in progress. With computers and automation we simply do not need workers any more. However, without consumers we will undoubtedly have economic collapse. So what is the answer? The only answer that I have found that makes possible sense is helicopter money or UBI. With UBI, people spend the money in the economy any way they want. Culture drives the economy with UBI. Government is not involved other than collecting the taxes and sending out the UBI checks.

I am really surprised the billionaires are against UBI. What difference does it make if the if a billionaire accumulates $2 billion dollars per year versus $4 billion. Either number the billionaire has more money accumulated in one year than they could ever spend in a 100 years. BUT, putting money in UBI would drive the economy and ALL the money doled out comes right back into the billionaire's pockets! You can't redistribute wealth. Wealth is a system of leverage. Money is medium of exchange making the economy run. UBI is the only answer for having a rich culture and robust economy.

"Christy is the widow of Sam Walton's son John, and while the bulk of her holdings are in Walmart — she will receive $470 million in dividends after taxes in 2014 — she also has a roughly $1.8 billion stake in a solar energy company. Jim Walton (No .7) has a $36 billion net worth, $31 billion of it in Walmart stock.Sep 29, 2014"

UBI is the only thing that will save the economy. The 4th industrial revolution is going to displace hundreds of millions of workers. It really is the only answer. Presidential candidate Andrew Yang makes a much better argument for UBI than I have done. This is a pretty good argument if you think I might be on to something:



UBI is the answer. But it will only happen if the billionaires see it in their own self-interests. Hopefully they will figure out paying for UBI is much better than having 100 million people out of work and eventually paying FDR level taxes (70%). Again, what difference does it make to the billionaire ALL the money going back into the economy flows right back to the billionaire through their system of leverage which is real wealth that cannot be redistributed. But with UBI we have amazing culture in the economy and the billionaires get to have many more FUN things to do in a rich culture.

a reply to: ketsuko

Explain to me why the guy who barely has enough money is playing poker or is even invited to the table? Maybe he should not play poker this one night and spend all his money on food. Or if friendship is involved, the one guy who is doing well in the hedge fund business can cover the poor guys meal out of friendship and not some grand ideological principle of denial.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Why assume you're playing they're playing for money?

But that's beside the point which is the situation of playing for something you neither need, want, or can use because you are mandated to and you have no freedom to use your resources for things you do need, want or can use until you pay for the unwanted, unneeded and unused items first.

How many social programs do we pay for every year through taxes that none of us will ever use and that none of us can ever use, but we're forced to pay for them nonetheless and cannot access those resources we worked hard for in order to provide things for ourselves and our families that we could use?

originally posted by: missed_gear
The US leadership is, can and will be bought currently. Train focus there, not on the "billionares" they got there legally.

According to Marx, "profit" is just a euphemism for "stealing" from the workers productivity by selling what the workers produced back to the workers at more than they can afford:

You laissez faire capitalist swine criticize Marx, communism, and socialism ALL the time but you probably have never heard what Marx was saying about why laissez faire capitalism will eventually suck donkey balls for the worker making the median wage:

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dfnj2015

Why assume you're playing they're playing for money?

I only play poker with money for the same reason why I don't pee sitting down.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Karl Marx was a social engineer.

His writings were supposed to be a road map for how a small group of people could eventually rule all the rest..

Pitting the rich against the poor was merely a tool.

He was also quite wrong in his theory that pure Communism would eventually begat a benevolent ruling class that, once they had completed their work, would simply relinquish their power back to the people and become one with the masses.

In short, Karl Mark was a moron.

People still buy his ideology and attempt it though....

What's the death toll so far... over 100 million dead?

But I know... THIS time it will work.

/facepalm.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dfnj2015

Why assume you're playing they're playing for money?

I only play poker with money for the same reason why I don't pee sitting down.

Trying to emasculate a woman doesn't work to well.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd
We have corrupt people in our capitalist free market system.
Changing the system will only give us a corrupt socialist system.

Doing nothing serves who?

The first step is realizing that our system is corrupt and just changing the system does not eliminate the corruption.
We can’t even get people to realize that.

Again, you did not answer my question. Who does doing nothing serve?

I don't understand your comment. Why would you ever assume people are not aware of corruption. I think the opposite is the case. We MUST assume the absolute worse in every politician and person in power. The only solution to avoid corruption is transparency. The only way we will ever eliminate corruption in government is by NOT have any black budgets. Make ALL government spending completely transparent, documented, and regulated by laws with stiff penalties and jail time.

But transparency in government will never happen because organized crime runs the government. Corporations ARE the government. Government is not the problem. The people paying the lobbyists ARE the problem.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini