Listen Up - The Three Types of Socialism

originally posted by: ketsuko

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.

Good point. No work needed. It's already done.

originally posted by: Lumenari
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.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. What have you actually read or studied that Marx has said?

Marx's criticisms of laissez faire capitalism are profound. Are you are so brain washed that you are incapable of seeing the the slightest possibility you might be wrong with your negative opinion.

Let me rephase how wrong you are a different way. What is good and bad about laissez faire capitalism?

a reply to: dfnj2015

I have his first volume of Capital on my bookshelf... I'm very aware of his thinking processes.

I generally don't go to YouTube for my education, thanks.

As for capitalism, I would point out the United States of America as an example of how it works.

In a little over 200 years a bunch of colonists managed to build the biggest economic powerhouse on the planet, the best military to date. We have made amazing advances in the arts, technology, medicine and the other sciences.

That's just not going to be done in a Communist country.

The only thing that has been close so far in history is China, who were smart and incorporated capitalism into their political style or they would still be a third world country.

Care to point out to me in history where a Communist country has done anything close to what America has managed to do thus far?

“The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. Every man but one a subordinate clerk in a bureau. What an alluring utopia! What a noble cause to fight!" -- Ludwig von Mises

a reply to: dfnj2015


Oh for Christs sake!


Every time someone is for higher taxes, they just don't get that government is spending badly.

Every time someone is for socialism or communism they just don't GET that if you have a bad driver, changing the mother###ing vehicle won't make him a good driver!

Every time someone wants to ban guns, empower the government even more, they just don't get it.

Capitalism is working great.

U.S. solar power is around 35% of all electricity output I think, and been rising big under Trump !!😎

Thank You energy corporations !!!! 😎

Thank You Capitalists !!!! 😎

a reply to: infolurker
reason.com...

Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, the two leading Social Democratic thinkers of the 20th century, thought that the Scandinavian countries were uniquely suited for experimenting with high taxes and redistribution. They had homogenous populations with a strong work ethic, non-corrupt civil services, a high degree of trust in bureaucracies and politicians—and competitive free trade economies to foot the bill. If it did not work there, they suggested, it would be difficult to think it could work anywhere. For now, the Swedish experiment in socialism continues along, in a much-altered form and buoyed by a healthy dose of economic liberalization. But attempting to transplant the Nordic 1970s model to the U.S. could have disastrous effects in a country with a less hospitable underlying culture. More government in the U.S. would not get you a big version of Sweden. It would get you a big version of the U.S. Postal Service.

i loved this part from the article you posted longer read then im used to but was a pretty decent and informative read

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: FyreByrd

You laissez faire capitalists are so funny. One slight shift to the left and the sky is falling down. One or two billionaires in this country own 60% of the wealth.

What I find funny is that you always post the exact same arguments and the exact same videos and the exact same flawed logic. "Oh the wealthiest 10% own 60% of the wealth, the top 20% own 80%, the bottom 50% own almost nothing". What you fail to take into account is the Pareto principle, otherwise known as the 80/20 rule, which states there is a natural tendency for the top 20% to own 80% of the wealth.

The original observation was in connection with population and wealth. Pareto noticed that approximately 80% of Italy's land was owned by 20% of the population.[6] He then carried out surveys on a variety of other countries and found to his surprise that a similar distribution applied.

A chart that gave the inequality a very visible and comprehensible form, the so-called "champagne glass" effect,[7] was contained in the 1992 United Nations Development Program Report, which showed that distribution of global income is very uneven, with the richest 20% of the world's population controlling 82.7% of the world's income.[8]

This is more than just a coincidence, the 80/20 ratio can be measured in a wide range of different sectors and different nations, and it has little to do with our economic systems being unfair, it's because 20% of businesses will produce 80% of the wealth, and the same thing applies to individuals. In fact I recently saw a great example of the 80/20 rule in a presentation about video games sales.

The following chart demonstrates how 2% of video games account for around 30% of all revenue generated from video game sales, the top 10% of games accounts for around 60% of sales, and from that we can roughly estimate that the top 20% of games account for 80% of the revenue generated. The top 50% of games is close to 99% of the revenue generated, and the bottom 50% generate virtually no revenue, which is even more skewed than individual wealth distribution in the United States.



So this argument from the video you always post about the ideal distribution, and what we think is fair, and what is actually the reality, is really a flawed argument because it's not taking into account this 80/20 rule. They are presenting an argument which relies on emotions like greed and envy to convince people they have a right to forcefully take wealth from the top earners and redistribute to the less wealthy, ignoring the fact there are natural factors at play which will always result in this type of wealth inequality and the reasons why it occurs.

Socialism requires high taxes.

It always fails when they don't stick to the "Laugher" Curve 😃

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Countdown till he post that same video again...

Anyone with rudimentary understanding of stats knows about the Pareto Principle and it shows up in all facets of life. Heck, I work in sales. The top 20% of us generate 80% of the revenue in my business.

You will notice that no one has stated WHY wealth inequality is bad. Just that inequality exists. In addition, they also fail to note that most of those billionaires are actually quite charitable from a philanthropic standpoint. I've pointed this out in numerous threads. If one looks around any major city, most of the museums, operas, universities, hospitals, social services, parks, etc are funded by rich benefactors. Of course, we haven't even gotten into the direct and indirect wealth /employment that their businesses actually create.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
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.

He is a renowned 'Marxist" economist. His opinion on communism is very clear in the video.

a reply to: FyreByrd

TO ALL REACTIONARY (knee-jerk) responses.

Having a belief is very different then even a basic understanding of a subject. Forming a belief based on hear-say, without any understanding is a sign of ignorance.

The subject of socialism comes up quite a bit on ATS as a monolithic monster. I posted this basic typing of socialism for those who want to understand the subject.

If you want to 'fight' something, you'd best understand what you are fighting.

Everyone has a right to an informed opinion but the uninformed opinion, the blind ideologic (my team/your team) opinion is the position of the sychphant.

a reply to: FyreByrd

To be honest here, you did not give any kind of opinion in the OP.

Marx and Marxian economics lead one direction. Marx believed that Communism was the next evolution of Capitalism.

Socialism and Communism may be the darling of the so called intellectual elite, but as they collect their grossly inflated salaries, knowing that their underlings are existing on scraps thrown to them, they show their true face.

Cuba is likely the best example on Earth of the world they envision. Forever stuck at the point Marxism took hold, never again to progress with a ruling elite awash in power. The entire concept is a confidence game that is embraced by those who see themselves as the intellectual elite and those who think they will among the ruling elite, living off the labor and products of the masses with zero opportunities given to them.

What they envision is just another form of slavery.

At least with Capitalism those on the bottom have a real chance to dig and claw their way to the top. Even a semi-literate person with a set of skills can become wealthy. No such thing exists in what they envision and those being fooled don't know the truth until it's too late.

What is your take on this since you chose not to share in the OP?

One thing for sure, Socialism kills economies, removes basic rights so it can exist and the little experiments around the world are just dog and pony shows.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: FyreByrd

TO ALL REACTIONARY (knee-jerk) responses.

Having a belief is very different then even a basic understanding of a subject. Forming a belief based on hear-say, without any understanding is a sign of ignorance.

What's ignorant is assuming that anyone who opposes communism or heavy socialism is automatically ignorant and uneducated on the topic, because if they were informed they surely wouldn't oppose the amazing benefits it can offer. This is absolutely false, I've spent a lot of time understanding different political and economic ideologies and I've written quite a bit on these subjects. I started off as quite a far left leaning socialist but as I've developed my understanding of these ideologies I have slowly shifted over to being a free market libertarian.

Yes, there are different types of socialism, and I'd say there are more than just 3 types, but they are all based on the same fundamental ideologies. The less extreme forms of socialism aren't necessarily a bad thing, every society relies on some degree of socialist policies to ensure a level of equality and fairness. However we are clearly in a situation now where most socialists are calling for never ending taxes and extreme wealth redistribution, claiming that their version of socialism wont have the same failings of previous socialist systems.

However it's absolutely clear based on economic principles that excessive socialism will always result in increased suffering and poverty. A dismissal of free market principles never works because it always involves manipulation of the economy, it punishes the most productive people and drives them to seek greener pastures. It undermines the role of private entities and relies on a huge government to forcefully redistribute wealth, and as we know the private sector is far more efficient and effective than the public sector, which is why excessive socialism will NEVER provide the same high levels of prosperity and freedom that capitalism can provide.

Here are some of the threads I've written over the years on these issues, clearly I'm not just making surface level assumptions, I've thought deeply about these issues and the consequences of these different ideologies. Telling me that I simply don't know enough about these issues is just a cop out argument which dismisses the points being made by anyone opposing the utopian visions you promote. Of course I'd like to live in a utopia, but in reality there is no such thing as utopia and you'll understand this if you understand human nature. The path to hell is indeed paved with good intentions and communism/excessive socialism is a prime example of that.

Analysis of Andrew Yang's Policies

Censorship and Communism

Why Increased Socialism Leads to Increased Prices

Who Is Karl Marx?

Flawed Logic of The Venus Project

Why Excessive Socialism Doesn't Work

Why Free Market Capitalism Creates Prosperity

Debunking Post Capitalism

WWII Survivor Warns of Socialism and Gun Control

Debunking a Nanny State Notion: Social Engineering with Taxes

On The Expansion of Government

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: FyreByrd

TO ALL REACTIONARY (knee-jerk) responses.

Having a belief is very different then even a basic understanding of a subject. Forming a belief based on hear-say, without any understanding is a sign of ignorance.

What's ignorant is assuming that anyone who opposes communism or heavy socialism is automatically ignorant and uneducated on the topic, because if they were informed they surely wouldn't oppose the amazing benefits it can offer.

Well said, and all the rest, but it is the arrogance of the socialist, the hubris of the communist that cannot see their own failed system(s) and the negative impact it has on individual freedoms and liberties.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: FyreByrd

TO ALL REACTIONARY (knee-jerk) responses.

Having a belief is very different then even a basic understanding of a subject. Forming a belief based on hear-say, without any understanding is a sign of ignorance.

What's ignorant is assuming that anyone who opposes communism or heavy socialism is automatically ignorant and uneducated on the topic, because if they were informed they surely wouldn't oppose the amazing benefits it can offer.

Well said, and all the rest, but it is the arrogance of the socialist, the hubris of the communist that cannot see their own failed system(s) and the negative impact it has on individual freedoms and liberties.

The other thing is that, yes, it's terrible that people and businesses and cities, etc., can fail under a free market system. It's not nice knowing that some will live at a poor standard because that's all they stir themselves to be worth or those are the opportunities they have.

But even scarier is knowing that in a socialist or communist system, everyone is in the system, and if it fails (and to date they always have), then everyone goes down and everyone is hurt by it. It's not just an individual or localized failure where there is the possibly that others not so affected could help you; it's a systemic disaster where everyone fails and no one has anything left (except perhaps those engaged in the black market/capitalist system and always survives, but they're the ones willing to break the law).

Or if the the system is inadequate, it's fails everyone the same way. Our public school system is reaching this level.

a reply to: FyreByrd

It's not Capitalism that's failing, it's the creeping Socialism that's failing
💥 🐇 💥

a reply to: ketsuko

I do not desire to be a part of the collective.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

I do not desire to be a part of the collective.

Yet another problem with socialism. They can't be saved unless we're all saved. So we get plugged into their Borg collective whether we want it or not because they know what's best for us -- mass failure and misery.

See, if they could all go off and create their own collectives and leave the rest of us be, this wouldn't be near the issue it is.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

I do not desire to be a part of the collective.

And you aren't a part of a collective - when you parrot and believe authoritarian talking points. How is that being a free thinking individual?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

I do not desire to be a part of the collective.

And you aren't a part of a collective - when you parrot and believe authoritarian talking points. How is that being a free thinking individual?

Good God already !!!!! 😃 🤣 🍌 🤣 😃