How Fake Socialists Might Lead to Real Socialism

a reply to: Athetos

What stops you from moving to the private sector?

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.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Just look at Social Security.

Something the government created for people when they retire.

A fund apportioned to someone that would dictate;
Where they live
What they eat
What they own
How they live


And even that is going/gone broke and is unsustainable.

The biggest misnomer about socialism is that it is itself a system. It's not. It's a controlled demolition of a system.

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 although you say:

"I have a job in which I provide a service to the population and let me tell you if my job was in the private sector not only would I make a heck of a lot more money but the dead weight would be fired pretty darn fast for not making the cut. "

You concede there is no private sector equivalent, and that if there was you wouldn't be paid what you would like?

I enjoy the few posts of your I have seen, however, I am not sure you have articulated your position.

I will conclude with one further quote from you:
"Millenials arnt a lost cause either this one isn't that's for damn sure. "

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Socialism has been thoroughly discredited both in argument and in practice, and any existing socialist system today is a repressive, single-party state. Yet the lofty idea is enjoying a resurgence in modern times, especially among those under 30.

A majority of millennials in the US now reject capitalism. In the most recent, albeit dated polls, 49% of Americans under 30 had a positive view of socialism, while only 47% had a positive view of capitalism. In the last American election, 40% of those who planned to attend their party’s Iowa caucuses described themselves as “anti-wall street” and “socialist”. The membership for the Democratic Socialists of America has quadrupled since the 2016 primaries thanks to Bernie Sanders. In the UK, more people describe themselves as socialist (19%) than they would capitalist (16%).

Why?

Ironically, I think it’s because many of them are surreptitiously in love capitalism, but have simply continued to drink the red, socialist kool-aid. But their naiveté might bring about real socialism.

What do I mean by this? Take Bernie Sanders for example. In October of 2015, someone asked the self-proclaimed socialist to defend democratic socialism at one of his rallies. He subsequently made an argument we’ve heard countless times before:

“When you go to your public library, when you call your Fire Department or the Police Department, what do you think you’re calling? These are socialist institutions.”

Source

Oh dear. No, they are not “socialist institutions”.

The first fire brigades in England, for instance, were private insurance companies. Fire engines, fire hoses, water pumps—most were conceived by artists and inventors who sought to compete in the market. In America, private fire brigades even competed with each other, vying for insurance money. The first municipal fire brigade was established in 1824 in Edinburgh, Scotland, the same city where Adam Smith died thirty years earlier. Every subsequent advance in firefighting, whether it was fire engines or water pumps, occurred within countries and societies where socialism was just a fart in someone’s mind.

The “socialist institutions” Sanders is referring to in the United States, and all public services in all free market societies, is not in the least bit socialist, especially when they are funded by taxes collected from private wealth which was generated by capital. These are capitalist institutions, funded by capitalist money, enjoying capitalist innovation.

Rather, self-proclaimed socialists are lying, and it’s having a demonstrable impact on the impressionable youth. One day they may vote in real socialists, mistaking them for the fake ones we’re used to.

As you have pointed out yourself in other threads what is meant by socialist by most Americans is different from a pure definition.

I doubt many want government control of the means of production. Instead they are looking for more equitable distribution of the wealth created by society and government provision of essential services where the 'free market' does not provide the best outcome.

It would be more accurate to say and increasing number of people in America are favourably viewing social democracy not pure socialism.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Just look at Social Security.

Something the government created for people when they retire.

A fund apportioned to someone that would dictate;
Where they live
What they eat
What they own
How they live


And even that is going/gone broke and is unsustainable.

There is is absolutely no reason for social security to fail other than as a political decision to make it fail.

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.

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.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Social democracy isn’t an economic system. Yes, they are looking at social democracies, but social democracies operate on capitalist economies. Historically, social democracy was seen as a bridge to socialism.

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.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Social democracy isn’t an economic system. Yes, they are looking at social democracies, but social democracies operate on capitalist economies. Historically, social democracy was seen as a bridge to socialism.

Social democracy operates with a mixed economic system as does every country in the world. It is just the level and nature of the mix that differs.

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.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Social democracy isn’t an economic system. Yes, they are looking at social democracies, but social democracies operate on capitalist economies. Historically, social democracy was seen as a bridge to socialism.

Social democracy operates with a mixed economic system as does every country in the world. It is just the level and nature of the mix that differs.

State intervention is state intervention. By bringing the whole of life under the control of the State, they give power to an inner ring of bureaucrats, who in almost every case will be men who want power for its own sake and will stick at nothing in order to retain it.

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.

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.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well in my own mind I think the problem comes with the labeling.... I think in the minds of people socialism equals people working together for the common good.... capitalism equals every man for himself.

Let me ask you a question would capitalism exist if currency did not exist ?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Social democracy isn’t an economic system. Yes, they are looking at social democracies, but social democracies operate on capitalist economies. Historically, social democracy was seen as a bridge to socialism.

Social democracy operates with a mixed economic system as does every country in the world. It is just the level and nature of the mix that differs.

State intervention is state intervention. By bringing the whole of life under the control of the State, they give power to an inner ring of bureaucrats, who in almost every case will be men who want power for its own sake and will stick at nothing in order to retain it.

The idea that state intervention is always bad is every bit as ideological as the idea that it is always good.

In many areas the state is far superior at providing than the private sector.

It's the same pool of people who work in state and private provision, no better or worse.

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?

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well in my own mind I think the problem comes with the labeling.... I think in the minds of people socialism equals people working together for the common good.... capitalism equals every man for himself.

Let me ask you a question would capitalism exist if currency did not exist ?

Not much would exist if currency didn’t exist. We’d surely be living in caves and mud huts.